Is David Cameron a moron from the outer reaches of the universe? (Part 1)

Has to be said, the subsequent government also failed to reinvest in Council Housing, but at least they transferred a lot of the crumbling council housing stock over to Housing Associations which provide not-for-profit rented accommodation - social housing in a diffferent guise.Used to provide quite a lot of social support to tenants too.
I don't know for sure, but I bet Housing Associations have been struggling in recent years.

Perhaps Blue has forgotten that councils were not allowed to use the proceeds from council house sales to build more houses as it was needed to prop up the councils spending due to the cut in central government funding support.

Thatcher needed that money to help offset the cut in upper rate income tax and an increasing welfare demand due to the number of jobs lost with the closure of Britain's mines, ship building, steel works and other manufacturing industries which she was happy to see go to the wall.....

Oh god, the usual statement from useless working class Tories.

Yes the "right to buy" was very nice for council tenants then. But what about the fact that Thatcher did not continue building council houses so future generations could enjoy the same "right to buy" ?.

Answer that one bluey ?.

I did answer it Ivanhoe...I said the crime was the that the proceeds were not reinvetsed into a social housing building programme...So I agree with you and I know Thatcher used the money elsewhere...BUT I do think it was a good policy in principle

astradt1 wrote:Perhaps Blue has forgotten that councils were not allowed to use the proceeds from council house sales to build more houses as it was needed to prop up the councils spending due to the cut in central government funding support.

Thatcher needed that money to help offset the cut in upper rate income tax and an increasing welfare demand due to the number of jobs lost with the closure of Britain's mines, ship building, steel works and other manufacturing industries which she was happy to see go to the wall.....

There is not one policy of Thatcher's that long term helped people. She was 100 per cent a jumped up pompas middle class snob, and she has spawned the same in Britain's Blairites.

"There is not one policy of Thatcher's that long term helped people. She was 100 per cent a jumped up pompas middle class snob..."

It's always a grave disappointment to see people understate the case...

Phil Hornby wrote:"There is not one policy of Thatcher's that long term helped people. She was 100 per cent a jumped up pompas middle class snob..."

It's always a grave disappointment to see people understate the case...

If I understand you correctly, kindly improve on what I said then !.

"...kindly improve on what I said then "..

Such a task would be impossible, Ivanhoe...

I am sure like all 'good' lefties that you would prefer that no body owns their own homes so that a leftie power hungry and dictatorial state can control everyone at all times

blueturando. Do you have no self-esteem? Aren't you just a tiny bit embarrassed that you could put your name to such utter tripe, such meaningless and thoroughly dishonest prejudicial crap that would make a 'Daily Mail' columnist wince? It's so pathetic and ridiculous it doesn't merit a proper answer, but it says a hell of a lot more about you than it does about any 'lefties', good or otherwise.

The next time you pretend to be so 'moderate' in your views, reflect on that garbage that you've written. And don't bother to ask other posters to provide links for you when all you can summon up is that sort of crap.

blueturando wrote:The right to buy gave many families the only opportunity they would ever get of owning their own house and I am sure there were many, many takers on all sides of the political fence. I am sure like all 'good' lefties that you would prefer that no body owns their own homes so that a leftie power hungry and dictatorial state can control everyone at all times

The crime was to not reinvest the proceeds from these sales into the new building of social housing

Blue I am not disputing that fact people having the right to buy there council homes, but what the FCUK happened to the money they paid, and yes I know it was reduced, I know where back into the treasury so that Thatcher could give her Ministers a pay rise from the back door" EXPENSES", yes it was thatcher that set up the system so that she did not mention that her ministers where getting a pay rise while everybody else had to go without pay rises, and this was during a depression the Tory Ministers where fine and dandy but the PLEBS just had to starve do you see any similarity here blue ??

"...you would prefer that no body owns their own homes ..."

One does have to admire any attempt at seeking to be even more puerile than The Sun...

Phil Hornby wrote:

"...you would prefer that no body owns their own homes ..."

One does have to admire any attempt at seeking to be even more puerile than The Sun...

That is not a hard job PH, its the fact he is trying to justify Thatcher letting people buy there council homes without putting the money back into building more council homes that sticks in my throat PH.

Well guys, it's about time that this moron from the outer reaches of the village, set off for dinner and a pint at the pub...!

Phil Hornby wrote:Well guys, it's about time that this moron from the outer reaches of the village, set off for dinner and a pint at the pub...!

Remember PH do not drink & drive and no pork scratchings for you.

Thatcher sold council houses in order to bribe working class people into voting for her. In addition, she didn't believe that the state should play any part in the housing market.

The purpose of council housing when it was started by the Housing Act of 1919, was to provide homes for those people who could not afford to buy one of their own. The housing stock was built up with money provided by generations of taxpayers, only for Thatcher to come along and flog it off on the cheap.

If council houses were and are to be sold, it should be at the full market value and the money raised should be spent on replacing the housing stock. I don't see how anyone can think it fair that some people should get their houses at a discount while the rest have to pay the full price. It might be argued that you've been paying rent as a council tenant, but so what? Other people have probably had to rent privately before buying their homes.

However, may I remind you all that this thread is not about Thatcher but about the current moron in 10 Downing Street. I hope to have a thread about housing up and running over the weekend.

Ivan wrote:Thatcher sold council houses in order to bribe working class people into voting for her. In addition, she didn't believe that the state should play any part in the housing market.

The purpose of council housing when it was started by the Housing Act of 1919, was to provide homes for those people who could not afford to buy one of their own. The housing stock was built up with money provided by generations of taxpayers, only for Thatcher to come along and flog it off on the cheap.

If there had ever been Justice, Thatcher, all of her Ministers, and including the current Tory-led administration, would be in Court on Theft charges.

The free market is legalised theft.

Have you noticed how some Tories like to pretend that controlling people’s lives is a taken-for-granted characteristic of left-inclined governments? Yet it’s right-wingers who seek to restrict or prevent a woman’s right to have an abortion and right-wingers who don’t think women should become bishops. It’s right-wingers who don’t want gay people to marry, right-wingers who want to promote marriage for straight people through the tax system, and right-wingers who are preventing some wives from coming to the UK to be with their British husbands.

Right-wingers are trying to control drinking by bringing in minimum pricing for alcohol, a right-winger banned drinking on the London Underground, and it’s mainly right-wingers who won’t consider the decriminalisation of at least some drugs.

Wouldn’t it be nice if some people stopped and thought before boring us with the same old ‘Daily Mail’ stereotypes and prejudices?

Ivan wrote:Have you noticed how some Tories like to pretend that controlling people’s lives is a taken-for-granted characteristic of left-inclined governments? Yet it’s right-wingers who seek to restrict or prevent a woman’s right to have an abortion and right-wingers who don’t think women should become bishops. It’s right-wingers who don’t want gay people to marry, right-wingers who want to promote marriage for straight people through the tax system, and right-wingers who are preventing some wives from coming to the UK to be with their British husbands.

Right-wingers are trying to control drinking by bringing in minimum pricing for alcohol, a right-winger banned drinking on the London Underground, and it’s mainly right-wingers who won’t consider the decriminalisation of at least some drugs.

Wouldn’t it be nice if some people stopped and thought before boring us with the same old ‘Daily Mail’ stereotypes and prejudices?

There idea of a women comes from late 18th century Ivan, her place is in the kitchen or in the bedroom excuse my crudeness but the work place should be dominated by men according to the right wing just take a look at Cameron what he has done to the working women of the UK. As for drinking that was a suggestion from Alec Salmond here in Scotland so that was not an original thought by Cameron, he has no ideas of his own, I think if you go back to the thatcher years you will find that is where most of of his ideas came from but she never put them into action.

Redflag wrote:

Ivan wrote:Have you noticed how some Tories like to pretend that controlling people’s lives is a taken-for-granted characteristic of left-inclined governments?

There idea of a women comes from late 18th century Ivan, .... not an original thought by Cameron, he has no ideas of his own,....

Indeed Red, it's pathetically apparent that Cameron is driven hither and yon like a rudderless ship, dealing with events as they occur. Cameron's current preoccupation is with the threat from UKIP allied with a desire to impress the Eurosceptics within the Tory Party. The danger is that his macho posturing in Brussels will not impress the other EU members and Britain will be shown the door.

British Business would not benefit from that.

Heard it on the news Osborne was in Brussels behaving like a SPOILT BRAT, trying to threaten the EU if he did not get powers back for the UK we would leave, and the EU ministers where not happy that he was trying to Blackmail them plus he said there was other countries backing our stance do not be supprised it was all PIGGIN LIES.

My visit to the pub yesterday evening brought me into contact with a number of hard-line Tory supporters ( nothing new round here) and, as I politely scoffed my dinner, I took every opportunity to eavesdrop on the many conversations at the bar nearby. What struck me was that not only is the typical Tory unpleasant about 'others' but there is also a marked dislike by them of each other.

The evening seemed to be a catalogue of these Pillocks of Society competing with each other as to who is the most successful and has managed to con the most people in some way or 'outdone' another during the week. So, being moronic is not just the province of Cameron, it seems - he has spawned whole army of morons...!

Phil Hornby wrote:My visit to the pub yesterday evening brought me into contact with a number of hard-line Tory supporters ( nothing new round here) and, as I politely scoffed my dinner, I took every opportunity to eavesdrop on the many conversations at the bar nearby. What struck me was that not only is the typical Tory unpleasant about 'others' but there is also a marked dislike by them of each other.

The evening seemed to be a catalogue of these Pillocks of Society competing with each other as to who is the most successful and has managed to con the most people in some way or 'outdone' another during the week. So, being moronic is not just the province of Cameron, it seems - he has spawned whole army of morons...!

There is no honour among thieves.

Phil Hornby wrote:My visit to the pub yesterday evening brought me into contact with a number of hard-line Tory supporters ( nothing new round here) and, as I politely scoffed my dinner, I took every opportunity to eavesdrop on the many conversations at the bar nearby. What struck me was that not only is the typical Tory unpleasant about 'others' but there is also a marked dislike by them of each other.

The evening seemed to be a catalogue of these Pillocks of Society competing with each other as to who is the most successful and has managed to con the most people in some way or 'outdone' another during the week. So, being moronic is not just the province of Cameron, it seems - he has spawned whole army of morons...!

Your a bigger person than me PH, they would have been wearing my dinner and drink, did you not know the tories have a special machine that they put there members thru before they are allowed to join, that is why you see most of the L/Ds behaving like tories Danny Alexander is a prime example.

David Cameron, You Have No Mandate For What You Are Doing

Extracts from an article by Grahame Morris MP

"As I listened to David Cameron giving his New Year message, back at home in Easington I began to wonder what planet he is now on. Having recently had the opportunity to take my boys to see the Hobbit at the cinema during the Christmas break I thought perhaps he inhabits ‘Middle Earth’ with all of the elves and the hobbits, because that is how desperately out of touch he is. Cameron claims that ‘Britain is on track’, and he says that his is a government ‘in a hurry’, because we have ‘to compete with China, India and Indonesia’. This year, as Britain teeters on the edge of a triple dip recession, the Prime Minister urges a race to the bottom; a competition for the worst wages and conditions with the sweat shop economies of the developing world.

As he delivered his speech, the leaders of three great northern cities, Newcastle, Sheffield and Liverpool warned bleakly of an impending break down in social order, as their local authorities faced cuts of some 30% and more vital services will inevitably be cut. In the 1980s the Conservatives under Margaret Thatcher destroyed our mining industry and much of our manufacturing industry. Now, under another Conservative Prime Minister, albeit one who is propped up by the Liberal Democrats, they are bent on cutting, closing and privatising our public services with devastating implications for jobs.

