She's dead!!

[Whelan]

I'd say it was more a case of using a personally constructed sledgehammer that was hers, and hers alone to smash a nut, but she wasn't interested in the nut - she just wanted to smash the shell.

[Sut]

Ding dong #1.

[Whelan]

Ding dong #1.

 

Tramp the Dirt Down would have been more fitting, and a more articulate statement - but, i'll take that!

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Was anyone else at the Casa on Hope Street on Monday?

 

Top night out!

[Kevin D]

Skinner explained why he didn't show?

[Anubis]

 

Nothing else needs saying. Other than hearing so called "Labour" MPs gushing over that heartless witch in the House of Commons is testing my gag reflex, and increasing my desire to put my foot through the telly.

 

If I had the money I'd put that on as many roadside billboards as I could hire.

[Pidge]

Ding dong #1.

 

BBC just said they are considering whether to play it and that it's currently at #10...

[VladimirIlyich]

[YOUTUBE]NOErZuzZpS8[/YOUTUBE]

[Rough Rider]

Tramp the Dirt Down would have been more fitting, and a more articulate statement - but, i'll take that!

 

How about Stand down Margaret by The Beat. I think it was banned by the bbc when it was released,cracking tune.

[RedBrian84]

Good Birkenhead girl is Glenda.

 

Liked Bercow's 'sit down, shut up and don't tell me how to do my job' bit at the end as well.

 

Jackson was on fire there. Superb stuff. Nice to see some in the Labour party still have some backbone.

 

And agree on the Bercow bit; hilarious that. "You come into my fucking House...?"

[SCOUSE TAPAS]

Found this and thought I would post it as some might like to see it.A documentary from 1985 about the miners strike called Which side are you on.

 

[YOUTUBE]qk18ZY318os[/YOUTUBE]

[KopOut]

Of course they have been smashed! Unions don't simply represent working conditions - they defend workers interest, including working conditions. Are these examples anything more than spurious Phipottesque examples of personal anecdotes applied generally to emphasise a point?

 

She smashed the Unions and in doing so made working conditions, including wage, employment rights and job security weaker.

 

Unions are weaker now, which was what she wanted - a weaker Union isn't in the interests of the worker, ensuring a Union looks after the welfare of its workers should always ensure the health of the company. Destruction of their power ensured the company did what was good for them. Which considering the evolution of shareholders/stakeholders has proved detrimental.

 

The problem with the Union approach, is that it assumes all people are born equal. They are not. One worker works harder than another, and his/her wages and working conditions, should be reflected likewise. A blanket carpet bombing approach to wages and conditions for 'the workforce' is is not only impractical, it's unjust.

 

Here in Aotearoa, we have an 'Employment Contracts Act' which allows each employee to negotiate his/her worth. I would argue that there are some slackers and idiots that should in no way, have any union protection

 

At the end of the day, Thatcher was nothing more than a believer in Thatcherism, and, whatever that was - one's thing's for certain, it didn't help the majority.

[dirk grout]

The problem with the Union approach, is that it assumes all people are born equal. They are not. One worker works harder than another, and his/her wages and working conditions, should be reflected likewise. A blanket carpet bombing approach to wages and conditions for 'the workforce' is is not only impractical, it's unjust.

 

Here in Aotearoa, we have an 'Employment Contracts Act' which allows each employee to negotiate his/her worth. I would argue that there are some slackers and idiots that should in no way, have any union protection

 

At the end of the day, Thatcher was nothing more than a believer in Thatcherism, and, whatever that was - one's thing's for certain, it didn't help the majority.

 

Without question the most stupid statement in this entire discussion.

[TheBitch]

 

The problem with the Union approach' date=' is that it assumes all people are born equal. They are not.[/quote']

 

If I could neg you again I would, you fucking moron.

[Stu Monty]

KopOut really not understanding the essence of collective bargaining there, nor how bargaining with the slackers can help the grafters.

[brucespanner]

KopOut really not understanding the essence of collective bargaining there, nor how bargaining with the slackers can help the grafters.

 

He's a lost cause Stu don't bother.

 

He's read a few tin foil hatted pronunciations on the Internetz written by illiterate imbeciles, misinterpreted it, misrepresented it, divided it by mong and come to a conclusion of advanced stupidity.

 

That's the problem with the Internet, or should I say open access, idiots don't have the cognitive wherewithal to process, let alone deconstruct, what is actually being said and they proceed to quote it verbatim as fact without any understanding of its implications whatsofuckingever.

[Whelan]

The problem with the Union approach, is that it assumes all people are born equal. They are not. One worker works harder than another, and his/her wages and working conditions, should be reflected likewise. A blanket carpet bombing approach to wages and conditions for 'the workforce' is is not only impractical, it's unjust.

 

Here in Aotearoa, we have an 'Employment Contracts Act' which allows each employee to negotiate his/her worth. I would argue that there are some slackers and idiots that should in no way, have any union protection

 

At the end of the day, Thatcher was nothing more than a believer in Thatcherism, and, whatever that was - one's thing's for certain, it didn't help the majority.

 

For starters people are born equal. As far as being a Pit Pony for a corporation is concerned.

[zigackly]

At the end of the day, Thatcher was nothing more than a believer in Thatcherism

 

Brilliantly observed.

[KopOut]

I should probably quit while I'm behind, as I'm incurring everybody's wrath, and quite why I put 'born' in there is beyond me, cos seriously, I didn't mean to. I've been drinking abit, however.

 

What I'm trying to communicate, in my limited way, is that the 'Left' and the 'Right' will just continue to react to each other, when the solution is probably in the middle somewhere. I'm not a Socialist, but then again, I believe that Capitalism should come with mature social responsibility. I think that Free Market Economics needs to be balanced with Social responsibility, but that, for me, is different to Socialism.

 

As for Thatcher, she took what she wanted and be damned to anybody who got in her way. The results speak for themselves.

[VladimirIlyich]

I should probably quit while I'm behind' date=' as I'm incurring everybody's wrath, and quite why I put 'born' in there is beyond me, cos seriously, I didn't mean to. I've been drinking abit, however.

 

What I'm trying to communicate, in my limited way, is that the 'Left' and the 'Right' will just continue to react to each other, when the solution is probably in the middle somewhere. I'm not a Socialist, but then again, I believe that Capitalism should come with mature social responsibility. I think that Free Market Economics needs to be balanced with Social responsibility, but that, for me, is different to Socialism.

 

As for Thatcher, she took what she wanted and be damned to anybody who got in her way. The results speak for themselves.[/quote']

 

You make more sense when you've been drinking!

 

Capitalism and social responsibility simply dont go together and never will, at least not in the current form.

 

Profit, profit, profit means exactly that. Profit x n to the power of eternity is all that matters in todays world and collective bargaining is the only way workers can have a voice against being treated like absolute shite.

Like I said earlier though, workers have either abandoned unions due to the constant biased media coverage or are just terrified of it being used as a reason to dismiss them, usually with a craftily worded cover story that never mentions union involvement.

[KopOut]

You make more sense when you've been drinking!

 

Capitalism and social responsibility simply dont go together and never will, at least not in the current form.

 

Profit, profit, profit means exactly that. Profit x n to the power of eternity is all that matters in todays world and collective bargaining is the only way workers can have a voice against being treated like absolute shite.

Like I said earlier though, workers have either abandoned unions due to the constant biased media coverage or are just terrified of it being used as a reason to dismiss them, usually with a craftily worded cover story that never mentions union involvement.

 

Why is that people like Bill Gates then , seem to do just that? Sure, he's not really threatening his his own financial security with his benevolence, but we can't deny the man has a social conscience, and at least attempts to redistribute the wealth of his own success, and this is on top of what he and his organisation has provided the world with i.e. a powerful tool for both business and recreation?

[Skidfingers McGonical]

Why is that people like Bill Gates then , seem to do just that? Sure, he's not really threatening his his own financial security with his benevolence, but we can't deny the man has a social conscience, and at least attempts to redistribute the wealth of his own success, and this is on top of what he and his organisation has provided the world with i.e. a powerful tool for both business and recreation?

 

Has he made a dildo that produces jizz and helps women make babies or the male alternative of a lifelike doll that succumbs to the man's every demand and doesn't answer back and just helps him unload his jizz into it and "voilà" a baby is born, he can go out and she will look after it?

 

Oh... you mean recreation as in fun don't you?

[VladimirIlyich]

 

Why is that people like Bill Gates then ' date=' seem to do just that? Sure, he's not really threatening his his own financial security with his benevolence, but we can't deny the man has a social conscience, and at least attempts to redistribute the wealth of his own success, and this is on top of what he and his organisation has provided the world with i.e. a powerful tool for both business and recreation?[/quote']

 

He's either a) one of very few with a social conscience (im sure there are stories that may indicate otherwise, or about his corporation anyway or b) we simply dont hear of any misdeeds through a highly skilled PR department.

 

Problem is that he and maybe even the Google company? are simply exceptions to the rule.

Ive heard about Gates benevolence towards the likes of African children but what about closer to home? Is he making a difference there?

[Whelan]

I should probably quit while I'm behind, as I'm incurring everybody's wrath, and quite why I put 'born' in there is beyond me, cos seriously, I didn't mean to. I've been drinking abit, however.

 

What I'm trying to communicate, in my limited way, is that the 'Left' and the 'Right' will just continue to react to each other, when the solution is probably in the middle somewhere. I'm not a Socialist, but then again, I believe that Capitalism should come with mature social responsibility. I think that Free Market Economics needs to be balanced with Social responsibility, but that, for me, is different to Socialism.

 

As for Thatcher, she took what she wanted and be damned to anybody who got in her way. The results speak for themselves.

 

Haha - drinking is always advised before a discussion on politics!

 

I don't think the middle is the solution, the solution is where your beliefs take you - mine, and most of us here a taken to the left. We believe in society and a sense of community and are prepared to absorb the costs that provide a fair and equitable society, which doesn't mean we all get paid the same no matter what. Others disagree, because they're selfish cunts - so they are on the right.

 

The middle is for people who have no opinion, no value and no heart. The middle is bland and neutral and I don't think life is about being neutral.

 

A personal opinion of mine is this - most successful people use the phrase 'there is no such thing as luck' far more than others! As though they feel that the discussion of luck is a personal attack on their success. Luck is intrinsic to life - others are more capable, to ride the bad luck, others through birth and wealth able to absorb bad luck and better prepared to take advantage of good luck. But luck is with us until the day we die.

[xerxes]

Ideologically there is not much which divides the Labour and Conservative parties now, on most things they are defined by the past, not the future.

 

Social responsibility requires profit to produce surpluses to share around.

 

Self- interest continues to blight modern British politics. On the left, the non-productive public sector has grown and is difficult to tame, on the right globalism has meant that the excesses of profit for the few is no easier to rein in.

 

The modern world is increasingly disconnected. Social responsibility increasingly difficult to sell. The looters of 18 months ago are just as disconnected as the bankers.

 

Thatcher seized the moment to change the course of the country for thirty years, the way is clear for a figure from the Left to do the same.