Accrington Web
Page 19 of 43 « First 9101112131415161718 19 20212223242526272829 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Accrington Web (https://www.accringtonweb.com/forum/index.php)
-   General Chat (https://www.accringtonweb.com/forum/f69/)
-   -   The Tories (https://www.accringtonweb.com/forum/f69/the-tories-57812.html)

cmonstanley 04-09-2012 22:22
Re: The Tories
 
the truth is coming out now according to this story in the Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...or-alternative

Alan Varrechia 04-09-2012 22:27
Re: The Tories
 
1 Attachment(s)
Just about says it all.

Houseboy 05-09-2012 15:14
Re: The Tories
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Less (Post 1012986)
Well, so far you don't impress me much, I may not be a Tory but, I haven't been overchuffed with Labour's attempt either, I would rather call you a simpleton than an Allie, no insult intended unless of course you are able to think.
Pardon? You would rather call me a simpleton? I suggest before you start judging people's intelligence you should learn how to spell a simple word like "ally".
And what was the last bit about, "no insult intended unless you are able to think"? Perhaps you could explain to this poor "simpleton" exactly what you mean there?
No insult taken by the way.

Houseboy 05-09-2012 15:26
Re: The Tories
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaysay (Post 1012995)
Get out of here, brown was a prat as Chancellor and Prime minister a useless prat at that, who always went missing when the the chips were down, Blair only felt like a breath of fresh air, until he was rumbled and the shine wore off, he couldn't had over to Brown fast enough when he knew this country was going down to tubes fast than the Titanic
I agree with you totally about Blair Jay, as you can see from my post, but even many Tories agree that Brown presided over a very good period for this country, economically. The facts speak for themselves, Jay, record low interest rates, low unemployment (compared to the Thatcher years and even now), with even the Tory press grudgingly admitting that things were doing well. Yes, things went downhill toward the end but I can't help thinking what we are going to be left with when this lot go at (probably) the next election. I'm sure their wealthy pals will still be laughing all the way to the bank though.

jaysay 05-09-2012 17:59
Re: The Tories
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Houseboy (Post 1013308)
I agree with you totally about Blair Jay, as you can see from my post, but even many Tories agree that Brown presided over a very good period for this country, economically. The facts speak for themselves, Jay, record low interest rates, low unemployment (compared to the Thatcher years and even now), with even the Tory press grudgingly admitting that things were doing well. Yes, things went downhill toward the end but I can't help thinking what we are going to be left with when this lot go at (probably) the next election. I'm sure their wealthy pals will still be laughing all the way to the bank though.
When Labour came to power they inherited the best economic outlook of any incoming government in history, that's why Brown kept the Tories spending plans in place for two years after taking office, it was only he decided to "go it alone" that things started to go tits up, and they left office with the countries finances in ruins, and even laughed about

Mancie 05-09-2012 22:19
Re: The Tories
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaysay (Post 1013379)
When Labour came to power they inherited the best economic outlook of any incoming government in history, that's why Brown kept the Tories spending plans in place for two years after taking office, it was only he decided to "go it alone" that things started to go tits up, and they left office with the countries finances in ruins, and even laughed about
Total rubbish..there were still over 3 million unemployed in 1997...and this blokes got some cheek..this government have cut benefits for thousands of genuine invalids over the last two years.


George Osborne Gets Booed at the Paralympics - YouTube

Mancie 05-09-2012 23:55
Re: The Tories
 
Why did 80,000 people boo george osborne at the paraympics?.... because that's capacity crowd :D

Houseboy 06-09-2012 09:20
Re: The Tories
 
I'd like to throw a genuine question out here. I am honestly baffled as to why any "working class" person (sorry for an old fashioned term but it seems to fit) would ever want to vote Tory? We can go on for months arguing in circles about politics, it's what people do, and I know that I am not going to convince a Tory that socialism is good (my father-in-law is a total Tory but I still love him greatly, as was my own father) but I have asked this question many times in the past in conversation but never really got a satisfactory answer.
My personal life experience when it comes to politics is that with the Tories in power we usually have high unemployment, high interest rates and almost invariably some form of taxation hike (usually VAT these days) to pay for tax cuts to the already wealthy. We also quite often get restrictions on workers rights accompanied by some form of pay restraints "below inflation" whilst allowing companies (including utilities) to raise prices to whatever degree they wish, regardless of inflation. It doesn't take Einstien to work out that if workers continually accept pay rises below inflation that said workers will continually and progressively be worse off, year on year. The same cannot be said of blue chip companies, announcing "record profits" on an almost annual basis.
We now, of course, have the privatised industries who control life-essential commodities putting the "desires" of shareholders before the "needs" of customers. We are also now suffering a chronic shortage of affordable housing due to the Tory obsession with selling council houses in the eighties (the reason given at the time was to give people the opportunity to own them, the real reason being let's get these properties off our hands). There is now an incredible amount said about the numbers of people scrounging on the social and how we must do all we can to reduce this expenditure (I actually agree that something must be done on that score) but hardly anything is done by the Tories about plugging the legal loopholes (and indeed the illegal) that allow the wealthy (both individual and corporate) to pay little or nothing in income tax, which costs the country far more than any social security bill.
The Tories hate the NHS (they would scrap it if they could but it would be political suicide). They don't seem to be in love with the idea of state schooling (it's another expenditure they would rather do without). They have historically never been in love with the idea of democracy (they opposed votes for women, they opposed the scrapping of the dual voting system which gave businessmen two votes at an election, they opposed the reducing of the voting age to eighteen and Ted Heath in 1964 was the first Tory leader to be elected to the post democratically). In recent years (late seventies onwards) they have actively promoted greed and self-interest.
I could list many more examples of Tory contempt for the "ordinary" person but I think you get my drift. If anyone can address this genuine and honest question I promise I will read it without prejudice (my political affiliations are far more wide-ranging than might appear).
Of course the Labour party are far from perfect, which is why I have distanced myself from them in recent years, but the Tories do seem to have an open and transparent contempt for most ordinary people that I find it difficult to understand (genuinely) why anyone but the reasonably well-off would ever vote for them.

