Con/dems v Labour
 

Re: Con/dems v Labour
 

the thing is the labour way was beginning to work.we had to spend money to prop up the economy and when we would have came out of recession we would have slowly paid it back,more than said the money we gave to ireland.even the head of the cbi who are usaully pro tory say the tories havent got a clue .theyve been saying big words till they came to the conclusion that half of the policies they said they were going to do are against the law..:rolleyes:theyve been in for 8 months and not a lot has been done except upset a few students.

Re: Con/dems v Labour
 

oh i agree in 8 months theve done nowt only beggar things up more, but the labour way was beginning to work? pmsl, what yer on mate? i want some of that.:rolleyes::D:D:D

Re: Con/dems v Labour
 

Think i know what a certain person will say as soon as he sees this.
13 years bla bla ad infinitum. I'd sooner have those 13 years than Maggies clone. :(

Re: Con/dems v Labour
 

Thats Maggies clone mark2 Alan, Number 1 clone ran Labour.:rolleyes:

Re: Con/dems v Labour
 

we never had it so good,sure labour made mistakes but labour done more for poverty than the tories ever will.

Re: Con/dems v Labour
 

Thats beyond doubt, but socialism is long dead, all ******* now.

Re: Con/dems v Labour
 

tell thet to the people who were working for a pittance before te national minimum wage.the will tell you it wasnt much fun working for a pittance.i remember people working in old people homes factories for £2.00 an hour yes that was just before it was introduced,people have short memories.

Re: Con/dems v Labour
 

Total agreement Cashy - 2 wars where we should not have been the puppy on his back hoping to get his belly rubbed. 13 years was it, to put things right from the Maggie & subsequent Tory years - they failed. Now we have the leaders (and the wife - the ugly one), flogging their talents around - even Prezzie is now doing TV adverts. Didn't they make enough while in office?
To my mind, they are all a bunch of greedy illegitimates, both sides of the chamber - in both Houses.:mad::mad::mad:

Re: Con/dems v Labour
 

No ... not every gvmnt borrowed. The Government of Canada (a minority government, by the way, something you guys seem to be afraid of for some reason) didn't. The only money we paid out was to bail Chrysler and GM for guarantees to protect Canadian auto jobs. And it looks like we are going to make a profit on that deal. If your banks had been subject to regulation, as ours are under the Bank Act, you would have weathered the storm a helluva lot better. Apart from layoffs in Oshawa and Windsor ... auto industry areas (and most of those workers are back at work) ... we didn't have much of a recession. That's because our govt., and it is a tory govt. kept in check by virtue of being in a minority position for five years, takes care of Canada and Canadians first.

Re: Con/dems v Labour
 

Well done.

You've strarted one more political thread.

Whilst moaning about political threads.

:rofl38::rofl38::rofl38:

Re: Con/dems v Labour
 

cmonstanley:rofl38::rofl38::rofl38::rofl38::rofl38:

Re: Con/dems v Labour
 

Perhaps cmonstanley has won an advertising contract, and is planning a parody of the famous Saatchi campaign, which helped secure Thatcher's victory in 1979.

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/to...sntworking.jpg

:rolleyes:

Re: Con/dems v Labour
 

:eek::eek::eek:Politics and we're agreeing on sumat:eek::eek::eek::D:D:D

Re: Con/dems v Labour
 

Thats not quite true G, Labour does work, like Epsom Salts:D:D