My New Year message to David Cameron is simple; you have no mandate for what you are doing and we need a general election. What’s more, we need it now."

http://www.labourleft.co.uk/david-cameron-you-have-no-mandate-for-what-you-are-doing/

Ivan wrote:David Cameron, You Have No Mandate For What You Are Doing

Extracts from an article by Grahame Morris MP
http://www.labourleft.co.uk/david-cameron-you-have-no-mandate-for-what-you-are-doing/

Great article - thanks for the link!

David Cameron, You Have No Mandate For What You Are Doing

And of course the unelected Gordon Brown did

blueturando wrote:-
And of course the unelected Gordon Brown did

Yawn. I’d like a pound for every time I’ve answered that spurious remark about ‘unelected’ Prime Ministers. We don’t elect Prime Ministers in this country, we elect MPs, and the leader of the majority of MPs gets to become Prime Minister, even when there is no election - just as Macmillan did in 1957, Home in 1963, Callaghan in 1976, Major in 1990 and Brown in 2007. In 2010, there was no majority party, so Cameron got the job only with the aid of Nick Clegg. But you knew all that already, didn’t you?

A mandate is an authorisation (in this case from the electorate) to act in a particular way. Even putting aside the facts that 64% of those who voted didn’t choose the Tories, and 53% of constituencies didn’t send a Tory MP to Westminster, Cameron has no mandate to privatise the NHS. He promised that it was safe in Tory hands. He promised there would be no top-down reorganisation of it, and there has been. In April 2010, Cameron said: "The test of a good and strong society is how we look after the most vulnerable, the most frail and the poorest.” That sounds like a sick joke now; try asking some of the most vulnerable whether they feel looked after or demonised by this evil regime.

Grahame Morris is quite correct in saying that Cameron has no mandate for the destruction he’s inflicting on this country. And just in case you’ve forgotten, this thread is about Cameron, not Gordon Brown.

IVAN.....We would be having a very different conversation id the Lib Dems had decided to form a coalition with the Labour Party instead of the Tories and I am sure would be saying they would have had a legitimate mandate then. So your own personal political prejudices count for little on this argument.

You can give all the history lessons you like, but the fact is Brown was never elected PM. I always find it strange how so many Labour supporters can talk all day and night on the Tories, but become mute when asked to discuss anything Labour.
The fact is we have a coalition government that has a mandate to govern and make policy until 2015. Just because they are not your choice does not make it any less legitimate. The Labour party has formed coalitions before and you could go right back to the 1920's when Labour formed two governments without an overall majority.

"The test of a good and strong society is how we look after the most vulnerable, the most frail and the poorest.” That sounds like a sick joke now; try asking some of the most vulnerable whether they feel looked after or demonised by this evil regime.

Personally I believe that New Labour created the majority of the most vulnerable in society when they abandoned the working class man and women in favour of the 'underclass'. I guess the thought process was and is, that if people rely on the government to live then they will have to carry on supporting that government...A tactic that backfired in 2010 when many working class people realised they had been conned.
We've had this argument before, but there is something fundamentally wrong with this country when we have a welfare bill on £203 Million per year and only received £155 Million per year in income tax receipts...and this is before you factor in the cost of the NHS, Defense, Education...and the list goes on. No wonder the country is in such a financial mess, but you and others here are quite happy for us to go further and further in debt...Maybe its you who is from the outer reaches of the universe.

Grahame Morris is quite correct in saying that Cameron has no mandate for the destruction he’s inflicting on this country. And just in case you’ve forgotten, this thread is about Cameron, not Gordon Brown

What else would you expect someone like Grahame Morris to say? The destruction of this country has been well on its way for sometime under both Tory and Labour administrations and wont get any better under this lot or the next Labour government (when ever that may be) Everything you stand for contributes to the destruction of this country Ivan, with your free for all unlimited benefits, to uncontrolled immigration. Do you really think this is the path to a great and prosperous nation??? If you do then I feel sorry for you

blueturando wrote:

David Cameron, You Have No Mandate For What You Are Doing

And of course the unelected Gordon Brown did

But the UK did give the Labour party in the House of Commons a majority, and Gordon Brown just carried on what was in there Manifesto, unlike Cameron who has not got the mandate from the UK on the policies that he is carrying out at the moment blue.

But if Gordon Brown formed a coalition with the Lib Dems, he would've had a mandate? Would you be telling me the same thing if that had happened?

blueturando wrote:But if Gordon Brown formed a coalition with the Lib Dems, he would've had a mandate? Would you be telling me the same thing if that had happened?

Your so like the Tory party blue I take it you went through their sausage machine and your brain is full of what ifs, the L/Ds decided to go with the Tories and that is how it stands so it is no use you saying "What If", Since you have touched on the topic, Labour said they would have had to make cuts BUT they said they would have done the cuts over the PERIOD of TWO Parliaments. Does that satisfy your "What If" theory ?

Bobby....I have no problem with Gordon Brown being PM, but I also have no problem with Cameron being PM. If Labour were to form a coalition government in the next GE, the I would have no problem with Miliband being PM either.....It's the way our political system currently works

Labour said they would have had to make cuts BUT they said they would have done the cuts over the PERIOD of TWO Parliaments

I don't think 2 parliaments is going to be enough judging by the state of the EU & US economies. Most of the so called experts think Austerity will be with us until 2030...no matter who is in government

Although I don't read too much into polls, it was good see Labour's lead over the Tories has been slashed to just five points, according to an ICM poll released today.......Just thought I would cheer you all up on a cold, snowy/rainy Monday

The same old party-based polarised arguments!

It is not the fact that Cameron is PM that is the principal problem - the complaints are about what he is doing with his office - not least adopting policies which were never in his published manifesto. Add to this that he could not command a majority with his stated policies, and so, to attain his position, Cameron had to rely willingly upon the treacherous Clegg -a man who betrayed so comprehensively the promises he had made to the public so faithfully in the 2010 Election Campaign. That anyone should wish to be associated with a man of so little principle ( save that of being determined to obtain some power at any cost) demonstrates all too clearly the desperation Cameron had to grab political influence.

Such behaviour would have been just as reprehensible from a Labour politician - but a Labour politician didn't commit that act, so debate about it is irrelevent. The public will decide by 2015 what it feels about what Cameron is visiting on the nation and - at that stage - he ,the despicable Tory Party and its fellow-travellers will reap they have so spitefully sown...

Blueturando wrote: But if Gordon Brown formed a coalition with the Lib Dems, he would've had a mandate? Would you be telling me the same thing if that had happened?

Firstly Gordon Brown was PM because Labour actually won a General Election with a majority, something the Tories have failed to do for almost 2 decades.

Regarding Labour entering into a coalition with the Lib-Dems, that is so unlikely as I very much doubt there will be much left of the Lib-Dems come the 2015 General Elections.

Hypothetically speaking If a miracle happened and there still is a Lib-Dem party with enough MP’s to influence an election, and Labour entered into a coalition with them, my first act would be to tear up my party membership card and I would just get on with my businesses and leave politics alone.

Hypothetically speaking If a miracle happened and there still is a Lib-Dem party with enough MP’s to influence an election, and Labour entered into a coalition with them, my first act would be to tear up my party membership card and I would just get on with my businesses and leave politics alone

Bobby, it's good to see there are still some people with principles left in tact.
Maybe in the event of??? who knows......then a minority government is the better option

Blueturando said: Bobby, it's good to see there are still some people with principles left in tact.
Maybe in the event of??? who knows......then a minority government is the better option.

In the event of a minority Labour Government, it would be interesting to see who would get the enmity of the Lib-Dems, would it be Labour for not allowing snakes into their nest or would the Lib-Dems all of a sudden become principled and go against their traditional enemy the Conservatives.

I would hazard a guess that the LibDems have willingly and unashamedly become Parliamentary prostitutes and would therefore 'establish an accord' with just about anyone who would give them a bit of power - a luxury they would never otherwise achieve.

It is a difficult position to attain, but you have to hand it to them - Clegg's Harlots are even worse then the Tories - of whom we could never have expected better...

Lie down with dogs and you get up with fleas.