jaysay 06-09-2012 10:12
Re: The Tories
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Houseboy (Post 1013564)
I'd like to throw a genuine question out here. I am honestly baffled as to why any "working class" person (sorry for an old fashioned term but it seems to fit) would ever want to vote Tory? We can go on for months arguing in circles about politics, it's what people do, and I know that I am not going to convince a Tory that socialism is good (my father-in-law is a total Tory but I still love him greatly, as was my own father) but I have asked this question many times in the past in conversation but never really got a satisfactory answer.
My personal life experience when it comes to politics is that with the Tories in power we usually have high unemployment, high interest rates and almost invariably some form of taxation hike (usually VAT these days) to pay for tax cuts to the already wealthy. We also quite often get restrictions on workers rights accompanied by some form of pay restraints "below inflation" whilst allowing companies (including utilities) to raise prices to whatever degree they wish, regardless of inflation. It doesn't take Einstein to work out that if workers continually accept pay rises below inflation that said workers will continually and progressively be worse off, year on year. The same cannot be said of blue chip companies, announcing "record profits" on an almost annual basis.
We now, of course, have the privatised industries who control life-essential commodities putting the "desires" of shareholders before the "needs" of customers. We are also now suffering a chronic shortage of affordable housing due to the Tory obsession with selling council houses in the eighties (the reason given at the time was to give people the opportunity to own them, the real reason being let's get these properties off our hands). There is now an incredible amount said about the numbers of people scrounging on the social and how we must do all we can to reduce this expenditure (I actually agree that something must be done on that score) but hardly anything is done by the Tories about plugging the legal loopholes (and indeed the illegal) that allow the wealthy (both individual and corporate) to pay little or nothing in income tax, which costs the country far more than any social security bill.
The Tories hate the NHS (they would scrap it if they could but it would be political suicide). They don't seem to be in love with the idea of state schooling (it's another expenditure they would rather do without). They have historically never been in love with the idea of democracy (they opposed votes for women, they opposed the scrapping of the dual voting system which gave businessmen two votes at an election, they opposed the reducing of the voting age to eighteen and Ted Heath in 1964 was the first Tory leader to be elected to the post democratically). In recent years (late seventies onwards) they have actively promoted greed and self-interest.
I could list many more examples of Tory contempt for the "ordinary" person but I think you get my drift. If anyone can address this genuine and honest question I promise I will read it without prejudice (my political affiliations are far more wide-ranging than might appear).
Of course the Labour party are far from perfect, which is why I have distanced myself from them in recent years, but the Tories do seem to have an open and transparent contempt for most ordinary people that I find it difficult to understand (genuinely) why anyone but the reasonably well-off would ever vote for them.
Easy answer with out read past the first line because Labour are a myth, and anybody who thinks it just the rich and well heeled who elect Tory governments is very much mistaken, ordinary working people elect Tory governments which speaks volumes about the so called party of the working man, that's why they wrote the new verse to the red flag "the working class can kiss my ass I've got the bosses job at last" or you can change that to MP if you like, plus I've never suffered from envy.

Less 06-09-2012 10:20
Re: The Tories
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Houseboy (Post 1013564)
I'd like to throw a genuine question out here. I am honestly baffled as to why any "working class" person (sorry for an old fashioned term but it seems to fit) would ever want to vote Tory? We can go on for months arguing in circles about politics,


Had you read this thread from the beginning you would know that, that question has already been asked and answered.

Perhaps we are going around in circles because some folk just can't be bothered?
:rolleyes:

Houseboy 06-09-2012 10:40
Re: The Tories
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaysay (Post 1013582)
Easy answer with out read past the first line because Labour are a myth, and anybody who thinks it just the rich and well heeled who elect Tory governments is very much mistaken, ordinary working people elect Tory governments which speaks volumes about the so called party of the working man, that's why they wrote the new verse to the red flag "the working class can kiss my ass I've got the bosses job at last" or you can change that to MP if you like, plus I've never suffered from envy.
The question was, Jay, why do working class vote for them, not if they vote for them. But I suppose if you haven't read past the first line you wouldn't know that, and this from the person who suggested that I should "keep my gob shut" on another post because I hadn't read everything on it. You haven't even read my post. You haven't answered the question either.

Houseboy 06-09-2012 10:47
Re: The Tories
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Less (Post 1013583)
Had you read this thread from the beginning you would know that, that question has already been asked and answered.

Perhaps we are going around in circles because some folk just can't be bothered?
:rolleyes:
I haven't read this thread from "beginning to end" and nor will I do so (as I have pointed out to you before). As for your own comments on my posts (which are becoming increasingly predictable and boring) as the man siad, "If you don't have anything to say, don't say it.

Less 06-09-2012 10:54
Re: The Tories
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Houseboy (Post 1013593)
I haven't read this thread from "beginning to end" and nor will I do so (as I have pointed out to you before). As for your own comments on my posts (which are becoming increasingly predictable and boring) as the man siad, "If you don't have anything to say, don't say it.
Boring and predictable as a guy that knows everything without bothering to read what has been said before? What you repeat in your questions can be sorted by you taking time to read what others have already offered.

However why should you? You obviously know best and don't need to get on with the rest of the site.
;)

garinda 06-09-2012 11:10
Re: The Tories
 
I think my working class grandmother, brought up in an ardently socialist household, and whose husband had beeen killed in the war, and with two small children to bring up, did so because she hadn't a pot to pish in, and felt that war widows were largely ignored until Thatcher addressed this situation.

garinda 06-09-2012 11:20
Re: The Tories
 
Stupid question anyway.

Like asking why some of the middle and upper classes voted for Blair, and not adhere to the labels some would attach to them, and assume they were Tory voters.

Why?

Firstly, because they we're free to vote for whovever.

Secondly, they, like many others of us, were stupid.

mobertol 06-09-2012 11:22
Re: The Tories
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by garinda (Post 1013600)
I think my working class grandmother, brought up in an ardently socialist household, and whose husband had beeen killed in the war, and with two small children to bring up, did so because she hadn't a pot to pish in, and felt that war widows were largely ignored until Thatcher addressed this situation.
I think my working class grandmother, brought up in an ardently socialist household, whose husband luckily came back from the war and helped her bring up two small children while they were both working and not economically challenged...would never have voted Tory, but then she didn't have the same problems.

She hated Mrs T with a vehemence which I can still remember and which is recalled in one of my Grandad's letters to me where he says she was in the background, as he was writing, going on about how she'd personally chuck Maggie Thatcher in the canal if she ever set foot in Accrington -this over the Pole tax BTW!

She never forgave my mother for voting Tory and keeping Thatcher in power -my mum saw her as a strong positive female role. Which possibly she was in her day -no female PM's since here anyway...

garinda 06-09-2012 11:26
Re: The Tories
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mobertol (Post 1013606)
I think my working class grandmother, brought up in an ardently socialist household, whose husband luckily came back from the war and helped her bring up two small children while they were both working and not economically challenged...would never have voted Tory, but then she didn't have the same problems.

She hated Mrs T with a vehemence which I can still remember and which is recalled in one of my Grandad's letters to me where he says she was in the background, as he was writing, going on about how she'd personally chuck Maggie Thatcher in the canal if she ever set foot in Accrington -this over the Pole tax BTW!

She never forgave my mother for voting Tory and keeping Thatcher in power -my mum saw her as a strong positive female role. Which possibly she was in her day -no female PM's since here anyway...
I dtested Thatcher, and all she stood for.

However I fear the history books will record her as being the post-war Prime Minister...with the biggest bollocks.

mobertol 06-09-2012 11:27
Re: The Tories
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by garinda (Post 1013605)
Stupid question anyway.

Like asking why some of the middle and upper classes voted for Blair, and not adhere to the labels some would attach to them, and assume they were Tory voters.

Why?

Firstly, because they we're free to vote for whovever.

Secondly, they, like many others of us, were stupid.
The question itself begs that we all fall into line and behave in a certain way because of our circumstances.

As you say everyone is free to vote how they wish depending on the issues of the day and how the various candidates propose to deal with them. Govenments change because the situation changes and people's reaction to the change differs. We aren't all a load of sheep -though many did get the wool pulled over their eyes by Mr Blair and co...

mobertol 06-09-2012 11:29
Re: The Tories
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by garinda (Post 1013607)
I dtested Thatcher, and all she stood for.

However I fear the history books will record her as being the post-war Prime Minister...with the biggest bollocks.
She probably physically grew them while in power -did you not try to casually slip your hand under the table and find out over dinner:D

garinda 06-09-2012 11:30
Re: The Tories
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mobertol (Post 1013608)
The question itself begs that we all fall into line and behave in a certain way because of our circumstances.

As you say everyone is free to vote how they wish depending on the issues of the day and how the various candidates propose to deal with them. Govenments change because the situation changes and people's reaction to the change differs. We aren't all a load of sheep -though many did get the wool pulled over their eyes by Mr Blair and co...
Things do change.

I never envisaged being anything other than a Labour voter.

Though I never will again.

garinda 06-09-2012 11:32
Re: The Tories
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mobertol (Post 1013610)
She probably physically grew them while in power -did you not try to casually slip your hand under the table and find out over dinner:D

No.

I didn't have the balls.

Besides, her bag was in the way.

;)

mobertol 06-09-2012 11:32
Re: The Tories
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by garinda (Post 1013611)
Things do change.

I never envisaged being anything other than a Labour voter.

Though I never will again.
Never say never - they may change again -would you vote Labour if I came to stand for Hyndburn;):D

Less 06-09-2012 11:33
Re: The Tories
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by garinda (Post 1013611)
Things do change.

I never envisaged being anything other than a Labour voter.

Though I never will again.
I would vote for them again but only if they actually became a labour party.

cashman 06-09-2012 11:34
Re: The Tories
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Less (Post 1013614)
I would vote for them again but only if they actually became a labour party.
Me also but its a big but.:rolleyes:

garinda 06-09-2012 11:35
Re: The Tories
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by garinda (Post 1013612)
No.

I didn't have the balls.

Besides, her bag was in the way.

;)

Which is a little bit sexist.

As, because she was there, I'd have to leave my own downstairs with security.

(A briefcase by the way. Mine wasn't a proper handbag.)

mobertol 06-09-2012 11:35
Re: The Tories
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by garinda (Post 1013612)
No.

I didn't have the balls.

Besides, her bag was in the way.

;)
Now that I can't believe (I know you did and still do!);) -you are just an old-fashioned gentleman at heart and you know it.:D

garinda 06-09-2012 11:37
Re: The Tories
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cashman (Post 1013616)
Me also but its a big but.:rolleyes:
A bigger one than Hattie Jaques's.

cashman 06-09-2012 11:38
Re: The Tories
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by garinda (Post 1013619)
A bigger one than Hattie Jaques's.
Much bigger n Hats.:D

mobertol 06-09-2012 11:38
Re: The Tories
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by garinda (Post 1013617)
Which is a little bit sexist.

As, because she was there, I'd have to leave my own downstairs with security.

(A briefcase by the way. Mine wasn't a proper handbag.)
Oh -I see it was a working dinner -you have such a lovely selection of evening bags -I'm quite envious -though I think perhaps I may beat you on the selection of stilettoes...but then again:D

mobertol 06-09-2012 11:42
Re: The Tories
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Less (Post 1013614)
I would vote for them again but only if they actually became a labour party.
Could be a winning tactic -not moving back to the left, which would make sense - but dropping an upper case letter -wouldn't cost much either - less ink on the posters. What about a change of colour red is sooooo out this season:D

Less 06-09-2012 11:43
Re: The Tories
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mobertol (Post 1013621)
Oh -I see it was a working dinner -you have such a lovely selection of evening bags -I'm quite envious -though I think perhaps I may beat you on the selection of stilettoes...but then again:D
If ever you're in pain don't ask him to walk on your back!



Kirsty MacColl "In These Shoes?" - YouTube

Houseboy 06-09-2012 11:45
Re: The Tories
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by garinda (Post 1013605)
Stupid question anyway.

Like asking why some of the middle and upper classes voted for Blair, and not adhere to the labels some would attach to them, and assume they were Tory voters.

Why?

Firstly, because they we're free to vote for whovever.

Secondly, they, like many others of us, were stupid.
I usually find that when someone says a question is stupid they either haven't understood the question or can't answer or both. Incidentally, I don't understand why wealthy people vote labour either, but as there are far fewer of them it doesn't make a whole load of difference to the overall result of an election.

jaysay 06-09-2012 18:25
Re: The Tories
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Houseboy (Post 1013590)
The question was, Jay, why do working class vote for them, not if they vote for them. But I suppose if you haven't read past the first line you wouldn't know that, and this from the person who suggested that I should "keep my gob shut" on another post because I hadn't read everything on it. You haven't even read my post. You haven't answered the question either.
Don't need to, this thread is 2 years old its been said over and over again, maybe just maybe they they can see through the facade that is Labour, good on rhetoric poor on action, they promise so much but give so little and even that's at a cost

garinda 06-09-2012 18:34
Re: The Tories
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Houseboy (Post 1013625)
I usually find that when someone says a question is stupid they either haven't understood the question or can't answer or both. Incidentally, I don't understand why wealthy people vote labour either, but as there are far fewer of them it doesn't make a whole load of difference to the overall result of an election.
What about wealthy and working class, what label do you attach to them?

garinda 06-09-2012 18:37
Re: The Tories
 
Besides, in reality, the whole simplistic traditional class/voting labels were blown off in the explosion, of May 1979.

jaysay 06-09-2012 18:37
Re: The Tories
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by garinda (Post 1013605)
Stupid question anyway.

Like asking why some of the middle and upper classes voted for Blair, and not adhere to the labels some would attach to them, and assume they were Tory voters.

Why?

Firstly, because they we're free to vote for whovever.

Secondly, they, like many others of us, were stupid.
Totally agree Rindi, the most well heeled MP in the house of commons is by no means a Tory, Sean Woodward, the Rt Honourable member for St. Helens, has £1.35m in London a £7m pad in Hamptons and as just acquired a £5m Villa in Mustique, oh and he has a butler too:rolleyes:

jaysay 06-09-2012 18:39
Re: The Tories
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by garinda (Post 1013607)
I dtested Thatcher, and all she stood for.

However I fear the history books will record her as being the post-war Prime Minister...with the biggest bollocks.
Well she certainly had more than anybody since

garinda 06-09-2012 18:47
Re: The Tories
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaysay (Post 1013740)
Totally agree Rindi, the most well heeled MP in the house of commons is by no means a Tory, Sean Woodward, the Rt Honourable member for St. Helens, has £1.35m in London a £7m pad in Hamptons and as just acquired a £5m Villa in Mustique, oh and he has a butler too:rolleyes:

I'd never judge someone because of their background.

That we can't help.

I would question the morals of supposedly left of centre politicans to educate their ofspring, outside the state education system, as the many do now.

garinda 06-09-2012 18:53
Re: The Tories
 
Perhaps it's for 'security issues'.

The same 'security issues' that would be weakened if their expenses were made public, and which resulted in them fighting tooth and nail to prevent that from ever happening.

Although I can't remember reading of multi-millionaire Paul McCartey's kids being kidnapped, as they walked home from their comprehensive schools.

jaysay 07-09-2012 08:49
Re: The Tories
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by garinda (Post 1013745)
I'd never judge someone because of their background.

That we can't help.

I would question the morals of supposedly left of centre politicans to educate their ofspring, outside the state education system, as the many do now.
Ya but Mancie would be kissing the feet of Mr Woodward because he's now a fellow believer, somehow the hatred of the filth rich only applies when your a Tory, the height of hypocrisy

Less 07-09-2012 08:59
Re: The Tories
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaysay (Post 1013881)
when your a Tory, the height of hypocrisy
Do you know, I never thought you'd say that, well done.;)

jaysay 07-09-2012 09:26
Re: The Tories
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Less (Post 1013882)
Do you know, I never thought you'd say that, well done.;)
Out of context Mr Less ya rascal (um bet you've never been called that before:D)

garinda 07-09-2012 09:34
Re: The Tories
 
I quite like Tories.

You can't beat them into submitting.

















Well you can, but most seem to enjoy it.

:D

jaysay 07-09-2012 09:37
Re: The Tories
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by garinda (Post 1013887)
I quite like Tories.

You can't beat 'em.

















Well you can, but most seem to enjoy it.
Could have tried it with me and got a smack in the gob for the effort:D

garinda 07-09-2012 09:40
Re: The Tories
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaysay (Post 1013888)
Could have tried it with me and got a smack in the gob for the effort:D

I always found a pen, dipped in poisoned ink, was more effective with you, than a cat o' nine tails.

:D

Less 07-09-2012 09:42
Re: The Tories
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by garinda (Post 1013890)
I always found a pen, dipped in poisoned ink, was more effective with you, than a cat o' nine tails.

:D
We've already got a thread about cats do try to stay on topic.
:p

garinda 07-09-2012 09:44
Re: The Tories
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaysay (Post 1013888)
Could have tried it with me and got a smack in the gob for the effort:D
Stop showing off.

Peel me an orange, then go and put your gimp mask on.

:ph34r8:

garinda 07-09-2012 09:47
Re: The Tories
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Less (Post 1013891)
We've already got a thread about cats do try to stay on topic.
:p
I'm such a pussy.

I'm living on my nerves.

It's all so very confusing nowadays.

Apologies, gentle reader, and I suppose those forced to read this.

:rolleyes::D

jaysay 07-09-2012 09:57
Re: The Tories
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by garinda (Post 1013890)
I always found a pen, dipped in poisoned ink, was more effective with you, than a cat o' nine tails.

:D
I'll get you at playtime:D

jaysay 07-09-2012 09:59
Re: The Tories
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by garinda (Post 1013894)
I'm such a pussy.

I'm living on my nerves.

It's all so very confusing nowadays.

Apologies, gentle reader, and I suppose those forced to read this.

:rolleyes::D
Its them who DON'T read this that you've got to be wary of:D

Houseboy 07-09-2012 10:09
Re: The Tories
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by garinda (Post 1013738)
What about wealthy and working class, what label do you attach to them?
That's a whole different argument. Officially, on the a's, b's etc scale, class is based solely on employment not on income or wealth. It is possible to be middle class and have no money as such but it is also possible to have a great deal of money whilst being technically working class (a couple of plumbers I know fit nicely into that category). I think voting patterns used to be based more on income because the Tories obviously are a better prospect if you have money but I admit (as in your follow-up post) things went a bit nuclear with regard to voting patterns in the late 70's. Everything was dragged so much to the right that all else had to follow. Incidentally I think the present Labour party are, as a result of that shift, a watered down version of what the old Tories used to be. They're certainly not a socialist party any more.

kestrelx 07-09-2012 10:11
Re: The Tories
 
Don't know if anyones mentioned this? But the Cameron plan to have an open season on house extensions/conservatories and attic bedrooms will lead to a lot of conflict between neighbours; as planning permission laws are relaxed.:rolleyes: The plan to "build us" out of recession!

garinda 07-09-2012 10:31
Re: The Tories
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Houseboy (Post 1013898)
Officially, on the a's, b's etc scale, class is based solely on employment not on income or wealth.
Er...I'm afraid you're wrong.

I think you'll find all socio-economist statisticans arrive at their groupings based, not only on earning power, but also other things, such as age, educational background, religion, professional qualifications, and even things like geographical locations, amongst other things.

I'm afraid it's only an 'E' for effort, you've been awarded.

garinda 07-09-2012 10:38
Re: The Tories
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Houseboy (Post 1013898)
Officially, on the a's, b's etc scale, class is based solely on employment not on income or wealth.
In your world, would the statisticians put an unemployed single parent on benefits in the same catagory as the Queen, say?

:rolleyes:

Lucysgirl 07-09-2012 12:03
Re: The Tories
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Houseboy (Post 1013564)
........We are also now suffering a chronic shortage of affordable housing ...........they opposed the reducing of the voting age to eighteen .
With historic high prices of land, anyone who thinks "affordable housing" is realistic they're living in cloud cuckoo land. The days are long gone when one man with an average wage could provide for his family and realistically buy a house with a mortgage valued at 2.1/2 times his annual wage. Excepting for managers, most workers these days have low wages and/or are only working part time. Even at 3 times their annual wage, neither of my two uni. educated offspring could obtain a mortgage for a modest £120K terraced house.
.
I've seen a couple of children's parliaments held in the House of Commons and if the politicians lower the voting age to sixteen I'll emigrate.
.

Houseboy 07-09-2012 12:48
Re: The Tories
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by garinda (Post 1013903)
Er...I'm afraid you're wrong.

I think you'll find all socio-economist statisticans arrive at their groupings based, not only on earning power, but also other things, such as age, educational background, religion, professional qualifications, and even things like geographical locations, amongst other things.

I'm afraid it's only an 'E' for effort, you've been awarded.
I'm afraid that, unless things have changed radically since my days studying sociology at college, you will find that the Registrar General's calculation of social stratification is exactly as I stated.
Or are you right "again".

garinda 07-09-2012 14:16
Re: The Tories
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Houseboy (Post 1013930)
I'm afraid that, unless things have changed radically since my days studying sociology at college, you will find that the Registrar General's calculation of social stratification is exactly as I stated.

Really?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Houseboy (Post 1013898)
Officially, on the a's, b's etc scale, class is based solely on employment not on income or wealth.
What's the weather like in your world?

It's spitting here, but quite warm.

Please feel free to post any evidence, that any of the socio-economic grading systems use soley the information as to whether someone's employed, or not.

