Angela Merkel now 5/2 f fav for the Nobel Peace Prize on betfair but Paddy Power have her at 7s..
Announcement on Thursday.
If she gets it then it will be as much a farce as when Obama got it. She has considerably increased the threat of violence and enriching of people traffickers. The fact that she is even in the running is a joke.
Agree. Who are the other runners though?
I do wonder if they should be more discretionary with the prize - if there isn't someone that clearly deserves it, then withhold it for a year and be willing to present double awards the next year.
Angela Merkel now 5/2 f fav for the Nobel Peace Prize on betfair but Paddy Power have her at 7s..
Announcement on Thursday.
If she gets it then it will be as much a farce as when Obama got it. She has considerably increased the threat of violence and enriching of people traffickers. The fact that she is even in the running is a joke.
Agree. Who are the other runners though?
I do wonder if they should be more discretionary with the prize - if there isn't someone that clearly deserves it, then withhold it for a year and be willing to present double awards the next year.
I think the Pope is in the running, and IMO, the best shout.
I owe everything I have today to the welfare state. I thank God that it came into being and I give heartfelt thanks to those who ensured that it did. The welfare state gave me life chances that had been denied to the countless generations of my family who came before. Clever, hard-working people denied health care, decent housing, security in old age and opportunities merely because they were poor. And mine is a story that has millions of equivalents in every part of this country. The creation of the welfare state - thanks largely to the Labour and Liberal parties (whether directly or through changing the terms of debate) - is one of the crowning glories of the UK's history.
No it is not. It is an aberration based on a flawed belief that people need to be carried all the way through their lives and that if they are not then they will inevitably fail. There are countless examples of people the world over born into poverty who achieved great things by their own efforts. If you are ascribing all your successes to the existence of the welfare state carrying you through your life then that says a lot about your own lack of ability and ambition.
The welfare state is necessary as a basic safety net so that no one need live in hunger or without a home die because of lack of medical care. But it should be nothing more than that. It certainly should not be used to hamstring one section of the population whilst carrying another. Not least of all because of the basic truth of Thatcher's adage
"The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."
Hollande just said leave Europe(EU) and you leave democracy,pathetic comment.
That's good. Presumably he won't want the UK as a disruptive totalitarian state on France's doorstep, so I guess that means he'll be very amenable to Cameron's renegotiation position.
Angela and Francois are at the European Parliament. Predictably most speakers are calling for more Europe.
The most telling thing about Cameron today - which hardly anyone seems to have picked up upon - is his very strong signal that he will recommend Remain.
There is no virtually no chance he will pitch for Leave.
The passage on the EU was short and telling. First, it was short (meaning he didn't feel that he needed to waste much time on it). Secondly, it indicated that he has a transactional view of Britain's relationship with the EU - we're in it for what we can get out of it. Thirdly, as you say, it was implicit that he thought that we were better off in. I may be wrong in this but I inferred a fourthly, which is that he thinks he can get a deal that is saleable to the British people.
Fifth it got no standing ovation just applause as despite the media spin it is no longer a key divisive issue. The party is no longer tearing itself apart over Europe.
If he wanted to Cameron could make real steps towards redefining the whole way in which we view political parties. By becoming a radically socially liberal but economically conservative leader he could transform politics in the UK. Certainly with the social trends being in the direction of more liberalism he would probably not find it all that hard.
The problem is that there is a third part of this equation which is to be truly radical in terms of the relationship between the state and the individual - cutting the involvement of the state in huge swathes of our lives and making people far more responsible for their own successes and failures whilst maintaining a very basic safety net. In effect reversing the last 70 years of encroaching socialism and welfarism. I am not convinced that Cameron has either the belief or the political will to do any of that. As a result whatever he can achieve will be too easily reversible come the next Labour Government whenever it appears.
Whether or not Cameron has the stomach for such journey, is a moot point because I am fairly certain that majority of the English people haven't. If Cameron and his clique could just deliver on what they have already promised he would go down in history as a great PM, he really doesn't need to go finding new frontiers to conquer. To put it another way he does not need to lead us to a new promised land just to make our existing land rather better than it currently is.
In my view, we have had enough of the promises let us see some delivery.
I think realistically, one can shrink the State. There's no reason why one couldn't establish a consensus that public spending would be around 30-35% of GDP, rather than 40-45% of GDP. But, I don't think there would be an appetite among the public for anything that's more radical.
Fair go, Mr. F.. State spending of 30-35% should not be outrageous. However we may, in fact almost certainly will, have to look at what the state does to get back down to that figure. Osborne's salami slicing will not be enough and will cause real damage if it is allowed to continue into the next spending round. However, to actually think about what the state should withdraw from, let alone actual implement such changes, would require more courage than I think Cameron or any of his gang actually possess.
I'd see the right as wanting to halt progress, to hark back to former (imagined) glories; the left as seeing the role of the state and spending as being paramount; and the sensible centre as trusting the people.
The right wing is in no way about harking back to former glories. From my position on the right it is entirely about limiting or ideally reducing the role of the state and increasing the freedom of the individual, of the family and of the community. This by definition is in direct opposition to any statist view which is generally - but not entirely - the position of the left. Bear in mind anarchists are generally considered to be of the left.
The centre is by no means necessarily sensible. Simply because something is generally agreed by consensus to be right and proper does not necessarily make it so. The centre ground for decades believed that homosexuality was wrong or something to be ashamed of. The same could be said of any number of social issues and indeed it is often those considered to be firmly of the right (Libertarians as an example) who have most strongly campaigned for freedom of the individual in social matters. .
Anarchists are nothing of the sort. Anarchist wanting more government spending and being opposed to cuts is like f**king for virginity. They don't understand the meaning of the word.
As a socially liberal, economically right relatively laissez faire Conservative (Libertarian in America) I am far more of am anarchist than any Anarchist.
I am against so called serious governments saying they are going to do things without explaining how. It seems Tories are no stranger to magical money trees when it comes to certain projects.
WRT Trident itself, I want a serious debate because of the cost and because we shouldn't muck around lightly with the post-war settlement (which goes for the EU Brexit too).
I of course don't have visual confirmation but it does seem that a firm stamp of the foot probably accompanied the compiling of this post.
Angela and Francois are at the European Parliament. Predictably most speakers are calling for more Europe.
The most telling thing about Cameron today - which hardly anyone seems to have picked up upon - is his very strong signal that he will recommend Remain.
There is no virtually no chance he will pitch for Leave.
The passage on the EU was short and telling. First, it was short (meaning he didn't feel that he needed to waste much time on it). Secondly, it indicated that he has a transactional view of Britain's relationship with the EU - we're in it for what we can get out of it. Thirdly, as you say, it was implicit that he thought that we were better off in. I may be wrong in this but I inferred a fourthly, which is that he thinks he can get a deal that is saleable to the British people.
Fifth it got no standing ovation just applause as despite the media spin it is no longer a key divisive issue. The party is no longer tearing itself apart over Europe.
I get the feeling that Dave is comfortable with the idea of us leaving the EU, much more so than Osborne.
Angela Merkel now 5/2 f fav for the Nobel Peace Prize on betfair but Paddy Power have her at 7s..
Announcement on Thursday.
If she gets it then it will be as much a farce as when Obama got it. She has considerably increased the threat of violence and enriching of people traffickers. The fact that she is even in the running is a joke.
Agree. Who are the other runners though?
I do wonder if they should be more discretionary with the prize - if there isn't someone that clearly deserves it, then withhold it for a year and be willing to present double awards the next year.
I think the Pope is in the running, and IMO, the best shout.
If he wanted to Cameron could make real steps towards redefining the whole way in which we view political parties. By becoming a radically socially liberal but economically conservative leader he could transform politics in the UK. Certainly with the social trends being in the direction of more liberalism he would probably not find it all that hard.
The problem is that there is a third part of this equation which is to be truly radical in terms of the relationship between the state and the individual - cutting the involvement of the state in huge swathes of our lives and making people far more responsible for their own successes and failures whilst maintaining a very basic safety net. In effect reversing the last 70 years of encroaching socialism and welfarism. I am not convinced that Cameron has either the belief or the political will to do any of that. As a result whatever he can achieve will be too easily reversible come the next Labour Government whenever it appears.
Whether or not Cameron has the stomach for such journey, is a moot point because I am fairly certain that majority of the English people haven't. If Cameron and his clique could just deliver on what they have already promised he would go down in history as a great PM, he really doesn't need to go finding new frontiers to conquer. To put it another way he does not need to lead us to a new promised land just to make our existing land rather better than it currently is.
In my view, we have had enough of the promises let us see some delivery.
Tories are always good at the windbagging but not so good on the delivery. Lots of pants wetting on here today by the acolytes.
''Fifth it got no standing ovation just applause as despite the media spin it is no longer a key divisive issue. The party is no longer tearing itself apart over Europe.''
Angela Merkel now 5/2 f fav for the Nobel Peace Prize on betfair but Paddy Power have her at 7s..
Announcement on Thursday.
If she gets it then it will be as much a farce as when Obama got it. She has considerably increased the threat of violence and enriching of people traffickers. The fact that she is even in the running is a joke.
Agree. Who are the other runners though?
I do wonder if they should be more discretionary with the prize - if there isn't someone that clearly deserves it, then withhold it for a year and be willing to present double awards the next year.
I think the Pope is in the running, and IMO, the best shout.
What for?
Nothing specific, but not being an arsehole is a good start.
