chrisp65 Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 there is no such thing as society and as such, if I currently have money and / or health and / or priviledge and I property or any other advantage over you, then you can go **** yourself, because, Jack, I'm alright yeah, I've read the whole speech and I've taken it into an even greater context of having lived and breathed it frankly, even if she hadn't said the words at all, we still knew she meant it so please don't try and re write my history, it might not be yours and I accept that and best of luck to you, but she deliberately did the maths and tried to make me a victim whilst criticising victim culture let's also not presume that a dislike of her means support of the other side, you know life isn't that simple, my enemy's enemy is not automatically my friend, I am not a 2D republican let's hope the darling never needs the help of a society organised foodbank, unlikely as she still spends my tax like it's hers 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 She was totally wrong. A homeless person is in need, by definition, of somewhere to keep dry, warm, fed, to sleep. Society, through charity and the state has a moral obligation to help people who can't help themselves. She was implying that as the leader of the Government it basically wasn't her problem. She was absolutely wrong. There is such a thing as entitlement - entitlement to the basic essentials to live. And to rights - freedom of exp<b></b>ression and movement and so The Downing Street Years: ‘they never quoted the rest. I went on to say: There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It’s our duty to look after ourselves and then to look after our neighbour. My meaning, clear at the time but subsequently distorted beyond recognition, was that society was not an abstraction, separate from the men and women who composed it, but a living structure of individuals, families, neighbours and voluntary associations.... Indeed . If you follow the whole interview with women's own , Thatcher’s concern was that too much government had weakened the social institutions which best foster self-respect and respect for others – families, churches, schools, voluntary associations. She was in favour of people being free to make more money because then they would be better able to help themselves and therefore their neighbours. Far from weakening social ties, she believed, successful enterprise strengthened them. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrinityRoadSteps Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 It was Billy Connolly who said. "The desire to be a politician should be enough to bar you from ever being one" I subscribe to that view 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 (edited) Indeed . If you follow the whole interview with women's own , Thatcher’s concern was that too much government had weakened the social institutions which best foster self-respect and respect for others – families, churches, schools, voluntary associations. She was in favour of people being free to make more money because then they would be better able to help themselves and therefore their neighbours. Far from weakening social ties, she believed, successful enterprise strengthened them. Thank you, Charles Moore. And as for his comments, I think they're nonsense - they're a sly way (by going on about 'too much government') to get to the position where there is no obligation on society as a whole to look after the least fortunate and these who are without are left at the mercy of those with to 'dole out money at a whim' (as Attlee put it). Edited January 5, 2013 by snowychap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 It is all well in theory to suggest that 'successful enterprise can strengthen social ties', but the evidence of what happened under her reign and in any other country afflicted by the neo-liberal bug since then suggests in practice those ties only break down further and a minority reap the rewards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troglodyte Posted January 6, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted January 6, 2013 I've moved to Derbyshire fairly recently and in honesty haven't paid much attention to local politics. However, I realised today that my local MP is Dennis Skinner, who was mentioned a couple of times on the first page of this thread. I didn't know much about him so have been doing a bit of research tonight - the man is a legend! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 I've moved to Derbyshire fairly recently and in honesty haven't paid much attention to local politics. However, I realised today that my local MP is Dennis Skinner, who was mentioned a couple of times on the first page of this thread. I didn't know much about him so have been doing a bit of research tonight - the man is a legend! The man is superb as a local MP mate. Where abouts in Derbyshire are you then, can't be a million miles away from us (I know some may say that is not always a good thing) :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 I'm saying nothing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted January 7, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted January 7, 2013 Favourite: Not Applicable Least Favourite: All of them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 Researching Dennis Skinner led me to the whole 'Black Rod' business. What the ****? This is the 21st century, isn't it? "The Queen commands you...". Oh bugger off you old crow, who elected you? Eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 Researching Dennis Skinner led me to the whole 'Black Rod' business. What the ****? This is the 21st century, isn't it? "The Queen commands you...". Oh bugger off you old crow, who elected you? Eh? whilst i don't expect him to doth his cap and remove the chip from his shoulder , a little respect for protocol wouldn't be too much to ask surely ... of course it means Skinner makes it all about him rather than the event itself which is probably the intention Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meregreen Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 All hail the "Beast of Bolsover". What you see is what you get. Not too many of todays politicians qualify for that accolade. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 a little respect for protocol wouldn't be too much to ask surely Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 All hail the "Beast of Bolsover". What you see is what you get. Not too many of todays politicians qualify for that accolade. I do like this response from someone in his constituency to news of his affair with a researcher A group of young men said Mr Skinner had done nothing wrong. 'But if he'd been wearing a Chelsea strip, no bugger would vote for him.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 Why? because respect and politeness are virtue's that everyone should have imo (in everyday life not just the HofC) ... one may not like the Queen and all she represents but then either don't enter the chamber or sit there and bite your lip ... but making a "witty" remark for the purpose of getting on news at 10 degrades the role of office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted January 7, 2013 Moderator Share Posted January 7, 2013 because respect and politeness are virtue's that everyone should have imo (in everyday life not just the HofC) ... one may not like the Queen and all she represents but then either don't enter the chamber or sit there and bite your lip ... but making a "witty" remark for the purpose of getting on news at 10 degrades the role of office. Why should you respect something you believe to be utterly wrong? Why should one bite one's lip? Those would be the actions of shallow tossers who are too scared to stand up for what they really believe in, apart from the lining of their own pockets. Give me Skinner any day than most of the careerist politicians that stuff their noses in the trough on a daily basis, he too may have made a career out of it but at least he has his principals, which 99% of the gobshites in Parliament lost a long time ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 (edited) Well as an MP , one has to swear an oath to the Queen so if he was true to his belief surely he would refuse to take the oath and not be an MP wouldn't he ? Therefore shows a lack of respect to somebody he swore an oath to and thus he is a hypocrite and a publicity whore and a shallow tosser it would apper Edited January 7, 2013 by tonyh29 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 Well as an MP , one has to swear an oath to the Queen somif he was true to his beleif surely he would refuse to take the oath and not be an MP wouldn't he ? Therefore shows a lack of respect to somebody he swore an oath to and thus he is a hypocrite and a publicity whore and a shallow tosser it would apper that scraping noise is it the bottom of the barrel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 I assumed it was you looking for some new jokes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 Well as an MP , one has to swear an oath to the Queen so if he was true to his belief surely he would refuse to take the oath and not be an MP wouldn't he ? Therefore shows a lack of respect to somebody he swore an oath to and thus he is a hypocrite and a publicity whore and a shallow tosser it would appear What a simple defence of the status quo it would be, if you could require everyone to swear an oath of fealty and stand by it, and any opposition automatically disqualified if it didn't abide by this convention. But if you think about that, it requires an opposition to take up arms, because violence becomes the only way of advancing your cause. If the House of Windsor wish to tread that path, I'm sure we can cope with it. They may have second thoughts when they see the gallows tree, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts