Printable View
Well your Granddad is a complete moron if I'm honest because Labour has been cutting his pension in the Budget for the last few years, it's virtually worthless these days. For pensioners I see elections as no brainers as Labour just keep cutting away at pensions year after year.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...aid/article.do
And that's just this years budget, in past years it's been much worse.
New Labour made us have to pay thousands of pounds in fees for university again. The two parties aren't actually that different anymore though.
This is the most important part of the entire thread. He's gone on about the Conservative past and unemployment, but really it comes down to the fact that he stands to lose under a Conservative government. If he was a young high earner he'd want to get rid of the Labour government who take away from the more successful people to pay off society's losers - people generally vote based on their own circumstances, not because they truly believe in a cause.Quote:
Originally Posted by HabbaJabba
Socialsm ftw :rolleyes:
You didn't talk about the downside to Maggie giving away the chance of millions getting a house.Quote:
Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-
The downside to helping millions upon millions of the poorest of our society the chance to own their own house, meaning when they are older they can remain independant rather than rely fully on the state?Quote:
Originally Posted by HabbaJabba
The downside is a shortage of council housing today, but that is not the fault of the Thatcher government, that is the fault of this goverment, a Labour government which has failed to build more social housing.
Jordy is right, Labour has always believed in their core belief, that everyone should be equal and that does not add up. If someone in earning over 100,000+ or a even higher wage, have built that business up/worked their way up in that business all their life, what right has a government to take 50% of their wage or even 80% (as in the 1970's under Labour) - it goes to show that Labour do not value hard work.
That leads me on to my next point, as in the 1970's, no company would invest here because 80% of their wages would be taken by the state and taxes on business were so high so they would not open businesses here, therefore meaning there were no jobs. Margaret Thatcher, Conservative, corrected it.
Margaret Thatcher only gave millions the chance to get their own house for her own benefit. All for money.Quote:
Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-
She set interest rates up to 15%, which no one had ever seen.\
She destroyed the unions and created the poll tax.
She is a cruel woman, and she's very against working class people. Tories are all for making money, so if you're a millionaire, vote Conservative. But if you can't spare change, don't even bother.
No, she did it for the benefit of the state and the whole country, rather than continuing the decline our country was suffering, the state was virtually bankrupt. If Labour had done this and given the poor you would claim it was a excellent move and that the nasty Conservatives would never help the poor, you cannot have it both ways.Quote:
Originally Posted by HabbaJabba
--------
Interest rates surged for a very short period because the world and Britain had decided to change the way money was valued. The whole world experience higher interest rates for a very short period of time, which incidently reached over 11% under the previous Labour government.
--------
She destroyed the unions because the unions were in control of the country, the winter of discontent was caused by the unions, the unions forced workers to strike even if the worker did not agree with it. You seem to like the idea of living in a winter of discontent with the country in debt and on its knees, with blackouts a common sight, the country appealing to the IMF, dead bodies rotting in the morgues and garbe piled high on the streets.
--------
Poll tax was introduced because the previous system was unfair, below are two examples of the old system and the poll tax system.
Before Poll Tax
If you and your brother/or a friend shared the same property but you owned the property, you would have to pay tax for both of you and your brother/friend and anyone else who shared the flat who was eligable to pay tax, therefore even though all of you used local services you would be paying for them.
Poll Tax
Poll tax fixed the above problem by making the system fair so that you paid for yourself, so you would pay for your own tax and your brother/friend would pay his/her own tax.
You tell me which is fair.
--------
You have been taught to believe this vile, socialist hate; yet cannot discuss your cause because you appear to have no understanding of the subject, only what your grandad throws out at you and you repeat it to me and this forum. Time after time I have confronted your claims with counter claims and you come out with even more to dodge the claim.
I have given you an example of how she gave the poor their first oppertunity to buy a house yet you dismiss it as if she personally benefits from them buying houses, no she did not. You are hell bent on hating Margaret Thatcher yet cannot back up your claims/views because I know they are not your views, they are family/friends views that you have been taught to believe/have picked up.
Tories put 3 million in unemployment in the 90's. Nuff said.
I imagine this is your response to the fact that Conservatives tend to prefer having tax rates for everyone pretty similar rather than taking 50% of high earners' wages and letting poor people not pay nearly as much. What that essentially boils down to is people who have worked hard and gotten themselves to a position where they earn a large amount of money then have to give half of it away in order to let unemployed and lazy people have a comfortable life. Fun timesQuote:
Originally Posted by HabbaJabba