Thatcher

[Creator Supreme]

The V&A have labelled the evil old bitch as a 'contemporary villain'.

 

The gammons are apoplectic, love it.

[Bruce Spanner]

1 minute ago, Creator Supreme said:

The V&A have labelled the evil old bitch as a 'contemporary villain'.

 

The gammons are apoplectic, love it.

Tristram Hunt is the director, fair play to him.

[Creator Supreme]

1 minute ago, Bruce Spanner said:

Tristram Hunt is the director, fair play to him.

Aye, it's not even close to how evil she was, but to actually take the step they have I only see as progress.

 

Hopefully it will destroy the pacemakers of a few of the withered old bastards who voted for her.

[Bjornebye]

1 hour ago, Creator Supreme said:

Aye, it's not even close to how evil she was, but to actually take the step they have I only see as progress.

 

Hopefully it will destroy the pacemakers of a few of the withered old bastards who voted for her.

And the middle aged twats who still think she was great. 

[Gnasher]

17 hours ago, Bjornebye said:

And the middle aged twats who still think she was great. 

 

Here's someone else who still thinks she's great. Front page of today's Telegraph. 

 

Thread...

 

 

 

 

She wears a red rosette though. 

 

 

 

 

[Gnasher]

I'll put this here as its about Thatcher and this the Thatcher thread. Appears Lammy the latest to bathe himself in the adulation pond now. 

 

 

Visionary indeed. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Gnasher]

Excellent this from Dan Jarvis from a few weeks ago. 

 

 

https://www.politicshome.com/thehouse/article/margaret-thatchers-legacy-is-one-of-devastation?s=09

 

 

[Pete]

Still dead. 

[Harry's Lad]

27 minutes ago, Pete said:

Still dead. 

Nope.

It sounds like that witch's icy fingers are pulling the strings of some of the shadow cabinet.

God help us if that's the case.

[Bjornebye]

The witch is dead but the smell remains 

[Fowlers God]

1 hour ago, Bjornebye said:

The witch is dead but the smell remains 

 

Dan Wootton needs to stop fucking her corpse

[Creator Supreme]

Isn't it a shame that we can't go back in time and show the likes of the younger Lammy what he'd turn into as he spent more time in politics?

 

He'd probably walk off a cliff!

 

If you think that evil old hag did one single bit of good for the majority of residents of this cuntry, go and take your head for a shit!

[Gnasher]

"Visionary" 

 

 

 

 

 

[redinblack]

6 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

"Visionary" 

 

 

 

 

 

Fuck Her To Hell And Back.

[Creator Supreme]

15 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

"Visionary" 

 

 

 

 

 

If that's true and she died penniless, that's fucking karma.

[Arniepie]

On 20/03/2024 at 15:16, Creator Supreme said:

Isn't it a shame that we can't go back in time and show the likes of the younger Lammy what he'd turn into as he spent more time in politics?

 

He'd probably walk off a cliff!

 

If you think that evil old hag did one single bit of good for the majority of residents of this cuntry, go and take your head for a shit!

Half the country think she was the best pm we ever had.

[Creator Supreme]

21 minutes ago, Arniepie said:

Half the country think she was the best pm we ever had.

Well that half of the country are twats.

[Bjornebye]

Guess what ….

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

She’s still in the mud the fucking hateful cunt 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

3 hours ago, Gnasher said:

"Visionary" 

 

 

 

 

 

What definition of "penury" includes having someone put you up at the fucking Ritz?

 

[Barrington Womble]

I listened to an episode of The News Agents podcast earlier in the week and they discussed Lammy and Reeves and their take on it in the end (they seemed to have a go a couple of times to get there), reeves was trying to say what we need now is a radical government. If you listened to other parts of the reeves speech, they took it as critical of both Thatcher and New Labour. I haven't heard the speech (and I am unlikely to do so), but I thought it an interesting take considering the headlines. 

[Gnasher]

9 hours ago, Barrington Womble said:

I listened to an episode of The News Agents podcast earlier in the week and they discussed Lammy and Reeves and their take on it in the end (they seemed to have a go a couple of times to get there), reeves was trying to say what we need now is a radical government. If you listened to other parts of the reeves speech, they took it as critical of both Thatcher and New Labour. I haven't heard the speech (and I am unlikely to do so), but I thought it an interesting take considering the headlines. 

 

She didn't mention Thatcher by name. The main theme of her speech was growth. She said 1979 ushered in a decade of renewal. As soon as a Labour Chancellor mentions 1979 the headlines write themselves. 

 

She implied the following decade brought about a period of "national renewal" and described it as "radical' (she was right there). In fairness she also criticised Lawsons boom and bust and the economic instability that went with it. Its her implications thar Thatchers government brought growth and national renewal which raised the eyebrows. 

 

 

 

 

Reeves also took a dig at Gordon Brown and New Labour (not providing a steady workplace) and the economic policies of Corbyn. The main bone of her speech was a straight lift from Rishi Sunaks from two years ago. Clip in link. She also said she was going to follow the same fiscal rules as the Tories re spending.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I tried to discuss the contents in the Starmer thread the other night but it got deflected and turned into a bun fight. 

 

[Gnasher]

^ here's Reeves number 2 Darren Jones, shadow treasury minister,  when asked about her comments. 

 

Both Jones and Reeves are spouting absolute fucking nonsense. 

 

 

 

 

[skend04]

Do you lack the ability to put your argument in one or 2 posts?

 

This forum is now resembling my email junk folder, it's just a constant stream of spamming every thread that might have something to do with what you're railing against on a particular day. Not even China or Russia wreak this kind of cyber warfare on the West. 

[Barrington Womble]

1 hour ago, Gnasher said:

 

She didn't mention Thatcher by name. The main theme of her speech was growth. She said 1979 ushered in a decade of renewal. As soon as a Labour Chancellor mentions 1979 the headlines write themselves. 

 

She implied the following decade brought about a period of "national renewal" and described it as "radical' (she was right there). In fairness she also criticised Lawsons boom and bust and the economic instability that went with it. Its her implications thar Thatchers government brought growth and national renewal which raised the eyebrows. 

 

 

 

 

Reeves also took a dig at Gordon Brown and New Labour (not providing a steady workplace) and the economic policies of Corbyn. The main bone of her speech was a straight lift from Rishi Sunaks from two years ago. Clip in link. She also said she was going to follow the same fiscal rules as the Tories re spending.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I tried to discuss the contents in the Starmer thread the other night but it got deflected and turned into a bun fight. 

 

 

The thing on the fiscal rules, I think what they're trying to do here is illustrate they are a party of fiscal responsibility. In fact this was another point The News Agents brought up. They were saying for decades all the Tories needed to do was point to the state of the country in the 70s and that's why labour can't be trusted. They think reeves is trying to turn this into the same sort of moment. The ability for labour going forward to be able to reference for decades, don't trust the Tories on the economy. And as the Tories slowly convert into a single issue flag waving party, that might be more than possible. 

 

one of the things they mentioned about the complaint of new labour was doing nothing to slow or stop the off shoring of the late 90s, early 2000s. And it's actually something I agree about. Maybe because of the industry I work in, I could seen it coming a mile off. And we were not just offshoring low paid jobs we couldn't fill, we were allowing the offshoring of high earning jobs, the type you'd like to keep in the economy. 

 

All in all though, at this point, I find it all a bit of a game. Job one is just to make sure we get these cunts out. Job 2 is a labour majority. And finally, obliteration of the Tories. I think this fluttering the eye lashes towards the traditional Tory core votes. I think it's a realisation they can win those voters. Not one or two , but win them in their masses. It may also be acknowledgement that they might win some red wall voters back, but if reform is going to stand, those voters may be lost to them. 

 

Despite the constant criticism starmer and his front bench have had since they took over, I think the polls suggest they know what they're going to at least ensure the next government is red. I don't mind any bluster that gets us there. Any chat or promises made now will easily be blown away if labour win, because they can say "we hadn't seen the state of the economy when we said that, the Tories we hiding all kinds". I'm genuinely excited by the prospect of destroying the Tory's at the next election and I don't want starmer and his team to give traditional Tories who are ready to vote labour any reason to bottle it. To use that cunt Johnson's words, we need to borrow their vote. And then after that ensure we get the economy back on track to enable us to build a strong future and a fairer society. This labour government will be judged on our quality of life in another 5 years. 

[Gnasher]

50 minutes ago, Barrington Womble said:

 

The thing on the fiscal rules, I think what they're trying to do here is illustrate they are a party of fiscal responsibility. In fact this was another point The News Agents brought up. They were saying for decades all the Tories needed to do was point to the state of the country in the 70s and that's why labour can't be trusted. They think reeves is trying to turn this into the same sort of moment. The ability for labour going forward to be able to reference for decades, don't trust the Tories on the economy. And as the Tories slowly convert into a single issue flag waving party, that might be more than possible. 

 

one of the things they mentioned about the complaint of new labour was doing nothing to slow or stop the off shoring of the late 90s, early 2000s. And it's actually something I agree about. Maybe because of the industry I work in, I could seen it coming a mile off. And we were not just offshoring low paid jobs we couldn't fill, we were allowing the offshoring of high earning jobs, the type you'd like to keep in the economy. 

 

All in all though, at this point, I find it all a bit of a game. Job one is just to make sure we get these cunts out. Job 2 is a labour majority. And finally, obliteration of the Tories. I think this fluttering the eye lashes towards the traditional Tory core votes. I think it's a realisation they can win those voters. Not one or two , but win them in their masses. It may also be acknowledgement that they might win some red wall voters back, but if reform is going to stand, those voters may be lost to them. 

 

Despite the constant criticism starmer and his front bench have had since they took over, I think the polls suggest they know what they're going to at least ensure the next government is red. I don't mind any bluster that gets us there. Any chat or promises made now will easily be blown away if labour win, because they can say "we hadn't seen the state of the economy when we said that, the Tories we hiding all kinds". I'm genuinely excited by the prospect of destroying the Tory's at the next election and I don't want starmer and his team to give traditional Tories who are ready to vote labour any reason to bottle it. To use that cunt Johnson's words, we need to borrow their vote. And then after that ensure we get the economy back on track to enable us to build a strong future and a fairer society. This labour government will be judged on our quality of life in another 5 years. 

 

I actually agree with a lot of that. I agree she's staked her reputation on fiscal responsibility. I can see her point on New Labour. I definitely do not agree with the 79 stuff but ignoring that the major issue for me is her pledge on reducing the defict after the first five years whilst still producing growth at a level which will outstrip most of the G7. She's tied her hands and it was unnecessary to do so. The main two ways to increase growth are public spending on infrastructure or cutting taxes. The second is surely a no no so without the investment its difficult to see where that level of growth will come from. The other two options would be to rejoin the EU or have an increase in immigration to boost the economy but she's (probably wisely) ruled both out for political reasons.  The speech did contain some good things, the abolishment of the gig economy and crackdown on Zero hours contracts are more than  welcome. Although they've uturned a little on the second. 

 

 

The pollster John Curtice yesterday said the chances of the torys forming the next government are approx 5%. Its an interveiw for talk tv so I won't post link but if you type in his name you can veiw it. Point being pandering to the right is no longer necessary. The next election is in the bag. The question now is what are Labours visions  Government and that speech suggests their isn't one. The country is crying out for change, it'll be a tragedy if Labour do not produce it because of choice.