A quick question - who wants to take away the legal guarantee protecting your rights - Page 5

accyman · 01-03-2009, 03:29

a long time ago i was told that under tories the rich get richer and teh poor get poorer and i see very little evidence of that been incorrect

im no poltical guru but even i can see through camerons disguise as a caring person

watching him talk about peopel not so fortunate in society pretending to give a damn makes me think of comic guy out of teh simpsons screaming "WORST ACTING EVER"

mind you when i look at gordon brown i cant help but think of that advert for spotting a stroke about to happen and wonder if i shoud call somone to go round to number 10 and see if hes ok

andrewb · 01-03-2009, 08:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by accyman

a long time ago i was told that under tories the rich get richer and teh poor get poorer and i see very little evidence of that been incorrect

im no poltical guru but even i can see through camerons disguise as a caring person

watching him talk about peopel not so fortunate in society pretending to give a damn makes me think of comic guy out of teh simpsons screaming "WORST ACTING EVER"

mind you when i look at gordon brown i cant help but think of that advert for spotting a stroke about to happen and wonder if i shoud call somone to go round to number 10 and see if hes ok

A while ago I realised the difference between Labour and the Conservatives. I realised they both wanted the same thing, that people in society who work hard, should be rewarded. I realised that they both believe in equality of person, which I indeed believe strongly too. I realise they both believe in not failing those in society who need help.

The difference is, the Conservatives realise that you need money to achieve things, and that forcing equality of wealth simply makes the country poorer, so we all suffer. It's better to have a wealth gap and those people at the bottom be better off, than it is for everybody just to be poor, but equally poor.

Mancie · 01-03-2009, 09:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewb

A while ago I realised the difference between Labour and the Conservatives.

The difference is, the Conservatives realise that you need money to achieve things, and that forcing equality of wealth simply makes the country poorer, so we all suffer. It's better to have a wealth gap and those people at the bottom be better off, than it is for everybody just to be poor, but equally poor.

hang on..that's the old "trickle down" system the Tories employed in the mid 80's ... if it's not hurting i'ts not working... the people earning vast amounts will somehow let the less well off slurp up the dregs.. well that has not been an active policy of this Government ...it is a slum dog attitude you and your Ilk like to propagate.. Fascist *******.

claytonender · 01-03-2009, 09:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewb

A while ago I realised the difference between Labour and the Conservatives. I realised they both wanted the same thing, that people in society who work hard, should be rewarded. I realised that they both believe in equality of person, which I indeed believe strongly too. I realise they both believe in not failing those in society who need help.

The difference is, the Conservatives realise that you need money to achieve things, and that forcing equality of wealth simply makes the country poorer, so we all suffer. It's better to have a wealth gap and those people at the bottom be better off, than it is for everybody just to be poor, but equally poor.

Spoken like a 'True Tory' - devil take the hindmost springs to mind. Why did we not have a minimum wage until Labour were elected in 1997?

Personally I find it abhorrent that anyone can be earning over £125K. There would still be a wealth gap, but amuch fairer one.

Can you tell me why Directors and Chief execs of companies always take the plaudits when company are doing well (and very rarely give their employees any credit for working hard and acheiving the success) but blame the work force when things go wrong - it is never their fault, despite them being quite prepared to profit because of the 'sweat' of the workers.

garinda · 01-03-2009, 10:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewb

I realised that they both believe in equality of person

Being too young to remember eighteen years of a Conservative government, you probably won't know of all the unjust laws regarding equal rights that there were on the statute books at that time. Not only did they chose to ignore them, but they added to them.

Happily subsequent governments have got rid of the antiquated laws that prevented equality for all.

andrewb · 01-03-2009, 10:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

Being too young to remember eighteen years of a Conservative government, you probably won't know of all the unjust laws regarding equal rights that there were on the statute books at that time. Not only did they chose to ignore them, but they added to them.

Happily subsequent governments have got rid of the antiquated laws that prevented equality for all.

I don't want to live in the past. There are Labour policies which I disagree with, such as specifically banning certain commonwealth nations from coming to this country. However, I can't say that if I was 18 in 1997 that I would suddenly decide not to vote for Labour because of something they did in the 60's.

Claytonender I guess this is our difference, this is what makes you Labour and me a Conservative. You have got to have wealth to be able to distribute to the needy. You just believe that we should distribute, the wealth will slowly dwindle and everyone would be worse off. I couldn't live with that.

Mancie · 01-03-2009, 10:25

Distribution of wealth has not been the Tory policy for the last 200yrs.. Andrew are you in a position to now announce a new Tory policy?..

garinda · 01-03-2009, 10:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewb

I don't want to live in the past.

Nor do the Nu-Tory Lite party, apparently.

We're now supposed to hug those anti-social members of our society, instead of giving them the clip round the ear that they deserve.

cashman · 01-03-2009, 10:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewb

I don't want to live in the past. There are Labour policies which I disagree with, such as specifically banning certain commonwealth nations from coming to this country. However, I can't say that if I was 18 in 1997 that I would suddenly decide not to vote for Labour because of something they did in the 60's.

Claytonender I guess this is our difference, this is what makes you Labour and me a Conservative. You have got to have wealth to be able to distribute to the needy. You just believe that we should distribute, the wealth will slowly dwindle and everyone would be worse off. I couldn't live with that.

its not living in the past to look back n see where the real benefits to the ordinary folk came from, thats summat all wanabees seem to disregard.

andrewb · 01-03-2009, 10:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by cashman

its not living in the past to look back n see where the real benefits to the ordinary folk came from, thats summat all wanabees seem to disregard.

Not sure who you're talking about, but it's not something that I personally disregard. Labour have done a lot for social reforms in this country, and too right, we needed them, that's why it's good to have a democracy that changes whom is in power, rather than one party continuing forever.

claytonender · 01-03-2009, 10:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewb

I don't want to live in the past. There are Labour policies which I disagree with, such as specifically banning certain commonwealth nations from coming to this country. However, I can't say that if I was 18 in 1997 that I would suddenly decide not to vote for Labour because of something they did in the 60's.

Also Accyman man got it right when he said 'a long time ago i was told that under tories the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and i see very little evidence of that been incorrect'

Claytonender I guess this is our difference, this is what makes you Labour and me a Conservative. You have got to have wealth to be able to distribute to the needy. You just believe that we should distribute, the wealth will slowly dwindle and everyone would be worse off. I couldn't live with that.

I am not saying that there should not be wealth - just that the Tories idea of distributing is as Mancie said that the less fortunate (in wealth) terms should just be able to slurp any dregs left behind.

Maybe one day, when you are much older you will have the experience to lecture us on wealth - because at the moment all your knowlege comes from books and listening to lectures (by people who also probably have no knowlege of 'real life' outside the confines of their gilded tower).

Also I find your words 'distribute to the needy' extremely patronising -typical Tory.

As regards why I am Labour - I have lived here in Hyndburn for more years than I care to remember

. I have formed my political opinions over more than 50 years and can see that any Tory administration (at whatever level of governement) does not help the lives of the majority of the population. As I have said before as a child, I was always taught that 'I am my brother's keeper' and he only party that I have ever seen attempt to do this has been the Labour Party. I know they have made mistakes but these are the principles I try to live by.

I alos happen to know that Greg Pope was always taught the same and he is attempting to fulfill this.

Can you tell me which party attempted to stop the formation of the Welfare State in 1948 (The Welfare State is the greatest acheivement any political party has ever made to the lives of the people of this country). Ok I know it is not perfect but where would we be without it?

Which party tried to prevent the extension of the rights of Agency Workers in 2008 by talking the bill out?

Finally can a leopard change its spots (and become the caring sharing party - led by people who have no idea of what it is like to struggle to pay your bills, feed your children and keep a roof over your head)? I think not

Eric · 01-03-2009, 16:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mancie

hang on..that's the old "trickle down" system the Tories employed in the mid 80's ... if it's not hurting i'ts not working... the people earning vast amounts will somehow let the less well off slurp up the dregs.. well that has not been an active policy of this Government ...it is a slum dog attitude you and your Ilk like to propagate.. Fascist *******.

Why do Ronnie Raygun and GW and their business cronies (esp. the ones who ended up in the slammer) come to mind

... and where did "trickle down" economics put the US; at the head of the charge towards the biggest economic meltdown since the big one.

Eric · 01-03-2009, 16:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mancie

Distribution of wealth has not been the Tory policy for the last 200yrs.. Andrew are you in a position to now announce a new Tory policy?..

Oh c'mon ... the tories have always favoured the distribution of wealth ... but it's a limited distribution, ending up in the pockets of the top one or two percent.

Benipete · 01-03-2009, 17:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric

Oh c'mon ... the tories have always favoured the distribution of wealth ... but it's a limited distribution, ending up in the pockets of the top one or two percent.

I think there should be a limit on how much us equal people should earn and indeed how many football clubs we can own.

SPUGGIE J · 01-03-2009, 17:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Benipete

I think there should be a limit on how much us equal people should earn and indeed how many football clubs we can own.

Capped maximum salary I take it? That and footy clubs should not have billionares as owners thus reducing the number of overpaid egotistical sportsmen and their spoilt money wasting wags that youngsters idolise.