I seen a film about the guy with the stutter. The King's Speech its called. Seemed like a decent chap Bertie.
He got up to a bit more than that, though as his own private secretary described him as 'a man who's mental development ceased in adolesence', doubtless he was manipulated a bit too. His own father really didn't want him to become King and predicted that he would 'destroy himself within 12 months' if he did. The Nazis kindly guarded his French properties for him (at his request) during the war, which he blamed "Roosevelt and the Jews' for. Plenty more of this kind of stuff out there, a really horrible piece of work, rightly despised by the rest of his family.
Keir Hardy will be spinning in his grave at more revolutions than he did in 1997 tonight ... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33604287?ocid=socialflow_twitter Remember that 78% of MP's are millionaires as they debate whether to vote 40,000 more children into poverty. please log in to view this image please log in to view this image
Corbyn and 48 rebels did defy the "leadership" and vote against..It is shameful that our opposition party cannot mount a statement bigger than this. It is a disgrace that the Labour party has lost its heart and soul and no longer understands the foundations on which is was built. Cornyn is its last chance...and I know it will not take it...and will take again the middle of the road option of Burnham.
I ,like many others, thought inter-party strife post-election would involve the Tories over the EU. This may yet occur, but Labour seem to be pulling themselves apart, and it may get worse after the September leadership election. Liz Kendall, for example, seems to have more in common with the current Cabinet than she does with Jeremy Corbyn. If Cooper or Burnham are elected, and don't find room in the shadow cabinet for Corbyn and perhaps Diane Abbot or similar, there may be a split. Can Corbyn and his supporters then find common ground with the Scots Nats? And if they did, or if Labour did as a party, will they be seen as the anti-English party? Given lost Labour seats in Scotland, this loss of reputation in England could be seismic for Labour Winning the Labour leadership election could be a poisoned chalice if a skillful operator is not chosen
Sort of, but much more coherent. Corbyn's a lightweight, even compared to the 'lefties' of the Fifties. Ask him to set up the NHS, or rebuild housing stock after a war, and we'd find out. Labour needs a modern Nye Bevan, and it hasn't got one. Labour now almost irrelevant. If the Tories can hold themselves together over Europe they are looking at 10 years plus.
Will 40% spending cuts (which don't apply to schools, NHS, defence or foreign aid) basically equate to 40% more Council Tax over the next four years? Genuine question.
I didn't realise that the Labour Party of the 40s and 50s was so left wing. I'm not sure the British people today want that tbh. The most successful Labour Government in recent times was with Blair, who was basically a Tory!
They created the welfare state and nationalised most of our core industry Col, all the things that Thatcher wanted to deconstruct, none of her predecessors dared to, and bizarrely the current charisma free bunch are finally completing the job. I can have no criticism of what Osborne is doing, it's pure, hardcore Toryism. He has a good chance of genuinely changing the shape of the State, some of which is well overdue. And I suspect he's trying to get the pain over with quickly to give him the chance to start giving stuff away before the next election. Bet they won't touch the most expensive and desperately in need of reform area though - the NHS, a great concept dying on its feet. Osborne's problem is all the stuff he can't control, especially the international stuff.
I have to agree with removing child tax credits after the second child. There should be far more of an onus on people to only be parents when they can afford it off their own backs. I think the £12bn we pay in foreign aid is much too much at the moment.
Dr WATSon, when I was banned I read with sadness how you said you revered wealth. It actually upset me, given that you're a young man and not a nasty old cu*t. I think its a very destructive set of beliefs you have. Ambition is fantastic. What you claim to have is a whole other ball game.
Eh? I don't despise the wealthy, that is true. I'd love to be wealthy myself some day and think I'm on the road to it. I know a lot of wealthy people and most are self-made. Most also employ plenty of people as well as doing a fair bit for good causes. Don't see the issue in aspiring to be wealthy. Some are born wealthy. That's just good luck like winning the lottery. I don't begrudge them it.
I know you do: "I am deferential to wealth" http://www.not606.com/threads/the-e...ry-meltdown-thread.304544/page-8#post-8075822 Like I said, ambition is fantastic. But again, like I said, that is entirely different to what you covet. I don't expect you to get the nuance but Stan - as always - immediately noticed the error in what you were saying and I don't think its at all healthy for an individual to have such a thing as their supreme God. It is laced with pitfalls and immorality (again, note the nuance between it and genuine ambition). Please reconsider your values Sir. You'll thank me for it one day.