I owe everything I have today to the welfare state. I thank God that it came into being and I give heartfelt thanks to those who ensured that it did. The welfare state gave me life chances that had been denied to the countless generations of my family who came before. Clever, hard-working people denied health care, decent housing, security in old age and opportunities merely because they were poor. And mine is a story that has millions of equivalents in every part of this country. The creation of the welfare state - thanks largely to the Labour and Liberal parties (whether directly or through changing the terms of debate) - is one of the crowning glories of the UK's history.
No it is not. It is an aberration based on a flawed belief that people need to be carried all the way through their lives and that if they are not then they will inevitably fail. There are countless examples of people the world over born into poverty who achieved great things by their own efforts. If you are ascribing all your successes to the existence of the welfare state carrying you through your life then that says a lot about your own lack of ability and ambition.
The welfare state is necessary as a basic safety net so that no one need live in hunger or without a home die because of lack of medical care. But it should be nothing more than that. It certainly should not be used to hamstring one section of the population whilst carrying another. Not least of all because of the basic truth of Thatcher's adage
"The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."
It gave me cradle to grave healthcare, ensured I had a decent home to live in, provided me with a free education and looked after me when I did not have a job. I did the rest, but would not have been in a position to without the help the state gave. We tried the other way for thousands of years. It didn't work.
Again I think you're mistaken, what May said was entirely unsayable and now said.
She's grasping a long overdue nettle. I don't find her speech at all at odds with Cameron - she was tackling a real issue well past its sell-by date.
One can be pro the right sort of immigration and against all the others. If the Tories are finally catching up with this - I'm delighted. CCHQ have been dumping climate change nonsense whilst still paying lip service. I'm a patient sort and pleased by this.
What fun. Cameron moves the Tories to the left (maybe, we shall see). TSE will be alright with this, but will most PB Tories?
I haven't seen any evidence of that yet apart from pitch and mood-music. In fact, on immigration, the sounds are that things will be tightened still further.
But, if he does move the Tory party left, and abandon the manifesto I voted for, he will have a bigger problem than just PB Tories.
I agree about the evidence - hence my "we shall see". If he means it and succeeds he needn't worry about PB Tories, there's plenty of electors in the sensible centre. Maybe it's a way of putting pale blue water between Cameron/Osborne and May.
She wasn't tackling anything , just giving some bluster. We will see tumbleweed before we see any results, her track record is pathetic.
If he wanted to Cameron could make real steps towards redefining the whole way in which we view political parties. By becoming a radically socially liberal but economically conservative leader he could transform politics in the UK. Certainly with the social trends being in the direction of more liberalism he would probably not find it all that hard.
The problem is that there is a third part of this equation which is to be truly radical in terms of the relationship between the state and the individual - cutting the involvement of the state in huge swathes of our lives and making people far more responsible for their own successes and failures whilst maintaining a very basic safety net. In effect reversing the last 70 years of encroaching socialism and welfarism. I am not convinced that Cameron has either the belief or the political will to do any of that. As a result whatever he can achieve will be too easily reversible come the next Labour Government whenever it appears.
Whether or not Cameron has the stomach for such journey, is a moot point because I am fairly certain that majority of the English people haven't. If Cameron and his clique could just deliver on what they have already promised he would go down in history as a great PM, he really doesn't need to go finding new frontiers to conquer. To put it another way he does not need to lead us to a new promised land just to make our existing land rather better than it currently is.
In my view, we have had enough of the promises let us see some delivery.
I think realistically, one can shrink the State. There's no reason why one couldn't establish a consensus that public spending would be around 30-35% of GDP, rather than 40-45% of GDP. But, I don't think there would be an appetite among the public for anything that's more radical.
Fair go, Mr. F.. State spending of 30-35% should not be outrageous. However we may, in fact almost certainly will, have to look at what the state does to get back down to that figure. Osborne's salami slicing will not be enough and will cause real damage if it is allowed to continue into the next spending round. However, to actually think about what the state should withdraw from, let alone actual implement such changes, would require more courage than I think Cameron or any of his gang actually possess.
I'm not sure monetary value is the way to manage perceived "state interference" - in reality, people get more worked up about wonky bananas than about the voerall level of state spending.
Hollande just said leave Europe(EU) and you leave democracy,pathetic comment.
Hands up if you care what the French think.
Well it seems with Merkel and Hollande,these two run the EU,they speeches on the way ahead for Europe were clapped by the majority in the European Parliament and that was more Europe.
Thank you for the kind words down thread - much appreciated
The interesting thing for me has been the juxtaposition of the three theme words this week - Security, Stability, Opportunity. I think that tells you all you need to know about the Conservatives.
The priority is Security - against what (migrants, Jeremy Corbyn, climate change, the Internet, Putin, IS, etc, etc) after which comes Stability (for which read economic continuity, no change, nothing too daring) and finally Opportunity (only available when the other two have been sorted out).
So we had on Monday the Minister for Stability and yesterday the Minister for Security in effect while Cameron has offered some "ideas" on Opportunity today there's an awful lot of Devil in that particular detail. Cameron has aligned with Farron on the need for more houses but how many, where, when and built by whom - that presumably means more migrant labour on the building sites, er, doesn't it ?
Blair's Labour might have put Opportunity first - there is an argument that Opportunity creates its own Stability and Security by creating a dynamic society where everyone has chances to succeed and better themselves.
Again I think you're mistaken, what May said was entirely unsayable and now said.
She's grasping a long overdue nettle. I don't find her speech at all at odds with Cameron - she was tackling a real issue well past its sell-by date.
One can be pro the right sort of immigration and against all the others. If the Tories are finally catching up with this - I'm delighted. CCHQ have been dumping climate change nonsense whilst still paying lip service. I'm a patient sort and pleased by this.
What fun. Cameron moves the Tories to the left (maybe, we shall see). TSE will be alright with this, but will most PB Tories?
I haven't seen any evidence of that yet apart from pitch and mood-music. In fact, on immigration, the sounds are that things will be tightened still further.
But, if he does move the Tory party left, and abandon the manifesto I voted for, he will have a bigger problem than just PB Tories.
I agree about the evidence - hence my "we shall see". If he means it and succeeds he needn't worry about PB Tories, there's plenty of electors in the sensible centre. Maybe it's a way of putting pale blue water between Cameron/Osborne and May.
You are mistaken about Climate Change and obviously scientifically illiterate. I didn't say anything about the merits of May's speech, so how can I be mistaken?
I'd see the right as wanting to halt progress, to hark back to former (imagined) glories; the left as seeing the role of the state and spending as being paramount; and the sensible centre as trusting the people.
The right wing is in no way about harking back to former glories. From my position on the right it is entirely about limiting or ideally reducing the role of the state and increasing the freedom of the individual, of the family and of the community. This by definition is in direct opposition to any statist view which is generally - but not entirely - the position of the left. Bear in mind anarchists are generally considered to be of the left.
The centre is by no means necessarily sensible. Simply because something is generally agreed by consensus to be right and proper does not necessarily make it so. The centre ground for decades believed that homosexuality was wrong or something to be ashamed of. The same could be said of any number of social issues and indeed it is often those considered to be firmly of the right (Libertarians as an example) who have most strongly campaigned for freedom of the individual in social matters. .
Anarchists are nothing of the sort. Anarchist wanting more government spending and being opposed to cuts is like f**king for virginity. They don't understand the meaning of the word.
As a socially liberal, economically right relatively laissez faire Conservative (Libertarian in America) I am far more of am anarchist than any Anarchist.
What does 'socially liberal' mean?
It means I no more want the government in the bedroom than I do in my wallet. The transformation from supporting Section 28 to legalising gay marriage is a remarkable change that will drift away from public debate but leave a lasting legacy. I know people now married or engaged who couldn't be in the past. Ultimately though this is no longer an issue. The idea of this being undone now is unimaginable the debate is over and we move on with our lives. My daughter will grow up and find the idea gays could once not get married as incomprehensible as I grew up to find that once interracial marriage wasn't legal in some places.
I'd see the right as wanting to halt progress, to hark back to former (imagined) glories; the left as seeing the role of the state and spending as being paramount; and the sensible centre as trusting the people.
The right wing is in no way about harking back to former glories. From my position on the right it is entirely about limiting or ideally reducing the role of the state and increasing the freedom of the individual, of the family and of the community. This by definition is in direct opposition to any statist view which is generally - but not entirely - the position of the left. Bear in mind anarchists are generally considered to be of the left.
The centre is by no means necessarily sensible. Simply because something is generally agreed by consensus to be right and proper does not necessarily make it so. The centre ground for decades believed that homosexuality was wrong or something to be ashamed of. The same could be said of any number of social issues and indeed it is often those considered to be firmly of the right (Libertarians as an example) who have most strongly campaigned for freedom of the individual in social matters. .
Anarchists are nothing of the sort. Anarchist wanting more government spending and being opposed to cuts is like f**king for virginity. They don't understand the meaning of the word.
As a socially liberal, economically right relatively laissez faire Conservative (Libertarian in America) I am far more of am anarchist than any Anarchist.
What does 'socially liberal' mean?
Bullshitter comes to mind
Only if you are a f**kwit who is unable to understand basic English. But then I think you have shown often enough that you qualify for that description.
Getting to say “security-threatening, terrorist-sympathising, Britain-hating ideology” about an opponent and knowing that it will resonate with middle-ground voters, the voters who decided the last election and who will decide the next election, is the stuff of a leader’s dreams.
How will Labour respond? Are the people around Corbyn idiots? Increasingly, one cannot rule that possibility out. They watched that well-crafted speech by a confident Cameron and then issued a statement shortly afterwards saying that it proved that Corbyn has got Cameron rattled. To believe that you do have to be an idiot.
I'd see the right as wanting to halt progress, to hark back to former (imagined) glories; the left as seeing the role of the state and spending as being paramount; and the sensible centre as trusting the people.
The right wing is in no way about harking back to former glories. From my position on the right it is entirely about limiting or ideally reducing the role of the state and increasing the freedom of the individual, of the family and of the community. This by definition is in direct opposition to any statist view which is generally - but not entirely - the position of the left. Bear in mind anarchists are generally considered to be of the left.
The centre is by no means necessarily sensible. Simply because something is generally agreed by consensus to be right and proper does not necessarily make it so. The centre ground for decades believed that homosexuality was wrong or something to be ashamed of. The same could be said of any number of social issues and indeed it is often those considered to be firmly of the right (Libertarians as an example) who have most strongly campaigned for freedom of the individual in social matters. .
If you'd read what I posted...
I don't think the position you define as "right wing" is particularly right wing.
It's a classically Liberal position - not seeking to put the Nation (right) or the State (left) in a position of authority over the individual.
I owe everything I have today to the welfare state. I thank God that it came into being and I give heartfelt thanks to those who ensured that it did. The welfare state gave me life chances that had been denied to the countless generations of my family who came before. Clever, hard-working people denied health care, decent housing, security in old age and opportunities merely because they were poor. And mine is a story that has millions of equivalents in every part of this country. The creation of the welfare state - thanks largely to the Labour and Liberal parties (whether directly or through changing the terms of debate) - is one of the crowning glories of the UK's history.
No it is not. It is an aberration based on a flawed belief that people need to be carried all the way through their lives and that if they are not then they will inevitably fail. There are countless examples of people the world over born into poverty who achieved great things by their own efforts. If you are ascribing all your successes to the existence of the welfare state carrying you through your life then that says a lot about your own lack of ability and ambition.
The welfare state is necessary as a basic safety net so that no one need live in hunger or without a home die because of lack of medical care. But it should be nothing more than that. It certainly should not be used to hamstring one section of the population whilst carrying another. Not least of all because of the basic truth of Thatcher's adage
"The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."
It gave me cradle to grave healthcare, ensured I had a decent home to live in, provided me with a free education and looked after me when I did not have a job. I did the rest, but would not have been in a position to without the help the state gave. We tried the other way for thousands of years. It didn't work.
Unless you are living in a different country to the UK it has done far more than that and much of it has been entirely unnecessary and been driven by ideology rather than need.
A basic safety net, nothing more. That is what a welfare state should provide.
Again I think you're mistaken, what May said was entirely unsayable and now said.
She's grasping a long overdue nettle. I don't find her speech at all at odds with Cameron - she was tackling a real issue well past its sell-by date.
One can be pro the right sort of immigration and against all the others. If the Tories are finally catching up with this - I'm delighted. CCHQ have been dumping climate change nonsense whilst still paying lip service. I'm a patient sort and pleased by this.
What fun. Cameron moves the Tories to the left (maybe, we shall see). TSE will be alright with this, but will most PB Tories?
I haven't seen any evidence of that yet apart from pitch and mood-music. In fact, on immigration, the sounds are that things will be tightened still further.
But, if he does move the Tory party left, and abandon the manifesto I voted for, he will have a bigger problem than just PB Tories.
I agree about the evidence - hence my "we shall see". If he means it and succeeds he needn't worry about PB Tories, there's plenty of electors in the sensible centre. Maybe it's a way of putting pale blue water between Cameron/Osborne and May.
She wasn't tackling anything , just giving some bluster. We will see tumbleweed before we see any results, her track record is pathetic.
Mr. G. (or is it Mrs., Miss or Ms. G today - where are you identifying this afternoon?), I said much the same yesterday. OK, it is a party conference and one should not expect too much more than speeches designed to please the people in the hall. However, when speakers identify problems that lots of people have been talking about for years but on which none but the sketchiest action has been taken, then one is. I think, entitled to shout, " So what, specifically, are you doing about it?" Of answers we should, from this government, expect none.
I am against so called serious governments saying they are going to do things without explaining how. It seems Tories are no stranger to magical money trees when it comes to certain projects.
WRT Trident itself, I want a serious debate because of the cost and because we shouldn't muck around lightly with the post-war settlement (which goes for the EU Brexit too).
Translation: I'm against Tories.
Translation: I am stuck with Tories whether I like it or not. They need to be held to account for the choices they make.
I think any sensible socialist should be more concerned about being stuck with Corbyn, that has to change first
I'd see the right as wanting to halt progress, to hark back to former (imagined) glories; the left as seeing the role of the state and spending as being paramount; and the sensible centre as trusting the people.
The right wing is in no way about harking back to former glories. From my position on the right it is entirely about limiting or ideally reducing the role of the state and increasing the freedom of the individual, of the family and of the community. This by definition is in direct opposition to any statist view which is generally - but not entirely - the position of the left. Bear in mind anarchists are generally considered to be of the left.
The centre is by no means necessarily sensible. Simply because something is generally agreed by consensus to be right and proper does not necessarily make it so. The centre ground for decades believed that homosexuality was wrong or something to be ashamed of. The same could be said of any number of social issues and indeed it is often those considered to be firmly of the right (Libertarians as an example) who have most strongly campaigned for freedom of the individual in social matters. .
Anarchists are nothing of the sort. Anarchist wanting more government spending and being opposed to cuts is like f**king for virginity. They don't understand the meaning of the word.
As a socially liberal, economically right relatively laissez faire Conservative (Libertarian in America) I am far more of am anarchist than any Anarchist.
What does 'socially liberal' mean?
Bullshitter comes to mind
Only if you are a f**kwit who is unable to understand basic English. But then I think you have shown often enough that you qualify for that description.
Very pleasant , nice of you to stick up for your buddy. Is he not capable of answering for himself , needs his little helper to post insults for him. Get lost saddo and tell your buddy to man up.
Amazing how many Labour supporters still think benefit culture is a good thing for poor people when it obviously isn´t.
No-one thinks it's a good thing, but laissez-faire capitalism is even worse.
No-one is advocating laissez-faire capitalism. Benefits will still exist, they will just be more tightly controlled.
Well I am, but I fully accept that believing in freedom is a minority sport.
Laissez faire capitalism - unseen since the 19th century here - is the belief that everyone should have the freedom to suffer as much as they can. It cannot maximise freedom in the sense most people believe it.
Angela and Francois are at the European Parliament. Predictably most speakers are calling for more Europe.
The most telling thing about Cameron today - which hardly anyone seems to have picked up upon - is his very strong signal that he will recommend Remain.
There is no virtually no chance he will pitch for Leave.
Mr. Song, it's entirely possible not to believe in global warming/climate change on scientific grounds, given how wrong the proponents of the theory have been (snow becoming a thing of the past, the IPCC getting its forecasts repeatedly wrong, the hockey stick nonsense and so on).
I'd see the right as wanting to halt progress, to hark back to former (imagined) glories; the left as seeing the role of the state and spending as being paramount; and the sensible centre as trusting the people.
The right wing is in no way about harking back to former glories. From my position on the right it is entirely about limiting or ideally reducing the role of the state and increasing the freedom of the individual, of the family and of the community. This by definition is in direct opposition to any statist view which is generally - but not entirely - the position of the left. Bear in mind anarchists are generally considered to be of the left.
The centre is by no means necessarily sensible. Simply because something is generally agreed by consensus to be right and proper does not necessarily make it so. The centre ground for decades believed that homosexuality was wrong or something to be ashamed of. The same could be said of any number of social issues and indeed it is often those considered to be firmly of the right (Libertarians as an example) who have most strongly campaigned for freedom of the individual in social matters. .
Anarchists are nothing of the sort. Anarchist wanting more government spending and being opposed to cuts is like f**king for virginity. They don't understand the meaning of the word.
As a socially liberal, economically right relatively laissez faire Conservative (Libertarian in America) I am far more of am anarchist than any Anarchist.
What does 'socially liberal' mean?
Bullshitter comes to mind
Only if you are a f**kwit who is unable to understand basic English. But then I think you have shown often enough that you qualify for that description.
Very pleasant , nice of you to stick up for your buddy. Is he not capable of answering for himself , needs his little helper to post insults for him. Get lost saddo and tell your buddy to man up.
Do all Scottish Wetherspoons have internet access, or just the very empty one that you're dribbling in?
I owe everything I have today to the welfare state. I thank God that it came into being and I give heartfelt thanks to those who ensured that it did. The welfare state gave me life chances that had been denied to the countless generations of my family who came before. Clever, hard-working people denied health care, decent housing, security in old age and opportunities merely because they were poor. And mine is a story that has millions of equivalents in every part of this country. The creation of the welfare state - thanks largely to the Labour and Liberal parties (whether directly or through changing the terms of debate) - is one of the crowning glories of the UK's history.
No it is not. It is an aberration based on a flawed belief that people need to be carried all the way through their lives and that if they are not then they will inevitably fail. There are countless examples of people the world over born into poverty who achieved great things by their own efforts. If you are ascribing all your successes to the existence of the welfare state carrying you through your life then that says a lot about your own lack of ability and ambition.
The welfare state is necessary as a basic safety net so that no one need live in hunger or without a home die because of lack of medical care. But it should be nothing more than that. It certainly should not be used to hamstring one section of the population whilst carrying another. Not least of all because of the basic truth of Thatcher's adage
"The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."
It gave me cradle to grave healthcare, ensured I had a decent home to live in, provided me with a free education and looked after me when I did not have a job. I did the rest, but would not have been in a position to without the help the state gave. We tried the other way for thousands of years. It didn't work.
Unless you are living in a different country to the UK it has done far more than that and much of it has been entirely unnecessary and been driven by ideology rather than need.
A basic safety net, nothing more. That is what a welfare state should provide.
Elide 'basic' and it becomes more palatable. Help for the poor, the sick, the disabled and the needy. I don't count education as 'welfare'.
I'm sure Guy Verhofstadt and the rest of the EU are barking mad. He is calling for a common Foreign and Defence policy, a common Border and Migration policy too. The only sense I've heard spoken was by a Polish chap and now an East German former communist lady.
I owe everything I have today to the welfare state. I thank God that it came into being and I give heartfelt thanks to those who ensured that it did. The welfare state gave me life chances that had been denied to the countless generations of my family who came before. Clever, hard-working people denied health care, decent housing, security in old age and opportunities merely because they were poor. And mine is a story that has millions of equivalents in every part of this country. The creation of the welfare state - thanks largely to the Labour and Liberal parties (whether directly or through changing the terms of debate) - is one of the crowning glories of the UK's history.
No it is not. It is an aberration based on a flawed belief that people need to be carried all the way through their lives and that if they are not then they will inevitably fail. There are countless examples of people the world over born into poverty who achieved great things by their own efforts. If you are ascribing all your successes to the existence of the welfare state carrying you through your life then that says a lot about your own lack of ability and ambition.
The welfare state is necessary as a basic safety net so that no one need live in hunger or without a home die because of lack of medical care. But it should be nothing more than that. It certainly should not be used to hamstring one section of the population whilst carrying another. Not least of all because of the basic truth of Thatcher's adage
"The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."
It gave me cradle to grave healthcare, ensured I had a decent home to live in, provided me with a free education and looked after me when I did not have a job. I did the rest, but would not have been in a position to without the help the state gave. We tried the other way for thousands of years. It didn't work.
Unless you are living in a different country to the UK it has done far more than that and much of it has been entirely unnecessary and been driven by ideology rather than need.
A basic safety net, nothing more. That is what a welfare state should provide.
Luckily that did not apply for me. And in January I will be writing a cheque to HMRC for well over £100,000. So the state has done well by its investment.
I'd see the right as wanting to halt progress, to hark back to former (imagined) glories; the left as seeing the role of the state and spending as being paramount; and the sensible centre as trusting the people.
The right wing is in no way about harking back to former glories. From my position on the right it is entirely about limiting or ideally reducing the role of the state and increasing the freedom of the individual, of the family and of the community. This by definition is in direct opposition to any statist view which is generally - but not entirely - the position of the left. Bear in mind anarchists are generally considered to be of the left.
The centre is by no means necessarily sensible. Simply because something is generally agreed by consensus to be right and proper does not necessarily make it so. The centre ground for decades believed that homosexuality was wrong or something to be ashamed of. The same could be said of any number of social issues and indeed it is often those considered to be firmly of the right (Libertarians as an example) who have most strongly campaigned for freedom of the individual in social matters. .
Anarchists are nothing of the sort. Anarchist wanting more government spending and being opposed to cuts is like f**king for virginity. They don't understand the meaning of the word.
As a socially liberal, economically right relatively laissez faire Conservative (Libertarian in America) I am far more of am anarchist than any Anarchist.
What does 'socially liberal' mean?
Bullshitter comes to mind
Only if you are a f**kwit who is unable to understand basic English. But then I think you have shown often enough that you qualify for that description.
Very pleasant , nice of you to stick up for your buddy. Is he not capable of answering for himself , needs his little helper to post insults for him. Get lost saddo and tell your buddy to man up.
Clearly your subnormal intelligence meant you failed to notice that I was the one that used the term 'socially liberal' in the first place earlier in the discussion. So I am more than happy to man up to a sad little northern freak.
I'd see the right as wanting to halt progress, to hark back to former (imagined) glories; the left as seeing the role of the state and spending as being paramount; and the sensible centre as trusting the people.
The right wing is in no way about harking back to former glories. From my position on the right it is entirely about limiting or ideally reducing the role of the state and increasing the freedom of the individual, of the family and of the community. This by definition is in direct opposition to any statist view which is generally - but not entirely - the position of the left. Bear in mind anarchists are generally considered to be of the left.
The centre is by no means necessarily sensible. Simply because something is generally agreed by consensus to be right and proper does not necessarily make it so. The centre ground for decades believed that homosexuality was wrong or something to be ashamed of. The same could be said of any number of social issues and indeed it is often those considered to be firmly of the right (Libertarians as an example) who have most strongly campaigned for freedom of the individual in social matters. .
If you'd read what I posted...
I don't think the position you define as "right wing" is particularly right wing.
It's a classically Liberal position - not seeking to put the Nation (right) or the State (left) in a position of authority over the individual.
Classical liberalism was always firmly nationalist, based upon principles of self-determination.
In truth, notions of what is right, left, or liberal, vary over time. Widespread control of individuals can be philosophically justified by followers of all three positions.
''The creation of the welfare state - thanks largely to the Labour and Liberal parties (whether directly or through changing the terms of debate) - is one of the crowning glories of the UK's history.''
I'd see the right as wanting to halt progress, to hark back to former (imagined) glories; the left as seeing the role of the state and spending as being paramount; and the sensible centre as trusting the people.
The right wing is in no way about harking back to former glories. From my position on the right it is entirely about limiting or ideally reducing the role of the state and increasing the freedom of the individual, of the family and of the community. This by definition is in direct opposition to any statist view which is generally - but not entirely - the position of the left. Bear in mind anarchists are generally considered to be of the left.
The centre is by no means necessarily sensible. Simply because something is generally agreed by consensus to be right and proper does not necessarily make it so. The centre ground for decades believed that homosexuality was wrong or something to be ashamed of. The same could be said of any number of social issues and indeed it is often those considered to be firmly of the right (Libertarians as an example) who have most strongly campaigned for freedom of the individual in social matters. .
Anarchists are nothing of the sort.
As a socially liberal, economically right relatively laissez faire Conservative (Libertarian in America) I am far more of am anarchist than any Anarchist.
What does 'socially liberal' mean?
It means I no more want the government in the bedroom than I do in my wallet. The transformation from supporting Section 28 to legalising gay marriage is a remarkable change that will drift away from public debate but leave a lasting legacy. I know people now married or engaged who couldn't be in the past. Ultimately though this is no longer an issue. The idea of this being undone now is unimaginable the debate is over and we move on with our lives. My daughter will grow up and find the idea gays could once not get married as incomprehensible as I grew up to find that once interracial marriage wasn't legal in some places.
So it's about whether you support gay marriage?
You see: I support prison reform, soft drugs liberalisation, embryo research, relief for the terminally ill in unbearable pain, decriminalising prostitution, have no problem with sex before marriage, and I'm anti corporal and capital punishment.
But I also believe that the best way to raise a child is by their biological parents, within wedlock, detest identity politics, have no problem with the institution of the CoE, love my country, flying its flag and its culture and traditions, and I want an end to mass immigration.
I'd see the right as wanting to halt progress, to hark back to former (imagined) glories; the left as seeing the role of the state and spending as being paramount; and the sensible centre as trusting the people.
The right wing is in no way about harking back to former glories. From my position on the right it is entirely about limiting or ideally reducing the role of the state and increasing the freedom of the individual, of the family and of the community. This by definition is in direct opposition to any statist view which is generally - but not entirely - the position of the left. Bear in mind anarchists are generally considered to be of the left.
The centre is by no means necessarily sensible. Simply because something is generally agreed by consensus to be right and proper does not necessarily make it so. The centre ground for decades believed that homosexuality was wrong or something to be ashamed of. The same could be said of any number of social issues and indeed it is often those considered to be firmly of the right (Libertarians as an example) who have most strongly campaigned for freedom of the individual in social matters. .
Anarchists are nothing of the sort.
As a socially liberal, economically right relatively laissez faire Conservative (Libertarian in America) I am far more of am anarchist than any Anarchist.
What does 'socially liberal' mean?
So it's about whether you support gay marriage?
You see: I support prison reform, soft drugs liberalisation, embryo research, relief for the terminally ill in unbearable pain, decriminalising prostitution, have no problem with sex before marriage, and I'm anti corporal and capital punishment.
But I also believe that the best way to raise a child is by their biological parents, within wedlock, detest identity politics, have no problem with the institution of the CoE, love my country, flying its flag and its culture and traditions, and I want an end to mass immigration.
I'd see the right as wanting to halt progress, to hark back to former (imagined) glories; the left as seeing the role of the state and spending as being paramount; and the sensible centre as trusting the people.
The right wing is in no way about harking back to former glories. From my position on the right it is entirely about limiting or ideally reducing the role of the state and increasing the freedom of the individual, of the family and of the community. This by definition is in direct opposition to any statist view which is generally - but not entirely - the position of the left. Bear in mind anarchists are generally considered to be of the left.
The centre is by no means necessarily sensible. Simply because something is generally agreed by consensus to be right and proper does not necessarily make it so. The centre ground for decades believed that homosexuality was wrong or something to be ashamed of. The same could be said of any number of social issues and indeed it is often those considered to be firmly of the right (Libertarians as an example) who have most strongly campaigned for freedom of the individual in social matters. .
Anarchists are nothing of the sort. Anarchist wanting more government spending and being opposed to cuts is like f**king for virginity. They don't understand the meaning of the word.
As a socially liberal, economically right relatively laissez faire Conservative (Libertarian in America) I am far more of am anarchist than any Anarchist.
What does 'socially liberal' mean?
Bullshitter comes to mind
Only if you are a f**kwit who is unable to understand basic English. But then I think you have shown often enough that you qualify for that description.
Very pleasant , nice of you to stick up for your buddy. Is he not capable of answering for himself , needs his little helper to post insults for him. Get lost saddo and tell your buddy to man up.
Clearly your subnormal intelligence meant you failed to notice that I was the one that used the term 'socially liberal' in the first place earlier in the discussion. So I am more than happy to man up to a sad little northern freak.
LOL, what a sad little freak you must be. You and the cretin 5watts could be blood brothers, dribble rubbish to each other and save yourself some hassle.
Again I think you're mistaken, what May said was entirely unsayable and now said.
She's grasping a long overdue nettle. I don't find her speech at all at odds with Cameron - she was tackling a real issue well past its sell-by date.
One can be pro the right sort of immigration and against all the others. If the Tories are finally catching up with this - I'm delighted. CCHQ have been dumping climate change nonsense whilst still paying lip service. I'm a patient sort and pleased by this.
What fun. Cameron moves the Tories to the left (maybe, we shall see). TSE will be alright with this, but will most PB Tories?
I haven't seen any evidence of that yet apart from pitch and mood-music. In fact, on immigration, the sounds are that things will be tightened still further.
But, if he does move the Tory party left, and abandon the manifesto I voted for, he will have a bigger problem than just PB Tories.
I agree about the evidence - hence my "we shall see". If he means it and succeeds he needn't worry about PB Tories, there's plenty of electors in the sensible centre. Maybe it's a way of putting pale blue water between Cameron/Osborne and May.
You are mistaken about Climate Change and obviously scientifically illiterate.
You really want to get into this again Logical, having been slapped all round the place so many times before on this issue?
Angela and Francois are at the European Parliament. Predictably most speakers are calling for more Europe.
The most telling thing about Cameron today - which hardly anyone seems to have picked up upon - is his very strong signal that he will recommend Remain.
There is no virtually no chance he will pitch for Leave.
I owe everything I have today to the welfare state. I thank God that it came into being and I give heartfelt thanks to those who ensured that it did. The welfare state gave me life chances that had been denied to the countless generations of my family who came before. Clever, hard-working people denied health care, decent housing, security in old age and opportunities merely because they were poor. And mine is a story that has millions of equivalents in every part of this country. The creation of the welfare state - thanks largely to the Labour and Liberal parties (whether directly or through changing the terms of debate) - is one of the crowning glories of the UK's history.
No it is not. It is an aberration based on a flawed belief that people need to be carried all the way through their lives and that if they are not then they will inevitably fail. There are countless examples of people the world over born into poverty who achieved great things by their own efforts. If you are ascribing all your successes to the existence of the welfare state carrying you through your life then that says a lot about your own lack of ability and ambition.
The welfare state is necessary as a basic safety net so that no one need live in hunger or without a home die because of lack of medical care. But it should be nothing more than that. It certainly should not be used to hamstring one section of the population whilst carrying another. Not least of all because of the basic truth of Thatcher's adage
"The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."
It gave me cradle to grave healthcare, ensured I had a decent home to live in, provided me with a free education and looked after me when I did not have a job. I did the rest, but would not have been in a position to without the help the state gave. We tried the other way for thousands of years. It didn't work.
I thought from your previous postings that you were a successful businessman?
But your self-description above makes you sound like a completely useless drip.
You've shattered my admiration of what I'd thought were your personal achievements. Shame.
Hollande just said leave Europe(EU) and you leave democracy,pathetic comment.
Hands up if you care what the French think.
Well it seems with Merkel and Hollande,these two run the EU,they speeches on the way ahead for Europe were clapped by the majority in the European Parliament and that was more Europe.
But all the fire has gone out of it for the Cons, internecinely speaking.
Merkel & Hollande can say what they want - the British public will hear it and judge for themselves whether it is a good or bad thing. Cam can go and negotiate and get whatever it is he gets - the British public will hear it and judge for themselves whether it is a good or bad thing.
And then they will vote in or out.
Exquisite.
PS to @Richard_Tyndall wrt your hypothesis that Cam will come back and lie about what he has achieved, I think there will be sufficient informed commentary to pick apart exactly what he has or hasn't achieved and then the British public will.......and if they don't make an effort to find out what actually happened or choose to believe Cam, well on their heads be it.
You see: I support prison reform, soft drugs liberalisation, embryo research, relief for the terminally ill in unbearable pain, decriminalising prostitution, have no problem with sex before marriage, and I'm anti corporal and capital punishment.
But I also believe that the best way to raise a child is by their biological parents, within wedlock, detest identity politics, have no problem with the institution of the CoE, love my country, flying its flag and its culture and traditions, and I want an end to mass immigration.
I'd see the right as wanting to halt progress, to hark back to former (imagined) glories; the left as seeing the role of the state and spending as being paramount; and the sensible centre as trusting the people.
The right wing is in no way about harking back to ... The centre is by no means necessarily sensible. Simply because something is generally agreed by consensus to be right and proper does not necessarily make it so. The centre ground for decades believed that homosexuality was wrong or something to be ashamed of. The same could be said of any number of social issues and indeed it is often those considered to be firmly of the right (Libertarians as an example) who have most strongly campaigned for freedom of the individual in social matters. .
Anarchists are nothing of the sort.
As a socially liberal, economically right relatively laissez faire Conservative (Libertarian in America) I am far more of am anarchist than any Anarchist.
What does 'socially liberal' mean?
It means I no more want the government in the bedroom than I do in my wallet. The transformation from supporting Section 28 to legalising gay marriage is a remarkable change that will drift away from public debate but leave a lasting legacy. I know people now married or engaged who couldn't be in the past. Ultimately though this is no longer an issue. The idea of this being undone now is unimaginable the debate is over and we move on with our lives. My daughter will grow up and find the idea gays could once not get married as incomprehensible as I grew up to find that once interracial marriage wasn't legal in some places.
So it's about whether you support gay marriage?
You see: I support prison reform, soft drugs liberalisation, embryo research, relief for the terminally ill in unbearable pain, decriminalising prostitution, have no problem with sex before marriage, and I'm anti corporal and capital punishment.
But I also believe that the best way to raise a child is by their biological parents, within wedlock, detest identity politics, have no problem with the institution of the CoE, love my country, flying its flag and its culture and traditions, and I want an end to mass immigration.
SO I was paying over 80k in tax during the late 80s..to a state that gave me absolutely SFA..so I stopped doing that and just cut back on the work load....
Indeed, a man to whom the answer is the same to every problem is a damned fool.
Voting Out is not risk-free, but voting In guarantees being chained to an organisation with the determined aim of becoming a nation state, and who sees the City as someone to be milked dry for the good of Brussels.
You see: I support prison reform, soft drugs liberalisation, embryo research, relief for the terminally ill in unbearable pain, decriminalising prostitution, have no problem with sex before marriage, and I'm anti corporal and capital punishment.
But I also believe that the best way to raise a child is by their biological parents, within wedlock, detest identity politics, have no problem with the institution of the CoE, love my country, flying its flag and its culture and traditions, and I want an end to mass immigration.
What does that make me?
A Cameroon.
Hardly. I also agree entirely with Casino and like him am vehemently anti EU. I am certainly not a Cameroon.
I'd see the right as wanting to halt progress, to hark back to former (imagined) glories; the left as seeing the role of the state and spending as being paramount; and the sensible centre as trusting the people.
The right wing is in no way about harking back to former glories. From my position on the right it is entirely about limiting or ideally reducing the role of the state and increasing the freedom of the individual, of the family and of the community. This by definition is in direct opposition to any statist view which is generally - but not entirely - the position of the left. Bear in mind anarchists are generally considered to be of the left.
The centre is by no means necessarily sensible. Simply because something is generally agreed by consensus to be right and proper does not necessarily make it so. The centre ground for decades believed that homosexuality was wrong or something to be ashamed of. The same could be said of any number of social issues and indeed it is often those considered to be firmly of the right (Libertarians as an example) who have most strongly campaigned for freedom of the individual in social matters. .
Anarchists are nothing of the sort.
As a socially liberal, economically right relatively laissez faire Conservative (Libertarian in America) I am far more of am anarchist than any Anarchist.
What does 'socially liberal' mean?
places.
So it's about whether you support gay marriage?
You see: I support prison reform, soft drugs liberalisation, embryo research, relief for the terminally ill in unbearable pain, decriminalising prostitution, have no problem with sex before marriage, and I'm anti corporal and capital punishment.
But I also believe that the best way to raise a child is by their biological parents, within wedlock, detest identity politics, have no problem with the institution of the CoE, love my country, flying its flag and its culture and traditions, and I want an end to mass immigration.
What does that make me?
The term "social liberalism" was originally used to mean those Liberals, at the start of the twentieth century, who argued that freedom was only achievable by means of an expanding, interventionist, State.
But, your question is fair. People like the Diversity Officer who is facing prosecution would probably regard themselves as social liberals, and would view curbs on speech as part of social liberalism, because they're imposed to protect minorities.
SO I was paying over 80k in tax during the late 80s..to a state that gave me absolutely SFA..so I stopped doing that and just cut back on the work load....
The difference between you and SO quoting tax bills is that I do actually believe you.
You see: I support prison reform, soft drugs liberalisation, embryo research, relief for the terminally ill in unbearable pain, decriminalising prostitution, have no problem with sex before marriage, and I'm anti corporal and capital punishment.
But I also believe that the best way to raise a child is by their biological parents, within wedlock, detest identity politics, have no problem with the institution of the CoE, love my country, flying its flag and its culture and traditions, and I want an end to mass immigration.
What does that make me?
A Cameroon.
Hardly. I also agree entirely with Casino and like him am vehemently anti EU. I am certainly not a Cameroon.
I'd see the right as wanting to halt progress, to hark back to former (imagined) glories; the left as seeing the role of the state and spending as being paramount; and the sensible centre as trusting the people.
The right wing is in no way about harking back to former glories. From my position on the right it is entirely about limiting or ideally reducing the role of the state and increasing the freedom of the individual, of the family and of the community. This by definition is in direct opposition to any statist view which is generally - but not entirely - the position of the left. Bear in mind anarchists are generally considered to be of the left.
The centre is by no means necessarily sensible. Simply because something is generally agreed by consensus to be right and proper does not necessarily make it so. The centre ground for decades believed that homosexuality was wrong or something to be ashamed of. The same could be said of any number of social issues and indeed it is often those considered to be firmly of the right (Libertarians as an example) who have most strongly campaigned for freedom of the individual in social matters. .
If you'd read what I posted...
I don't think the position you define as "right wing" is particularly right wing.
It's a classically Liberal position - not seeking to put the Nation (right) or the State (left) in a position of authority over the individual.
Classical liberalism was always firmly nationalist, based upon principles of self-determination.
In truth, notions of what is right, left, or liberal, vary over time. Widespread control of individuals can be philosophically justified by followers of all three positions.
People had the right to self-government, but that not what I was saying.
Liberalism puts government as the servant, not the master.
Fascism (on the right) and Communism (on the left) both reverse that relationship
Mr. Topping, it'll be fascinating to see how Labour handles Cameron's deal (assuming he campaigns for In, which I think near-certain). If they criticise the deal too much, it becomes an argument for Out. If they praise it too much, it becomes praise for the PM.
It means I no more want the government in the bedroom than I do in my wallet. The transformation from supporting Section 28 to legalising gay marriage is a remarkable change that will drift away from public debate but leave a lasting legacy. I know people now married or engaged who couldn't be in the past. Ultimately though this is no longer an issue. The idea of this being undone now is unimaginable the debate is over and we move on with our lives. My daughter will grow up and find the idea gays could once not get married as incomprehensible as I grew up to find that once interracial marriage wasn't legal in some places.
So it's about whether you support gay marriage?
You see: I support prison reform, soft drugs liberalisation, embryo research, relief for the terminally ill in unbearable pain, decriminalising prostitution, have no problem with sex before marriage, and I'm anti corporal and capital punishment.
But I also believe that the best way to raise a child is by their biological parents, within wedlock, detest identity politics, have no problem with the institution of the CoE, love my country, flying its flag and its culture and traditions, and I want an end to mass immigration.
What does that make me?
That was just one example I think your others are good ones too that are almost all socially liberal. I am naturally sceptical of the idea that the government knows best for you which underpins my social and economic views.
I owe everything I have today to the welfare state. I thank God that it came into being and I give heartfelt thanks to those who ensured that it did. The welfare state gave me life chances that had been denied to the countless generations of my family who came before. Clever, hard-working people denied health care, decent housing, security in old age and opportunities merely because they were poor. And mine is a story that has millions of equivalents in every part of this country. The creation of the welfare state - thanks largely to the Labour and Liberal parties (whether directly or through changing the terms of debate) - is one of the crowning glories of the UK's history.
No it is not. It is an aberration based on a flawed belief that people need to be carried all the way through their lives and that if they are not then they will inevitably fail. There are countless examples of people the world over born into poverty who achieved great things by their own efforts. If you are ascribing all your successes to the existence of the welfare state carrying you through your life then that says a lot about your own lack of ability and ambition.
The welfare state is necessary as a basic safety net so that no one need live in hunger or without a home die because of lack of medical care. But it should be nothing more than that. It certainly should not be used to hamstring one section of the population whilst carrying another. Not least of all because of the basic truth of Thatcher's adage
"The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."
It gave me cradle to grave healthcare, ensured I had a decent home to live in, provided me with a free education and looked after me when I did not have a job. I did the rest, but would not have been in a position to without the help the state gave. We tried the other way for thousands of years. It didn't work.
I thought from your previous postings that you were a successful businessman?
But your self-description above makes you sound like a completely useless drip.
You've shattered my admiration of what I'd thought were your personal achievements. Shame.
I will live with that. I know what it was that got me to today. And I know that without the welfare state I would not have managed it.
You see: I support prison reform, soft drugs liberalisation, embryo research, relief for the terminally ill in unbearable pain, decriminalising prostitution, have no problem with sex before marriage, and I'm anti corporal and capital punishment.
But I also believe that the best way to raise a child is by their biological parents, within wedlock, detest identity politics, have no problem with the institution of the CoE, love my country, flying its flag and its culture and traditions, and I want an end to mass immigration.
What does that make me?
A Cameroon.
Hardly. I also agree entirely with Casino and like him am vehemently anti EU. I am certainly not a Cameroon.
I was just responding to his list, around 11 of the 14 or so points are exactly what Cameron would say, and the other three (soft drugs liberalisation, decriminalising prostitution, and right-to-die if that's what he means by 'relief for the terminally ill') are points for which Cameron would probably have quite a lot of sympathy though he might not advocate them as practical policies in 2015.
Just did a YouGov - general election voting intention, questions about Mayor of London election, Ecstatic/dismayed about the election of JC, all sorts.
LOL, what a sad little freak you must be. You and the cretin 5watts could be blood brothers, dribble rubbish to each other and save yourself some hassle.
Given that you are the one who has demonstrated a remarkable lack of ability to follow a thread and presumably are unable to understand most of the arguments being made by contributors on here - since you can only resort to calling people 'bullshitters' - I would suggest that most of the dribbling is your brains existing via your nose. It appears most of your intelligence is already drying in your handkerchief.
SO I was paying over 80k in tax during the late 80s..to a state that gave me absolutely SFA..so I stopped doing that and just cut back on the work load....
It means I no more want the government in the bedroom than I do in my wallet. The transformation from supporting Section 28 to legalising gay marriage is a remarkable change that will drift away from public debate but leave a lasting legacy. I know people now married or engaged who couldn't be in the past. Ultimately though this is no longer an issue. The idea of this being undone now is unimaginable the debate is over and we move on with our lives. My daughter will grow up and find the idea gays could once not get married as incomprehensible as I grew up to find that once interracial marriage wasn't legal in some places.
So it's about whether you support gay marriage?
You see: I support prison reform, soft drugs liberalisation, embryo research, relief for the terminally ill in unbearable pain, decriminalising prostitution, have no problem with sex before marriage, and I'm anti corporal and capital punishment.
But I also believe that the best way to raise a child is by their biological parents, within wedlock, detest identity politics, have no problem with the institution of the CoE, love my country, flying its flag and its culture and traditions, and I want an end to mass immigration.
What does that make me?
That was just one example I think your others are good ones too that are almost all socially liberal. I am naturally sceptical of the idea that the government knows best for you which underpins my social and economic views.
Fair enough. My view is tolerance and freedom but that the traditional family unit is so fundamental to a free and stable society that the government should encourage and promote it.
Plenty of social liberals would disagree with that.
I'd see the right as wanting to halt progress, to hark back to former (imagined) glories; the left as seeing the role of the state and spending as being paramount; and the sensible centre as trusting the people.
The right wing is in no way about harking back to former glories. From my position on the right it ...
The centre is by no means necessarily sensible. Simply because something is generally agreed by consensus to be right and proper does not necessarily make it so. The centre ground fo....... .
Anarchists are nothing of the sort.
As a socially liberal, economically right relatively laissez faire Conservative (Libertarian in America) I am far more of am anarchist than any Anarchist.
What does 'socially liberal' mean?
It means I no more want the government in the bedroom than I do in my wallet. The transformation from supporting Section 28 to legalising gay marriage is a remarkable change that will drift away from public debate but leave a lasting legacy. I know people now married or engaged who couldn't be in the past. Ultimately though this is no longer an issue. The idea of this being undone now is unimaginable the debate is over and we move on with our lives. My daughter will grow up and find the idea gays could once not get married as incomprehensible as I grew up to find that once interracial marriage wasn't legal in some places.
So it's about whether you support gay marriage? You see: I support prison reform, soft drugs liberalisation, embryo research, relief for the terminally ill in unbearable pain, decriminalising prostitution, have no problem with sex before marriage, and I'm anti corporal and capital punishment. But I also believe that the best way to raise a child is by their biological parents, within wedlock, detest identity politics, have no problem with the institution of the CoE, love my country, flying its flag and its culture and traditions, and I want an end to mass immigration. What does that make me?
A classical liberal. A shame that the Liberal Party merged with the socialist democrats.
I'd see the right as wanting to halt progress, to hark back to former (imagined) glories; the left as seeing the role of the state and spending as being paramount; and the sensible centre as trusting the people.
The right wing is in no way about harking back to former glories. From my position on the right it is entirely about limiting or ideally reducing the role of the state and increasing the freedom of the individual, of the family and of the community. This by definition is in direct opposition to any statist view which is generally - but not entirely - the position of the left. Bear in mind anarchists are generally considered to be of the left.
The centre is by no means necessarily sensible. Simply because something is generally agreed by consensus to be right and proper does not necessarily make it so. The centre ground for decades believed that homosexuality was wrong or something to be ashamed of. The same could be said of any number of social issues and indeed it is often those considered to be firmly of the right (Libertarians as an example) who have most strongly campaigned for freedom of the individual in social matters. .
If you'd read what I posted...
I don't think the position you define as "right wing" is particularly right wing.
It's a classically Liberal position - not seeking to put the Nation (right) or the State (left) in a position of authority over the individual.
Classical liberalism was always firmly nationalist, based upon principles of self-determination.
In truth, notions of what is right, left, or liberal, vary over time. Widespread control of individuals can be philosophically justified by followers of all three positions.
Which is why I define myself as a Libertarian rather than a Liberal.
Just did a YouGov - general election voting intention, questions about Mayor of London election, Ecstatic/dismayed about the election of JC, all sorts.
SO I owe everything I have today to the welfare state. I thank God that it came into being and I give heartfelt thanks to those who ensured that it did. The welfare state gave me life chances that had been denied to the countless generations of my family who came before. Clever, hard-working people denied health care, decent housing, security in old age and opportunities merely because they were poor. And mine is a story that has millions of equivalents in every part of this country. The creation of the welfare state - thanks largely to the Labour and Liberal parties (whether directly or through changing the terms of debate) - is one of the crowning glories of the UK's history.
No one would argue that the introduction of the welfare state was not hugely positive on many fronts. The issue now is how it evolves given the vastly different conditions that now apply. In many ways, Corbyn seems mired in the past and your post implies that Labour should rest on its laurels.
When I’ve been to Ilkley I’ve seen police on the streets, used public toilets and I got there by driving on well- (reasonably anyway) kept roads. That’s for starters. All paid for out of taxation. You were also protected from external threat by armed forces who were paid for by the state.
@robertshrimsley: Cameron's attack on Corbyn was devastating. Just watch it on the news like normal voters will. That's an election http://t.co/3u5ivUrazc
I caught some of Cameron's speech. Unpopular though it may be to say I think it's pretty obvious that throughout Miliband's tenure, Cameron and Osborne were impressed with some of Miliband's policies. They must have spent time studying what Miliband proposed; they've certainly stolen a few of his smarter ideas.
Just goes to show that the messenger and the leader is enormously important in politics nowadays. Miliband never looked the part, even up till May 6th I couldn't envisage him as a PM, despite all the polling evidence to the contrary. He'd also allowed himself early on to be painted as 'Red Ed' and the 'Union's choice'. Cameron, by contrast, quickly cultivated his own image as a moderniser. Like him or loathe him, Cameron looks sounds and feels like a PM. Miiband never did.
Given the political cross-dressing we've seen over recent years I can see (though not understand) why Labour supporters thought it a good to go for an extraordinary candidate like Corbyn. Something different; a move away from cardboard cut-out, super clever, 40-something man in a sharp suit. Corbyn will be a disaster though, because as Blair proved three times out of three (and now Cameron is demonstrating with such ruthlessness) as soon as you vacate the centre ground, you will quite literally shed votes. Because the opposition - who have hitherto dismissed your policies as crazy - shamelessly move in and park their tanks on your exposed leader's head.
Labour should be worried. They had many of the right policies and the wrong leader. Now they have the wrong policies and the wrong leader.
Just did a YouGov - general election voting intention, questions about Mayor of London election, Ecstatic/dismayed about the election of JC, all sorts.
It means I no more want the government in the bedroom than I do in my wallet. The transformation from supporting Section 28 to legalising gay marriage is a remarkable change that will drift away from public debate but leave a lasting legacy. I know people now married or engaged who couldn't be in the past. Ultimately though this is no longer an issue. The idea of this being undone now is unimaginable the debate is over and we move on with our lives. My daughter will grow up and find the idea gays could once not get married as incomprehensible as I grew up to find that once interracial marriage wasn't legal in some places.
So it's about whether you support gay marriage?
You see: I support prison reform, soft drugs liberalisation, embryo research, relief for the terminally ill in unbearable pain, decriminalising prostitution, have no problem with sex before marriage, and I'm anti corporal and capital punishment.
But I also believe that the best way to raise a child is by their biological parents, within wedlock, detest identity politics, have no problem with the institution of the CoE, love my country, flying its flag and its culture and traditions, and I want an end to mass immigration.
What does that make me?
That was just one example I think your others are good ones too that are almost all socially liberal. I am naturally sceptical of the idea that the government knows best for you which underpins my social and economic views.
Fair enough. My view is tolerance and freedom but that the traditional family unit is so fundamental to a free and stable society that the government should encourage and promote it.
Plenty of social liberals would disagree with that.
I think the government can do very little to encourage the traditional family unit but can stand against it. I know many couples who each live as single parents in two separate homes as if they move in together the benefits lost would make their lives worse. Which means that it pays to take two houses and two sets of benefits rather than one or maybe no benefits.
The government shouldn't stand against the traditional family but can't do too much IMO to promote it.
Just did a YouGov - general election voting intention, questions about Mayor of London election, Ecstatic/dismayed about the election of JC, all sorts.
Fair enough. My view is tolerance and freedom but that the traditional family unit is so fundamental to a free and stable society that the government should encourage and promote it.
Plenty of social liberals would disagree with that.
Mr. Royale, when you say a traditional family unit do you mean a woman and man in wedlock and their children (together with the extended family grandparents, aunts, uncles cousins etc.)? If so then your idea that the state should encourage and promote such an institution puts you beyond the pale. Never mind social liberals, even the modern Conservative Party will see such attitudes as belonging to some ghastly person unfit to take part in human discourse.
OKC.. SO aIso said he had a great deal from the Welfare state In my hour of need... and there were a lot of them..I got SFA.. SO also runs around on good roads, has Police in the area and no doubt is pleased we have an efficient Military.. I also appreciated all those things... but in my time of need I was told to F off..
SO I was paying over 80k in tax during the late 80s..to a state that gave me absolutely SFA..so I stopped doing that and just cut back on the work load....
This is unfortunately the position I am starting to face now. Although even more unfortunately not at earnings levels that would result in anywhere near an 80K tax bill.
I currently spend some 220 - 240 days a year working away from my family. I have my own company so basically if I am not working I don't get paid. Up until now the return on that amount of work has made it worth the pain so I can provide the best for my family. But with the new tax changes that are being proposed on dividends and particularly on expenses I am now starting to believe that it is no longer worth all the pain and I am better off cutting back considerably on the work and spending more time with the family, accepting that some of our goals will no longer be achievable.
Just did a YouGov - general election voting intention, questions about Mayor of London election, Ecstatic/dismayed about the election of JC, all sorts.
Do you live in London?
I do indeed.
Could be for the Evening Standard then I believe they use YouGov
If he wanted to Cameron could make real steps towards redefining the whole way in which we view political parties. By becoming a radically socially liberal but economically conservative leader he could transform politics in the UK. Certainly with the social trends being in the direction of more liberalism he would probably not find it all that hard.
The problem is that there is a third part of this equation which is to be truly radical in terms of the relationship between the state and the individual - cutting the involvement of the state in huge swathes of our lives and making people far more responsible for their own successes and failures whilst maintaining a very basic safety net. In effect reversing the last 70 years of encroaching socialism and welfarism. I am not convinced that Cameron has either the belief or the political will to do any of that. As a result whatever he can achieve will be too easily reversible come the next Labour Government whenever it appears.
Whether or not Cameron has the stomach for such journey, is a moot point because I am fairly certain that majority of the English people haven't. If Cameron and his clique could just deliver on what they have already promised he would go down in history as a great PM, he really doesn't need to go finding new frontiers to conquer. To put it another way he does not need to lead us to a new promised land just to make our existing land rather better than it currently is.
In my view, we have had enough of the promises let us see some delivery.
I think realistically, one can shrink the State. There's no reason why one couldn't establish a consensus that public spending would be around 30-35% of GDP, rather than 40-45% of GDP. But, I don't think there would be an appetite among the public for anything that's more radical.
The process will be gradual and I think it will become clearer as we go forward, where the line should be drawn. I don't doubt that this is the Tory strategy and I have little doubt that there is public support for this at today's level. State ownership "works" in the likes of North Korea and Venezuela. This is JC's Utopia.
Not sure Cameron knows the meaning of irony but his reference to Priti Patel "the daughter of Gujarati immigrants who arrived in our country from East Africa with nothing except the clothes they stood up in" was an odd choice as her parents would not have been granted asylum by this government. Likewise, Seema Kennedy, "who was five when she and her family were forced to flee revolutionary Iran" would now be living back in Iran, having been deported
Fair enough. My view is tolerance and freedom but that the traditional family unit is so fundamental to a free and stable society that the government should encourage and promote it.
Plenty of social liberals would disagree with that.
Mr. Royale, when you say a traditional family unit do you mean a woman and man in wedlock and their children (together with the extended family grandparents, aunts, uncles cousins etc.)? If so then your idea that the state should encourage and promote such an institution puts you beyond the pale. Never mind social liberals, even the modern Conservative Party will see such attitudes as belonging to some ghastly person unfit to take part in human discourse.
I think two parents (of any flavour) are better than one. Preferably married, but that's just me. There are always exceptions and counter-arguments, but I think, overall, the point stands.
Not sure Cameron knows the meaning of irony but his reference to Priti Patel "the daughter of Gujarati immigrants who arrived in our country from East Africa with nothing except the clothes they stood up in" was an odd choice as her parents would not have been granted asylum by this government. Likewise, Seema Kennedy, "who was five when she and her family were forced to flee revolutionary Iran" would now be living back in Iran, having been deported
What rot - if they had a genuine asylum case they would be permitted to stay.
You see: I support prison reform, soft drugs liberalisation, embryo research, relief for the terminally ill in unbearable pain, decriminalising prostitution, have no problem with sex before marriage, and I'm anti corporal and capital punishment.
But I also believe that the best way to raise a child is by their biological parents, within wedlock, detest identity politics, have no problem with the institution of the CoE, love my country, flying its flag and its culture and traditions, and I want an end to mass immigration.
What does that make me?
A Cameroon.
Hardly. I also agree entirely with Casino and like him am vehemently anti EU. I am certainly not a Cameroon.
I was just responding to his list, around 11 of the 14 or so points are exactly what Cameron would say, and the other three (soft drugs liberalisation, decriminalising prostitution, and right-to-die if that's what he means by 'relief for the terminally ill') are points for which Cameron would probably have quite a lot of sympathy though he might not advocate them as practical policies in 2015.
(I'd agree with all of Casino's points, BTW)
Thanks. I think this government has been continuing with a lot of new Labour's social policies though, particularly in his own candidate selection, and just not grasping the bullet on immigration or the EU enough. I do consider Cameron and EUphile. I was not very impressed with its defence of free speech in the wake of Charlie Hebdo too.
There are all sorts of cultural things that annoy me too, where there's been a failure to mount a full conservative sociocultural defence. For example, I want the Radio 4 theme, a proper last night of the proms, and the royal tournament back. I also want Conservatives to speak out on the stupidity of a female James Bond and quotas.
I know some of that sounds silly but they're all little things that add up. Worst of all was the rudeness - implicit or otherwise - towards longstanding traditional conservative activists.
Not sure Cameron knows the meaning of irony but his reference to Priti Patel "the daughter of Gujarati immigrants who arrived in our country from East Africa with nothing except the clothes they stood up in" was an odd choice as her parents would not have been granted asylum by this government. Likewise, Seema Kennedy, "who was five when she and her family were forced to flee revolutionary Iran" would now be living back in Iran, having been deported
That's clearly nonsense, as we continue to accept refugees every year. Indeed, we are accepting 20,000 refugees directly from the Syrian camps.
@robertshrimsley: Cameron's attack on Corbyn was devastating. Just watch it on the news like normal voters will. That's an election http://t.co/3u5ivUrazc
What price is Corbyn to be Labour leader at the GE?
Not sure Cameron knows the meaning of irony but his reference to Priti Patel "the daughter of Gujarati immigrants who arrived in our country from East Africa with nothing except the clothes they stood up in" was an odd choice as her parents would not have been granted asylum by this government. Likewise, Seema Kennedy, "who was five when she and her family were forced to flee revolutionary Iran" would now be living back in Iran, having been deported
Just under 60% of asylum claims from Iran were accepted in the second quarter of 2015. So your final sentence is unjustified.
Not sure Cameron knows the meaning of irony but his reference to Priti Patel "the daughter of Gujarati immigrants who arrived in our country from East Africa with nothing except the clothes they stood up in" was an odd choice as her parents would not have been granted asylum by this government. Likewise, Seema Kennedy, "who was five when she and her family were forced to flee revolutionary Iran" would now be living back in Iran, having been deported
Why not? Do you think we no longer take asylum seekers?
Comments
I do wonder if they should be more discretionary with the prize - if there isn't someone that clearly deserves it, then withhold it for a year and be willing to present double awards the next year.
The welfare state is necessary as a basic safety net so that no one need live in hunger or without a home die because of lack of medical care. But it should be nothing more than that. It certainly should not be used to hamstring one section of the population whilst carrying another. Not least of all because of the basic truth of Thatcher's adage
"The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."
No. It is very divisive.
The interesting thing for me has been the juxtaposition of the three theme words this week - Security, Stability, Opportunity. I think that tells you all you need to know about the Conservatives.
The priority is Security - against what (migrants, Jeremy Corbyn, climate change, the Internet, Putin, IS, etc, etc) after which comes Stability (for which read economic continuity, no change, nothing too daring) and finally Opportunity (only available when the other two have been sorted out).
So we had on Monday the Minister for Stability and yesterday the Minister for Security in effect while Cameron has offered some "ideas" on Opportunity today there's an awful lot of Devil in that particular detail. Cameron has aligned with Farron on the need for more houses but how many, where, when and built by whom - that presumably means more migrant labour on the building sites, er, doesn't it ?
Blair's Labour might have put Opportunity first - there is an argument that Opportunity creates its own Stability and Security by creating a dynamic society where everyone has chances to succeed and better themselves.
Perhaps too philosophical....
I didn't say anything about the merits of May's speech, so how can I be mistaken?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-34469042
I don't think the position you define as "right wing" is particularly right wing.
It's a classically Liberal position - not seeking to put the Nation (right) or the State (left) in a position of authority over the individual.
A basic safety net, nothing more. That is what a welfare state should provide.
Sam Cam looks well foxy in that photo.
In truth, notions of what is right, left, or liberal, vary over time. Widespread control of individuals can be philosophically justified by followers of all three positions.
You see: I support prison reform, soft drugs liberalisation, embryo research, relief for the terminally ill in unbearable pain, decriminalising prostitution, have no problem with sex before marriage, and I'm anti corporal and capital punishment.
But I also believe that the best way to raise a child is by their biological parents, within wedlock, detest identity politics, have no problem with the institution of the CoE, love my country, flying its flag and its culture and traditions, and I want an end to mass immigration.
What does that make me?
But your self-description above makes you sound like a completely useless drip.
You've shattered my admiration of what I'd thought were your personal achievements. Shame.
Merkel & Hollande can say what they want - the British public will hear it and judge for themselves whether it is a good or bad thing.
Cam can go and negotiate and get whatever it is he gets - the British public will hear it and judge for themselves whether it is a good or bad thing.
And then they will vote in or out.
Exquisite.
PS to @Richard_Tyndall wrt your hypothesis that Cam will come back and lie about what he has achieved, I think there will be sufficient informed commentary to pick apart exactly what he has or hasn't achieved and then the British public will.......and if they don't make an effort to find out what actually happened or choose to believe Cam, well on their heads be it.
This encapsulates the tories' problem nicely.
Indeed, a man to whom the answer is the same to every problem is a damned fool.
Voting Out is not risk-free, but voting In guarantees being chained to an organisation with the determined aim of becoming a nation state, and who sees the City as someone to be milked dry for the good of Brussels.
But, your question is fair. People like the Diversity Officer who is facing prosecution would probably regard themselves as social liberals, and would view curbs on speech as part of social liberalism, because they're imposed to protect minorities.
Liberalism puts government as the servant, not the master.
Fascism (on the right) and Communism (on the left) both reverse that relationship
http://www.scotsman.com/news/transport/forth-road-bridge-closed-after-explosives-found-1-3910304#axzz3ntepcPhQ
(I'd agree with all of Casino's points, BTW)
Plenty of social liberals would disagree with that.
SO
I owe everything I have today to the welfare state. I thank God that it came into being and I give heartfelt thanks to those who ensured that it did. The welfare state gave me life chances that had been denied to the countless generations of my family who came before. Clever, hard-working people denied health care, decent housing, security in old age and opportunities merely because they were poor. And mine is a story that has millions of equivalents in every part of this country. The creation of the welfare state - thanks largely to the Labour and Liberal parties (whether directly or through changing the terms of debate) - is one of the crowning glories of the UK's history.
No one would argue that the introduction of the welfare state was not hugely positive on many fronts. The issue now is how it evolves given the vastly different conditions that now apply. In many ways, Corbyn seems mired in the past and your post implies that Labour should rest on its laurels.
Or am I wrong?
Just goes to show that the messenger and the leader is enormously important in politics nowadays. Miliband never looked the part, even up till May 6th I couldn't envisage him as a PM, despite all the polling evidence to the contrary. He'd also allowed himself early on to be painted as 'Red Ed' and the 'Union's choice'. Cameron, by contrast, quickly cultivated his own image as a moderniser. Like him or loathe him, Cameron looks sounds and feels like a PM. Miiband never did.
Given the political cross-dressing we've seen over recent years I can see (though not understand) why Labour supporters thought it a good to go for an extraordinary candidate like Corbyn. Something different; a move away from cardboard cut-out, super clever, 40-something man in a sharp suit. Corbyn will be a disaster though, because as Blair proved three times out of three (and now Cameron is demonstrating with such ruthlessness) as soon as you vacate the centre ground, you will quite literally shed votes. Because the opposition - who have hitherto dismissed your policies as crazy - shamelessly move in and park their tanks on your exposed leader's head.
Labour should be worried. They had many of the right policies and the wrong leader. Now they have the wrong policies and the wrong leader.
The government shouldn't stand against the traditional family but can't do too much IMO to promote it.
Was also nice after the Tour de France. As per the song, I remembered to take my hat (just as well, as it pissed it down).
SO also runs around on good roads, has Police in the area and no doubt is pleased we have an efficient Military..
I also appreciated all those things... but in my time of need I was told to F off..
I currently spend some 220 - 240 days a year working away from my family. I have my own company so basically if I am not working I don't get paid. Up until now the return on that amount of work has made it worth the pain so I can provide the best for my family. But with the new tax changes that are being proposed on dividends and particularly on expenses I am now starting to believe that it is no longer worth all the pain and I am better off cutting back considerably on the work and spending more time with the family, accepting that some of our goals will no longer be achievable.
There are all sorts of cultural things that annoy me too, where there's been a failure to mount a full conservative sociocultural defence. For example, I want the Radio 4 theme, a proper last night of the proms, and the royal tournament back. I also want Conservatives to speak out on the stupidity of a female James Bond and quotas.
I know some of that sounds silly but they're all little things that add up. Worst of all was the rudeness - implicit or otherwise - towards longstanding traditional conservative activists.