Higher rate tax :(

la gran siete said:
maybe they can afford the cars but not the drive

Easy to get cars when you live in a council house - not so easy to get somewhere to park them.
 
abraxus said:
Actuallly I'm not sure the Tories would have gotten away with the war. I think Tory support would always have been there, but the Labour support was largely just following the party (Blairs) line. If it were the Tories in power I suspect that Labour would have opposed it wholesale along with the Libs, making it nigh on impossible to happen. To get a majority would require substantial Labour support, which would only happen if they were in power and proposing it.

In fact, looking at all the possibilities, I truly believe that a Labour govt were the only ones that could more or less guarantee our involvement in the war.
Thing is that when a Tory govt goes to war the press and media are 100% behind them and remain so. Labour, if they want to win power have to appear to be 'conservative' as such only the back benches oppose war, the shadow cabinet normally follows the govt line. Therefore, arguably mind, the Tories would have found it less difficult.


LGS, I think you need to give it up. The argument over 'showing off wealth' is a loser - period.

Basicaly if we are dumb enough to pay these people stupid amounts of money, then tough. More fool us. I don't resent footballers having £100,000 a week, I just think it's short-sighted and dangerous for the clubs future. If people are dumb enough to pay x amount of millions to pop stars like Nick Mason or movie 'stars', then who am I to argue?


What I do resent is working hard for not much back, when the lazy, useless, gits that run where I work earn £60,000 + for doing not a lot, and passing the **** downwards. That sort of resentment I can understand. In particular when you know how they got the jobs................. and hard work had nothing to do with it.
 
overkill said:
Thing is that when a Tory govt goes to war the press and media are 100% behind them and remain so. Labour, if they want to win power have to appear to be 'conservative' as such only the back benches oppose war, the shadow cabinet normally follows the govt line. Therefore, arguably mind, the Tories would have found it less difficult.

Yes that would apply to a Labour government. However, I don't see how that applies to a government that calls itself Labour, but has Tory policies ?
 
la gran siete said:
i know but isnt it fun:D
On a serious note I find it very hard to unedrstanm wahy any one would want to have five or six cars dotted around his driveway mostly their to impress others:rolleyes: ( are you listening to me neighbour!?)nad then he has the gall to complain about his 40% rate??Waste and vanity nothing else and he should be taxed more in order to feed the family down the road who are struggling.
Then there is the inmorality of gambling. Whats that about?? Might as well dig a hole and dump th money in there !Why give it to a bunch of greedy casino owners?:thumbsdow .Its the one issue I have some sympathy with the Muslim position ie not believing in making money out of money. Make it out of ONES OWN hard toil.

LGS, do you ever think about what you write? have you ever thought some people's hobbies are cars, and they do not simply buy cars to just to show off to neighbours. Your mentalilty amazes me, anyone who buys a nice car, eats at expensive restaurants, wears nice clothes, etc is either a ponce or a show off.
 
Nick_UK said:
Yes that would apply to a Labour government. However, I don't see how that applies to a government that calls itself Labour, but has Tory policies ?
Not sure what you mean Nick?:confused: While New Labour is a 'Tory govt in disguise' it cannot rely on media support, and at the same time it cannot rely on its grass roots for unequivocal backing. While the majority of the parliamentary party backed 'the toadie', even from day one there was dissent from below. The Tories, traditionaly, never suffer from this.
 
overkill said:
Thing is that when a Tory govt goes to war the press and media are 100% behind them and remain so. Labour, if they want to win power have to appear to be 'conservative' as such only the back benches oppose war, the shadow cabinet normally follows the govt line. Therefore, arguably mind, the Tories would have found it less difficult..
True about the press, and indeed peoples expectations of a Tory govt. I gues I was saying that if the Tories were in power they would have had all the Tory support and littlke or none from Labour, whereas Labour would have had all the Tory support and a fair chunk of Labour as well. As a matter of interest, if it were a Tory govt, do you think they would have got much much Labour support? Maybe I'm reading it wrong.


overkill said:
What I do resent is working hard for not much back, when the lazy, useless, gits that run where I work earn £60,000 + for doing not a lot, and passing the **** downwards. That sort of resentment I can understand. In particular when you know how they got the jobs................. and hard work had nothing to do with it.
I can fully appreciate that kind of frustration and resentment.
 
shahedz said:
LGS, do you ever think about what you write? have you ever thought some people's hobbies are cars, and they do not simply buy cars to just to show off to neighbours. Your mentalilty amazes me, anyone who buys a nice car, eats at expensive restaurants, wears nice clothes, etc is either a ponce or a show off.