:rolleyes:

garinda 07-09-2012 14:21
Re: The Tories
 
I'd be interested to see which organisation grades a lawyer, Cherie Blair for instance, the same as an equally fully employed cleaning lady.

garinda 07-09-2012 14:29
Re: The Tories
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Houseboy (Post 1013930)
I'm afraid that, unless things have changed radically since my days studying sociology at college
Was that before the law was changed, banning indoor smoking in a public place?

:smoky:

Less 07-09-2012 15:12
Re: The Tories
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Houseboy (Post 1013898)
(as in your follow-up post)
There's a follow up post? wish you'd quoted it, do you expect me to troll through everything just so you can make a point?
:rolleyes:

Houseboy 10-09-2012 09:31
Re: The Tories
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by garinda (Post 1013939)
I'd be interested to see which organisation grades a lawyer, Cherie Blair for instance, the same as an equally fully employed cleaning lady.
Did I say that? Mmmm! So I said that a lawyer is graded the same as a cleaner? Interesting! Are you certain you don't agree with legalising drugs? I'll get back to this, just a bit busy at the moment, I work.

jaysay 10-09-2012 09:48
Re: The Tories
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Houseboy (Post 1014652)
Did I say that? Mmmm! So I said that a lawyer is graded the same as a cleaner? Interesting! Are you certain you don't agree with legalising drugs? I'll get back to this, just a bit busy at the moment, I work.
Better really to check things out before making platitudes, usually helps some what, some people can't work which isn't of their choice;)

garinda 10-09-2012 09:50
Re: The Tories
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Houseboy (Post 1014652)
Did I say that? Mmmm!
Er...yes, loud and clear.

Can't recall saying it?

Here you go, only three days ago...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Houseboy (Post 1013898)
Officially, on the a's, b's etc scale, class is based solely on employment not on income or wealth.
If memory's similarly graded on a scale, I'm afraid you're an E.

garinda 10-09-2012 09:52
Re: The Tories
 
Mind you, if I was prone to spouting utter gibberish, I'd try and wipe it from my memory too.

:rolleyes:

garinda 10-09-2012 09:55
Re: The Tories
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Houseboy (Post 1014652)
I work.
Send our love to Cherie.

Houseboy 10-09-2012 12:20
Re: The Tories
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by garinda (Post 1014655)
Er...yes, loud and clear.

Can't recall saying it?

Here you go, only three days ago...



If memory's similarly graded on a scale, I'm afraid you're an E.
That's odd, I could have sworn I asked where I said that a cleaner was graded the same as a lawyer. Read your own copy and paste.
Now try again! I'll ask the question simply and clearly again so that you will understand: where did I say lawyers and cleaners were graded the same??
Before you get even more confused, just to clear things up, lawyers are on the 'A' grade in social stratification, cleaners (if my poor memory serves) are on 'E'. I don't think this is the same as saying they are graded the same.

garinda 10-09-2012 16:22
Re: The Tories
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Houseboy (Post 1014693)
That's odd, I could have sworn I asked where I said that a cleaner was graded the same as a lawyer. Read your own copy and paste.
Now try again! I'll ask the question simply and clearly again so that you will understand: where did I say lawyers and cleaners were graded the same??
Before you get even more confused, just to clear things up, lawyers are on the 'A' grade in social stratification, cleaners (if my poor memory serves) are on 'E'. I don't think this is the same as saying they are graded the same.
Er...no one's saying you did.

I said it.

It's quite clearly there for all to see, in black and white.

I used it as an absurd example. After you wrongly posted that the A, B, C1, C2, D, and E social grading system is to quote you 'Officially, on the a's, b's etc scale, class is based solely on employment not on income or wealth.'

It isn't.

There is no such system in the world who classifies a person's perceived position in society, based purely on whether they're in employment, or not.

I'm afraid on the scale of logic, you're still right down there with your grade of 'E'.

:o

Mancie 10-09-2012 20:49
Re: The Tories
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaysay (Post 1014654)
some people can't work which isn't of their choice;)
I reckon you are going soft.. this government make no distinction between having or not having that choice.:(

Houseboy 11-09-2012 09:05
Re: The Tories
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by garinda (Post 1014722)
Er...no one's saying you did.

I said it.

It's quite clearly there for all to see, in black and white.

I used it as an absurd example. After you wrongly posted that the A, B, C1, C2, D, and E social grading system is to quote you 'Officially, on the a's, b's etc scale, class is based solely on employment not on income or wealth.'

It isn't.

There is no such system in the world who classifies a person's perceived position in society, based purely on whether they're in employment, or not.

I'm afraid on the scale of logic, you're still right down there with your grade of 'E'.

:o
The UK Office of National Statistics Socio-economic Classification Group Description
1 Higher Professional and Managerial workers A
2 Lower Managerial and Professional workers B
3 Intermediate occupations C1 and C2
4 Small Employers and non professional self-employed C1 and C2
5 Lower Supervisory and technical C1 and C2
6 Semi Routine Occupations D
7 Routine Occupations D
8 Long term unemployed E

You seem to be persisting in this idea that I said a persons classification is down to "whether they're in employment, or not." It is down to the "type" of employment, as I have said all along. Sorry I don't know what I'm talking about, you're obviously far better informed than I. Perhaps you'd better inform the Office of National Statistics that they've got it wrong as well.

jaysay 11-09-2012 09:11
Re: The Tories
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Houseboy (Post 1014834)
The UK Office of National Statistics Socio-economic Classification Group Description
1 Higher Professional and Managerial workers A
2 Lower Managerial and Professional workers B
3 Intermediate occupations C1 and C2
4 Small Employers and non professional self-employed C1 and C2
5 Lower Supervisory and technical C1 and C2
6 Semi Routine Occupations D
7 Routine Occupations D
8 Long term unemployed E

You seem to be persisting in this idea that I said a persons classification is down to "whether they're in employment, or not." It is down to the "type" of employment, as I have said all along. Sorry I don't know what I'm talking about, you're obviously far better informed than I. Perhaps you'd better inform the Office of National Statistics that they've got it wrong as well.
Think Disraeli was quite near the mark when he was reported saying there are Lies Damn Lies and statistics, you can make statistic fit anything you want;)

Houseboy 11-09-2012 09:32
Re: The Tories
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaysay (Post 1014836)
Think Disraeli was quite near the mark when he was reported saying there are Lies Damn Lies and statistics, you can make statistic fit anything you want;)
I agree with that statement entirely Jay. Thing is though the above are not statistics. It is simply a classification system. I do agree though that statistics in themselves can prove anything you want if you present them in the right way.

Less 11-09-2012 09:44
Re: The Tories
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Houseboy (Post 1014834)
Group Description
1 Higher Professional and Managerial workers A
2 Lower Managerial and Professional workers B
3 Intermediate occupations C1 and C2
4 Small Employers and non professional self-employed C1 and C2
5 Lower Supervisory and technical C1 and C2
6 Semi Routine Occupations D
7 Routine Occupations D
8 Long term unemployed E
Life's like a roller coaster for me, I seem to be up and down anywhere from B to E then back again, funny thing though I never seem to meet anyone from A in the dole queue whenever they have put a red line through my name and thrown me back on the scrap heap.
:confused:

Houseboy 11-09-2012 09:56
Re: The Tories
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Less (Post 1014847)
funny thing though I never seem to meet anyone from A in the dole queue whenever they have put a red line through my name and thrown me back on the scrap heap.
:confused:
And you probably never will, Less. All I can say is keep at it and don't let the sods grind you down. Judging from some of your posts on here you seem to have enough grit to bounce back and I'm sure you will.

garinda 11-09-2012 17:34
Re: The Tories
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Houseboy (Post 1014834)
You seem to be persisting in this idea that I said a persons classification is down to "whether they're in employment, or not." It is down to the "type" of employment, as I have said all along.
Er...no, you didn't.

Actually, and somewhat foolishly, you said this...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Houseboy (Post 1013898)
Officially, on the a's, b's etc scale, class is based solely on employment not on income or wealth.
You were wrong.

Continually still harping on about it doesn't change a thing.

It still leaves you as being wrong.

;)

garinda 11-09-2012 17:44
Re: The Tories
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Less (Post 1014847)
Life's like a roller coaster for me, I seem to be up and down anywhere from B to E then back again, funny thing though I never seem to meet anyone from A in the dole queue whenever they have put a red line through my name and thrown me back on the scrap heap.
:confused:
I've been to Nice, and the isles of Greece, where I sipped champagne on a yacht.

I moved like Harlow in Monte Carlo, and showed 'em what I've got

I've been undressed by kings, and I've seen some things that a person ain't supposed to see.

I've been to paradise, but I've never been to E.




















(Yet.)

:D

Houseboy 12-09-2012 09:18
Re: The Tories
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by garinda (Post 1014951)
Er...no, you didn't.

Actually, and somewhat foolishly, you said this...



You were wrong.

Continually still harping on about it doesn't change a thing.

It still leaves you as being wrong.

;)
Do you read something and then decide to put your own meaning to it? I challenge you again, Garinda, where does it say that someone has to be in employment? It says it is based on employment, not whether they are employed or not. Or is your other name Mr. Pedantic?

garinda 12-09-2012 10:02
Re: The Tories
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Houseboy (Post 1015102)
where does it say that someone has to be in employment?
Er...here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Houseboy (Post 1013898)
Officially, on the a's, b's etc scale, class is based solely on employment not on income or wealth.
Apparently they don't differentiate on such things as whether you need to acquire professional qualifications, or how much is earned, it's 'soley' down to whether you're in employment, or not.

:rolleyes:

I'm afraid because of your inabilty to grasp, and understand simple logic, I won't be asking you back for a second interview, though I wish you well in your search.

:)

jaysay 12-09-2012 10:06
Re: The Tories
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by garinda (Post 1015107)
Er...here.



Apparently they don't differentiate on such things as whether you need to acquire professional qualifications, or how much is earned, it's 'soley' down to whether you're in employment, or not.

:rolleyes:

I'm afraid because of your inabilty to grasp, and understand simple logic, I won't be asking you back for a second interview, though I wish you well in your search.

:)
Thats you Rindi always give give give:D

garinda 12-09-2012 10:13
Re: The Tories
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaysay (Post 1015108)
Thats you Rindi always give give give:D
I aim to please.

It really is no trouble.

Even for those who've sadly lost their deposit.

:)

jaysay 12-09-2012 10:14
Re: The Tories
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by garinda (Post 1015111)
I aim to please.

It really is no trouble.

Even for those who've sadly lost their deposit.

:)
Or deposited their lose:rolleyes::rolleyes::)

garinda 12-09-2012 10:28
Re: The Tories
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaysay (Post 1015113)
Or deposited their lose:rolleyes::rolleyes::)
Well some people do seem somewhat highly-strung, and easily excited.

That, and poor self-control, means these little accidents can sometimes happen to them.

Bless.

Houseboy 12-09-2012 11:59
Re: The Tories
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by garinda (Post 1015107)
Er...here.



Apparently they don't differentiate on such things as whether you need to acquire professional qualifications, or how much is earned, it's 'soley' down to whether you're in employment, or not.

:rolleyes:

I'm afraid because of your inabilty to grasp, and understand simple logic, I won't be asking you back for a second interview, though I wish you well in your search.

:)
You're beginning to make yourself look foolish by posting the same quote, which does not back up your argument. Unemployment is also categorised on the list I posted. If you wish to be pedantic we could describe it as "employment status" but I'm sure that all but you have understood my meaning.
Simple logic I gather is your forte, then? Perhaps we should start a thread on semantics, but frankly I don't fancy your chances.

garinda 12-09-2012 15:32
Re: The Tories
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Houseboy (Post 1015125)
You're beginning to make yourself look foolish by posting the same quote, which does not back up your argument. Unemployment is also categorised on the list I posted. If you wish to be pedantic we could describe it as "employment status" but I'm sure that all but you have understood my meaning.
Simple logic I gather is your forte, then? Perhaps we should start a thread on semantics, but frankly I don't fancy your chances.
Whoops.

Here comes another little spillage.

Has anyone got a spare tissue they don't want back?

Houseboy 14-09-2012 14:45
Re: The Tories
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by garinda (Post 1015208)
Whoops.

Here comes another little spillage.

Has anyone got a spare tissue they don't want back?
You know Garinda, I'm really getting to like you, you make me laugh. Keep 'em coming, you'll actually make a point one day.

garinda 14-09-2012 14:54
Re: The Tories
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Houseboy (Post 1015623)
You know Garinda, I'm really getting to like you, you make me laugh. Keep 'em coming, you'll actually make a point one day.
Whoopsie.

Another little emission.

Tissue, anyone?

garinda 14-09-2012 14:59
Re: The Tories
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Houseboy (Post 1015623)
You know Garinda, I'm really getting to like you
Oh gawd, not another.

I'm not taking on any more love struck stalkers on at the moment.

You can add your name, but you'll be waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay down my list.

Sorry.

Houseboy 14-09-2012 15:16
Re: The Tories
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by garinda (Post 1015629)
Oh gawd, not another.

I'm not taking on any more love struck stalkers on at the moment.

You can add your name, but you'll be waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay down my list.

Sorry.
You can't help who you fall in love with.

garinda 14-09-2012 15:21
Re: The Tories
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Houseboy (Post 1015641)
You can't help who you fall in love with.
Pur-lease.

They all come out with that line.

Mancie actually said it via his facial tattoo.

0/10 for originality.

jaysay 14-09-2012 17:50
Re: The Tories
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by garinda (Post 1015644)
Pur-lease.

They all come out with that line.

Mancie actually said it via his facial tattoo.

0/10 for originality.
Take it easy on the poor chap Rindi, we know he doesn't bother to read earlier post:rolleyes:

Houseboy 17-09-2012 08:30
Re: The Tories
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaysay (Post 1015675)
Take it easy on the poor chap Rindi, we know he doesn't bother to read earlier post:rolleyes:
Nice try Jay. Not being drawn on that one though.

jaysay 17-09-2012 08:48
Re: The Tories
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Houseboy (Post 1016743)
Nice try Jay. Not being drawn on that one though.
Looks like you were:rolleyes:

Houseboy 17-09-2012 13:44
Re: The Tories
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaysay (Post 1016751)
Looks like you were:rolleyes:
No comment (for once). :confused:

jaysay 17-09-2012 18:11
Re: The Tories
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Houseboy (Post 1016845)
No comment (for once). :confused:
Lets keep it that way and make everybody happy except MargaretR

MargaretR 17-09-2012 18:53
Re: The Tories
 
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaysay (Post 1016940)
Lets keep it that way and make everybody happy except MargaretR
I rarely post in this thread and last posted here a month ago so see no reason to mention me in your favourite thread.

I want you to be happy so I send you this greeting card

jaysay 17-09-2012 19:00
Re: The Tories
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MargaretR (Post 1016961)
I rarely post in this thread and last posted here a month ago so see no reason to mention me in your favourite thread.

I want you to be happy so I send you this greeting card
Well Margaret the last time I said everybody you said not to include you so I didn't;) just no pleasing some folk:D

I've just read your little card, I'm cut to the quick, even though I'm getting old and ugly I don't hate anybody, well except one and thats not you:rolleyes:

Alan Varrechia 17-09-2012 23:40
Re: The Tories
 
1 Attachment(s)
Interesting.

Houseboy 18-09-2012 09:11
Re: The Tories
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaysay (Post 1016940)
Lets keep it that way and make everybody happy except MargaretR
Aw, come on Jay, you know you love me, especially since you found out I was a Claret.

jaysay 18-09-2012 09:49
Re: The Tories
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Houseboy (Post 1017055)
Aw, come on Jay, you know you love me, especially since you found out I was a Claret.
Ya a two time loser:mosher:

Houseboy 18-09-2012 10:04
Re: The Tories
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaysay (Post 1017075)
Ya a two time loser:mosher:
Ha ha!! Yeah! Being a Socialist Burnley supporter (could there be anything else?) is tough. It's a kind of curse but what the heck, we all like a struggle at times eh? :)

jaysay 18-09-2012 10:11
Re: The Tories
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Houseboy (Post 1017085)
Ha ha!! Yeah! Being a Socialist Burnley supporter (could there be anything else?) is tough. It's a kind of curse but what the heck, we all like a struggle at times eh? :)
Socialist:confused::confused::confused:Whats one of them;)


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:53.
Page 19 of 43 « First 9101112131415161718 19 20212223242526272829 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.1
© 2003-2013 AccringtonWeb.com