Unlike a certain David Cameron who wrote the 2005 Tory manifesto before dumping most of it as soon as he became leader later that year. The same Cameron who campaigned strongly in favour of keeping Section 28 before later saying it was wrong.

 

Indeed and same with Clegg too, there are now 3 used car salesmen in charge of the parties who would tell us anything to be elected, if Miliband thought telling us that the moon is made of blue cheese would pick him up votes he would do it

 

Like her or hate her Maggie had her convictions and stood by them no matter what, that is the leadership that I like, now we have 3 used car salesmen as party leaders who will insult our intelligence

 

Maggie had her beliefs and her principles and stuck by them no matter what, Miliband is just another Cameron/Clegg clone

Indeed and same with Clegg too, there are now 3 used car salesmen in charge of the parties who would tell us anything to be elected, if Miliband thought telling us that the moon is made of blue cheese would pick him up votes he would do it

 

Like her or hate her Maggie had her convictions and stood by them no matter what, that is the leadership that I like, now we have 3 used car salesmen as party leaders who will insult our intelligence

 

Maggie had her beliefs and her principles and stuck by them no matter what, Miliband is just another Cameron/Clegg clone

You mean the woman who lied to Parliament about the Belgrano long after there was any "national interest" excuse for doing so? The woman who rubbished the record of the Heath government in which she served? Or perhaps you mean Maggie Smith.

You mean the woman who lied to Parliament about the Belgrano long after there was any "national interest" excuse for doing so? The woman who rubbished the record of the Heath government in which she served? Or perhaps you mean Maggie Smith.

 

The Heath government if you want to call it that betrayed true toryism so it was right to be condemned, he was a "wet", even I condemned it

 

The sinking of the Belgrano was only an issue for lefties, it was totally the right thing to do and Maggie did the right thing based on the advice of military commanders

The Heath government if you want to call it that betrayed true toryism so it was right to be condemned, he was a "wet", even I condemned it

 

The sinking of the Belgrano was only an issue for lefties, it was totally the right thing to do and Maggie did the right thing based on the advice of military commanders

That's not the point. I made no comment about whether it was right or wrong. The point is that she lied about it to the House of Commons.

The Heath government if you want to call it that betrayed true toryism so it was right to be condemned, he was a "wet", even I condemned it

 

The sinking of the Belgrano was only an issue for lefties, it was totally the right thing to do and Maggie did the right thing based on the advice of military commanders

Oh, and on the other point, if she felt that Heath betrayed Toryism then why didn't she resign from the Cabinet? It was because she was another self-serving politician furthering her ambition.

Oh, and on the other point, if she felt that Heath betrayed Toryism then why didn't she resign from the Cabinet? It was because she was another self-serving politician furthering her ambition.

 

it is better to be inside the tent p***ing out than being outside the tent p***ing in, I can't remember which president said that but he was spot on

 

It is far better for Maggie to be part of the cabinet while at the same time getting a fanbase and plotting against Heath than being on the back benches having no influence

it is better to be inside the tent p***ing out than being outside the tent p***ing in, I can't remember which president said that but he was spot on

He was referring to a decision not to sack someone which is a different matter entirely. I asked why she didn't resign, not why Heath didn't sack her. The answer to that question is easy. He didn't think it would look good to have a Cabinet with no women.

He was referring to a decision not to sack someone which is a different matter entirely. I asked why she didn't resign, not why Heath didn't sack her. The answer to that question is easy. He didn't think it would look good to have a Cabinet with no women.

 

Yeah but I reversed the roles, Maggie if she had resigned would have just been another anonymous back bencher, no power base whatsoever, by staying in the cabinet and increasing her profile it gave her more chance of succeeding Heath

Yeah but I reversed the roles, Maggie if she had resigned would have just been another anonymous back bencher, no power base whatsoever, by staying in the cabinet and increasing her profile it gave her more chance of succeeding Heath

So you agree that she was just being another self-serving politician who would do anything to further her ambitions?

So you agree that she was just being another self-serving politician who would do anything to further her ambitions?

 

What politician isn't ? I bet if every politician was asked would they like to be PM they would say yes

What politician isn't ? I bet if every politician was asked would they like to be PM they would say yes

Then explain why perfectly able candidates don't stand for every leadership contest? Harriet Harman for one...

What politician isn't ? I bet if every politician was asked would they like to be PM they would say yes

But you've just criticised the three current party leaders for precisely the same thing.

But you've just criticised the three current party leaders for precisely the same thing.

 

Difference is Maggie had a vision, a desire for change

 

Cameron/Clegg and Miliband don't, they just want the power

I can only assume Andy Coulson has been distracted by the phone-hacking scandal, because God knows how any press officer would've allowed a child benefit cut to dominate the Tory party conference. This could well be this government's 10p tax.

 

Personally, I don't mind *too* much the principle of high-income-earners losing child benefit - but it's obviously completely incoherent that a household income of £85,000 could carry on claiming the benefit if both earn below £44,000, while a household income of £44,000 exactly from just one breadwinner would lose it.

I can only assume Andy Coulson has been distracted by the phone-hacking scandal, because God knows how any press officer would've allowed a child benefit cut to dominate the Tory party conference. This could well be this government's 10p tax.

 

Personally, I don't mind *too* much the principle of high-income-earners losing child benefit - but it's obviously completely incoherent that a household income of £85,000 could carry on claiming the benefit if both earn below £44,000, while a household income of £44,000 exactly from just one breadwinner would lose it.

It illustrates perfectly how complex the benefits system can be. The virtue of this proposal is that it is simple. However, it does throw up a lot of anomalies. A household with two people each earning £43,000 will still get child benefit but if one parent gets £50,000 and the other £36,000, they won't get it.

 

I think what they're trying to do is to be able to say "Here's a cut that doesn't affect low paid people at all. It only affects households in the top 15% when measured by income because we're all in this together". Naturally tHe Express and the Mail are outraged which is one thing in favour of the proposal.

 

Unfortunately it is now being reported that the tax break for marriage may be revived which could mean that a lot of people who lose child benefit will get the money back again through this ludicrous idea.

More news from the Tory conference and something which shows that on some subjects at least Ken Clarke is closer to the Lib Dems than he is to most Tories.

 

He is proposing that prisoners should do a full 40-hour week's work and should be paid at least the minimum wage. At the moment pay is limited to just £8 per week. Yes, that's right, £8 per week which hardly encourages prisoners to do any work.

 

That again would cause hysterics at the Distress and the Wail. But the rest of the proposal makes the idea seem a lot better. First, it helps to instil a work ethic in prisoners, many of whom have never had a "real" job.

 

Second, they will not keep all the money. Some will go to victim support groups. Some will go to the prisoner's family with an equal reduction in any benefits they may be claiming. At least some of the rest could be held back to be paid to the prisoner two years (or some other suitable period) after release as long as they have not re-offended.

 

The biggest drawback is that a time when unemployment may soon start to rise steeply is not the best time to launch a scheme like this.

Have the Lib Dems even agreed to the marriage tax break being revived? Even in the post-election world where the Lib Dems magically found they agreed with Dave on most issues all along, Lib Dem ministers were still opposed to the marriage tax break - I distinctly remember Sarah Teather saying a few months ago that it was one of the few areas where the Coalition partners completely disagreed.

Have the Lib Dems even agreed to the marriage tax break being revived? Even in the post-election world where the Lib Dems magically found they agreed with Dave on most issues all along, Lib Dem ministers were still opposed to the marriage tax break - I distinctly remember Sarah Teather saying a few months ago that it was one of the few areas where the Coalition partners completely disagreed.

Not as far as I am aware. When it was left out of the Coalition Agreement it was seen as a victory for the Lib Dems.

It wasn't that bad.

Yes, an American band (Vampire Weekend) for his entry music and another one at the end. Not very patriotic :lol:

 

What song was it? Oxford Comma?

What song was it? Oxford Comma?

A-Punk