I think LGS regards any purchases that he personally wouldn't have chosen, as immoral, outrageous, showing off, etc................

sidicks
 
I think a very fine line is being walked here...Let's not forget that we all have different opinions...It was nearly too good to be true that a thread went on for so long without getting personal......Shame....
 
av2diefor said:
LGS=wind up merchant....fact.

Probably a decent bloke.....:thumbsup:

Agreed, but he ensures that there's never a dull moment. :)
 
shahedz said:
LGS, do you ever think about what you write? have you ever thought some people's hobbies are cars, and they do not simply buy cars to just to show off to neighbours. Your mentalilty amazes me, anyone who buys a nice car, eats at expensive restaurants, wears nice clothes, etc is either a ponce or a show off.


Funny you should say that but the neighbour I have an issue with only has one -a Discovery which he rarely uses and is mainly there for show but I dont like him because he is a miserable sod . The gut with the six cars is well decent, he is also a mechanic who maintains my car/ truck. His cars are all old citroens- mostly 2cvs and an old 40s police car. For him its very much enthusiasm and a labour love ,not ponciness and a wanting to show off.
Not sure what you mean by nice clothes - clobber is clobber.Oh you mean designer gear?AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRGH!
Poncey restaurants. You know I absolutely love food Spanish ,Italian,Indian Chinese and Thai .My very favourite is French. A decent bouillabaise or Fruit de Mer is unbeatable. Trouble is so many eateries over here try to be artistic with their 'creations' so you get this stupid turret stuck in the middle of your plate and dribbled sauce round the side. In fact you end up with 20% food and 80% plate and for that you pay a £30-£50:mad: Its all expensive pretentious twaddle and I wont have it.
What we need in this country is a le Routier standard aimed primarily at truckers and tradesmen but catering for anyone ,where food is imaginative ,plentiful, of a good order and affordable.
In France there are loads of small family run eateries which serve that kind of food and we would do well to emulate them. They also have poncey ones but I wont be going to them any time soon as the French can be just as efete and affected.
 
overkill said:
Thing is that when a Tory govt goes to war the press and media are 100% behind them and remain so. Labour, if they want to win power have to appear to be 'conservative' as such only the back benches oppose war, the shadow cabinet normally follows the govt line. Therefore, arguably mind, the Tories would have found it less difficult.


LGS, I think you need to give it up. The argument over 'showing off wealth' is a loser - period.

Basicaly if we are dumb enough to pay these people stupid amounts of money, then tough. More fool us. I don't resent footballers having £100,000 a week, I just think it's short-sighted and dangerous for the clubs future. If people are dumb enough to pay x amount of millions to pop stars like Nick Mason or movie 'stars', then who am I to argue?


What I do resent is working hard for not much back, when the lazy, useless, gits that run where I work earn £60,000 + for doing not a lot, and passing the **** downwards. That sort of resentment I can understand. In particular when you know how they got the jobs................. and hard work had nothing to do with it.

ok I admit its my own prejudices coming to the fore. I believe most of us have them and those are mine. I see them for what they are and i dont really hold really bad feelings towards those that feel the need to show off.The only people who really hack me off are the snooty brigade, the ones who look down the end of their noses or wish to put others down. I have few of those in my family:thumbsdow Maybe thats whats made me a bit chippy.
 
overkill said:
Thing is that when a Tory govt goes to war the press and media are 100% behind them and remain so. Labour, if they want to win power have to appear to be 'conservative' as such only the back benches oppose war, the shadow cabinet normally follows the govt line. Therefore, arguably mind, the Tories would have found it less difficult.

Are you comparing the Falklands with Iraq? Thatcher didn't lie about why we went to war: it was a question of sovereignty. Blair, on the other hand did nothing but lie as he searched for a credible reason for following Bush into the oil fields of Iraq.

It isn't a press thing: it's a credibility thing. There weren't many complaints when we went into Afghanistan, for instance, but the case for invading Iraq just didn't hold water.
 
rhoamish said:
Are you comparing the Falklands with Iraq? Thatcher didn't lie about why we went to war: it was a question of sovereignty. Blair, on the other hand did nothing but lie as he searched for a credible reason for following Bush into the oil fields of Iraq.

It isn't a press thing: it's a credibility thing. There weren't many complaints when we went into Afghanistan, for instance, but the case for invading Iraq just didn't hold water.

Actually it was about Thatcher ingoring the advice given to her that Argentina were about to invade. A bit of sabre ratling and quick sending of a few submarines down there would have inhibited the Argentines. The fact that she arrogantly ignored her advisors meant that the Argies thought it was the green light for them to go ahead. Carrington, ever the gentleman, became the fall guy and Thatcher went ahead with her face saving exercise.Irony or what?
 
la gran siete said:
...... The fact that she arrogantly ignored her advisors meant that the Argies thought it was the green light for them to go ahead.

Don't be so daft ! "Green Light" indeed.... the Falklands is part of the UK, and we have every right to defend it. The Argentinians got their asses kicked - and quite rightly too.
 
Nick_UK said:
The Argentinians got their asses kicked - and quite rightly too.

You need to thank

Chile - for giving the location of Argies subs
Yanks - For the sidewinder missle

Without these two things might have been different
 
Nick_UK said:
Don't be so daft ! "Green Light" indeed.... the Falklands is part of the UK, and we have every right to defend it. The Argentinians got their asses kicked - and quite rightly too.
Thats a whole other debate that is. I f it was me I'd relinquish both the isles and Gibraltar thus improving relations wioth both hte countries involved. afget alkl they are not much use to us now anyway and are merely reminders of a colonial age we'd do well to turn our backs on
 
uridium said:
I'm sure the british subjects living on both islands would not share your view!
They are only a small number of people and I am looking at the wider poicture besides Gibraltarians enjoy their status because it s tax free haven nad many have properties in Spain. I gather the Falklanders are mostly misfits who can only live on islands so why not send them to the Hebrides?Give them some sheep and Robert is your fathers sibling
 
la gran siete said:
They are only a small number of people and I am looking at the wider poicture besides Gibraltarians enjoy their status because it s tax free haven nad many have properties in Spain. I gather the Falklanders are mostly misfits who can only live on islands so why not send them to the Hebrides?Give them some sheep and Robert is your fathers sibling

I didn't know you considered Ethnic cleansing an acceptable policy. I suppose whilst it is brutal, violent and ultimately self defeating, it isn't "poncy." :rolleyes:

The position is that if the majority of subjects on the Falkands wish to join Argentina, they can and the islands will be seceeded (sp?). As it stands they don't. Besides if we should give them back to anyone it is the French as we took them by force. Argentina has never owned the Falklands.
 
la gran siete said:
They are only a small number of people and I am looking at the wider poicture besides Gibraltarians enjoy their status because it s tax free haven nad many have properties in Spain. I gather the Falklanders are mostly misfits who can only live on islands so why not send them to the Hebrides?Give them some sheep and Robert is your fathers sibling


Lets vote on moving you to South Georgia.

You won't get any say in the matter, since you are only 1 person and you merely live in your house, you don;t historically own the land.
Some petty little moron from 200 miles away may think historically his nation has a right to your back garden, even though he'll never visit or do anything with it.

For him it's about the principle of the thing rather than any real benifit or care for what best for the people involved that allows him to be a petty minded little racist..... I mean, he probably thinks you are just mostly a misfit.
 
if we are talking principles then we must bear in mind the Falklands were Argentine until the 1830's- a legacy of Spanish colonialism. The Brits decided they'd have it for themselves for whatever stratyegic reason although I believe it was revenge for the argies having defeated th Uk twice in 1806 and 1807 in the aborted invasions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_invasions_of_the_Río_de_la_Plata
 

The latest video from AVForums

Is 4K Blu-ray Worth It?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom