When exactly is this idiot going to be fired? First, a few months ago, he said Hillsborough was caused by restless fans. Now he's saying people on benefits shouldn't expect the State to finance their "choice" of having big families. Unbelievably ignorant.

isnt he the same moron who thought scrapping the UK Film Council would be a good idea?

isnt he the same moron who thought scrapping the UK Film Council would be a good idea?

The very same. He is, of course, a millionaire so will be well aware of what life on benefits is like.

Hateful arsehole. Whatever scandals he's embroiled in (bound to be some) cannot be uncovered soon enough for me.

Alas, he's probably a shoo-in to be next Tory leader. Which will make the exposes if/when he does quite fun!

Ahh, my darling MP. What a babe.

Ahh, my darling MP. What a babe.

 

unlucky. that said I have Theresa May :puke2:

Ahh, my darling MP. What a babe.

My brother's MP as well

I still can't figure out which member of the Coalition irritates the hell out of me the most - Hunt, Osborne or Baroness Warsi.

They seem to be trotting out Phillip Hammond a lot now.

 

He was dire on the Daily Politics. Tried to avoid admitting that some of the funding to help boroughs to support a few families with special cirumstances, who would otherwise have to move away, would come from a fund which had been used to help the homeless.

 

So they're taking from the very poorest of them all first?

 

What did Mr Hammond bleat in response to the allegation. We must first cut the deficit.

 

Money is the first priority? It always has been with the Tories in power. Do they have any compassion whatsoever?

 

Are we supposed to turn a blind eye and let people die of hypothermia on the streets of our towns and cities so we can shave a few millions from the welfare budget?

 

That unscrupulous bunch know the British are generous and fair by nature and they can take this money knowing full well volunteers and charities will step into the breach to try to limit the effects its loss will bring.

I prefer the Conservatives I think. Labour make me sad and upset. They always spend too much money

And really why should fat chavs who can't keep their fishy legs closed get loads of money?

I prefer the Conservatives I think. Labour make me sad and upset. They always spend too much money

 

Interesting you say that, the Tories had no problems whatsoever with any of Nu Labor's public spending when they were in opposition.. All of a sudden, they're bitching about how "reckless" Labour were.. Two-faced b'astards..... <_<

 

The reason for the deficit is simple - we bailed out the banks to the tune of £500 billion, because THEY were reckless with other peoples' money.... Fukk the banks over, not the poorest in society....

 

isnt he the same moron who thought scrapping the UK Film Council would be a good idea?

 

Yeah, great idea that one, close down the one Quango that WAS actually making money for the UK economy.... Tw@t.... -_-

I dont think there should be any party in power and we need someone like Hitler back. I mean not like Hitler as in killing people and stuff but someone with charisma who can get stuff sorted pronto

I dont think there should be any party in power and we need someone like Hitler back. I mean not like Hitler as in killing people and stuff but someone with charisma who can get stuff sorted pronto

 

You scare me. And us socialists wonder why people give us a hard time, I know everyone should have the right to vote but you're not exactly a great advertisment for that...

I dont think there should be any party in power and we need someone like Hitler back. I mean not like Hitler as in killing people and stuff but someone with charisma who can get stuff sorted pronto

 

You really are some kind of deranged idiot.... You must've chosen Hitler for a reason (maybe that reason is, you're a FASCIST perhaps.... -_- ), so dont go try taking it back in the next sentence... Someone with "charisma" who changed things for the better in politics would also be, ooooh, I dunno, Ghandi perhaps, or maybe Nelson Mandela, John F Kennedy, Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King (okay, wasn't a politician, but his charisma, ethical honour and moral authority are unquestionable, and he absolutely would have been a great Head of State)...?? But no, you go straight for one of history's psychopaths instead of one of history's reformers as an example, so, really what the hell does that say about you...?

 

I believe in democracy, but on the other hand, I find the fact that uneducated, ignorant idiots like you can vote to be pretty disturbing. Thankfully, not many ignorant idiots actually do....

You really are some kind of deranged idiot.... You must've chosen Hitler for a reason (maybe that reason is, you're a FASCIST perhaps.... -_- ), so dont go try taking it back in the next sentence... Someone with "charisma" who changed things for the better in politics would also be, ooooh, I dunno, Ghandi perhaps, or maybe Nelson Mandela, John F Kennedy, Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King (okay, wasn't a politician, but his charisma, ethical honour and moral authority are unquestionable, and he absolutely would have been a great Head of State)...?? But no, you go straight for one of history's psychopaths instead of one of history's reformers as an example, so, really what the hell does that say about you...?

 

I believe in democracy, but on the other hand, I find the fact that uneducated, ignorant idiots like you can vote to be pretty disturbing. Thankfully, not many ignorant idiots actually do....

 

or maybe a TROLL, it's even more obvious than crazy chris.

or maybe a TROLL, it's even more obvious than crazy chris.

 

Oh, without a doubt a Troll dude... I'm still remembering the crap she came away with concerning the "cat in bin" woman..... :lol:

 

Interesting you say that, the Tories had no problems whatsoever with any of Nu Labor's public spending when they were in opposition..

 

Exactly, Labour really need to start hammering home this point. Cameron and Osborne said time and time again up until the end of 2008 that they would stick to Labour's spending plans - if they were so concerned about the level of debt building, why didn't they say so then? They also completely agreed with the banking bail-out, although they admittedly opposed Labour's subsequent efforts to stimulate the economy, so they can atleast say spending levels wouldn't have been *quite* as high over the last couple of years with some credibility. Clegg and Cable, on the other hand, regularly criticised Labour for not having a big enough stimulus during the recession, which is what makes so sickening Clegg's rhetoric now about Labour being "reckless spenders" - either he is so economically obtuse that he didn't realise that what Labour were doing was against his supposed principles at the time, or (like we all suspect), he's sold out his principles for the huge honour of getting a desk in Francis Maude's office.