Lamps is a Tory!

[Guest blue4you]

Suits him?

[midlandblue]

guess you could say he's a true blue.

[Valerie]

Lampard is in good company then, because our very own Paul Seery is a recent convert to the Tory cause!

[Luis Enrique]

Well, he grew up relatively priveleged, he's now quite wealthy and wants more money, and has had sex scandals of his own, so, yes, it would appear to be a good fit.

[Backbiter]

Most footballers are. The odd one who isn't, like Pat Nevin and Le Saux, are seen as odd-balls.

[Luis Enrique]

Most footballers are. The odd one who isn't, like Pat Nevin and Le Saux, are seen as odd-balls.

That's weird. I would have expected that since most of them grew up working class, that Tory wouldn't be their affiliation. Then again, can't say I know much about UK politics.

[loz]

All boils down to cash Luis Enrique - broadly speaking, and historically, the rich paid less in tax under the Tories then they would under labour and thus footballers, being high earners, would tend to vote with their hand firmly in their pocket.

The lines between the two parties are so blurred now that most people can't tell them apart anyway, let alone footballers who are rarely going to do well on Mastermind!

[Englishman]

Most footballers are. The odd one who isn't, like Pat Nevin and Le Saux, are seen as odd-balls.

I'd have thought most footballers have no interest in politics at all. I can't really picture Cashley and Rooney discussing the pros and cons of the European constitution.

[Backbiter]

I'm sure you're right, which was my point about Nevin and Le Saux being seen as unconventional because they were interested in politics, and have leftish views. To be fair to Lamps, he's a lot brighter than your average footballer. Most British pros have to sacrifice their education to have any real chance of getting anywhere in the game - which is another issue. Lamps being a Tory is to be expected for someone who went to private school and is seriously wealthy.

[BLUENUT]

Most footballers are. The odd one who isn't, like Pat Nevin and Le Saux, are seen as odd-balls.

I'd have thought most footballers have no interest in politics at all. I can't really picture Cashley and Rooney discussing the pros and cons of the European constitution.

Prostitution............ however

[Paul Seery]

The lines between the two parties are so blurred now that most people can't tell them apart

I object to that. The difference between the Conservative Party and the Labour Party is that Labour believes incontrolling the state and big government, whereas the Conservative Party believes in small government and social responsibility. For example the news of tougher border controls that was annouced by the government was somthing that the Conservative Party as was the inheritance tax announcement that was made by the chancellor after the party conference season. The bottom line is that the Labour government are running out of ideas, is looking stale and is now trying to find anyway to stay in power and that includes trying to stal policy ideas from the other political parties.

[Alan]

Well you would say that

[Paul Seery]

Well you would say that

Yes but its also fact

[ethicalstrategy]

broadly speaking, and historically, the rich paid less in tax under the Tories then they would under labour

Everyone paid less tax - not just the rich. It's still true today. This government is taxing the hell out of us but they just found some more creative ways of doing it. Take a look at your pension - tax free they say! In the words of Jim Royle: "my arse"!

[loz]

Well you would say that

Yes but its also fact

Thing is Paul political parties have been stealing each other's ideas for many many decades. Tories accusing Labour of doing it is just as hypocritical as Labour accusing Tories of doing it. very recently Cameron came out with the Conservative Co-operative Movement a movement which unashamedly stole the lions share of the policies on co-operative schools which a Labour MP called Ed Balls had come up with just a couple of months before. A Tory leader backing a co-operative philosophy - interesting, that isn't just 'stealing policies' that is actually adopting what was very much part of Labour's tradition (and notice I say Labour not 'New Labour'.

In times gone by when there was a noticeable difference between the two parties you could actually call it policy theft however in these days when they are both wearing the same suits and those suits are a shade of purple it is't actually surprising they are adopting each other's policies because fundamentally they are both chasing the same goals and planing to get there in pretty much the same way.

[loz]

broadly speaking, and historically, the rich paid less in tax under the Tories then they would under labour

Everyone paid less tax - not just the rich. It's still true today. This government is taxing the hell out of us but they just found some more creative ways of doing it. Take a look at your pension - tax free they say! In the words of Jim Royle: "my arse"!

Well Thatcherism which is probabyl still the mother of modern conservatism did firmly advocate lower direct taxation however it also firmly advocated higher indirect taxation which is something that tends to get overlooked when people talk about lower taxes under a Conservative rule.

However I guess what it basically boils down to is whether you believe that the wealthier you are the greater proportion of your wage you should pay in tax and I am of the belief that this should be the case.

Thatcher is always credited with turning the British economy around and I actually wouldn't argue with that in terms of getting inflation under control and public sector debt down to a manageable level but at the same time two of the key areas where Thatcher's Tory Government broke age old consensus with all political parties were that they massively reduced spending on health and education whilst firmly backing private provision (so they may have been charging you less in tax but there was a direct consequence) and that they cut back on a whole stack of government intervention programmes specifically designed to reduce poverty.

And the result of this was? Hardly surprising that this utter neglect of the social needs of the country resulted in the UK's unemployment hitting astronomical levels and the number of families with children below the poverty line hitting as much as 30%.

[Lofty]

Thatcher's legacy:

The UK is now a greedier more selfish nation. Her basic philosophy of "monetarism" says a lot about her and her followers. To correct the frequently misquoted - the love of money is the root of all evil, and if there was one lesson that mad evil bitch taught the gullible and the greedy it was to love the almighty dollar/pound/yen and so on.

She destroyed entire communities in her wake. Whole swathes of the country,especially in Wales, the North suffered as a direct result of her meddling. She was also responsible for the mass sale of council housing, and never had any intention of replacing this stock. The results being that housing is now less affordable. Privatisation: Organisations that were once public services are now obliged to run as profit making business. These include schools, hospitals, utility companies, and .. prisons. Privatised prisons? Can someone please explain to me the logic of requiring a prison to run at a profit?

Then there was the closure of the large mental hospitals, replacing these institutions with the notorious Care In The Community programme. Take away all the justifications and what are you left with? Sad pathetic sick, and sometimes dangerous people, wandering the streets because there's nowhere else to go.

I could go on but I've had enough for now. I've had enough of mouthy twats like James Whale and even more so of Jon f**king Gaunt proclaiming Thatcher as Britain's greatest ever Prime Minister.

Mararet Thatcher: when the bitch finally shakes off this mortal coil, may she rot in hell, along with her good mate Ronald Reagan, who as a President, was a pretty good actor.

[loz]

I was trying to give Thatcher a little credit but being totally honest I shouldn't have! I whole heartedly agree with every word of that Lofty! I would still recognise that when she came into power inflation needed to be curbed and the massive hikes in interest rates were the right way to go about it however other than that her legacy is one of utter bile.

EDIT

oh and even some of the good stuff got screwed up eventually - by the time she sodded off inflation was sky high again (at least I think it was)

[Backbiter]

Thatcher was so ruthless in pursuing her agenda that she was prepared to sacrifice people and communities to get her way. Just to give one example, she employed McGregor to pick fights with the Steel and Miners' unions, regardless of the costs - which were astronomical, both in financial and human terms.

The tax policy was to shift the burden from the wealthy to the less wealthy: income tax was slashed for the richest from 98% (which hardly anyone paid) to 40%, and to pay for it VAT - which everyone pays, the poorer disproportionately so - went up from 8% to 17.5%.

I won't even mention unemployment and the cuts in health and education. OK, I just have.

[Kev123]

Thatcher was so ruthless in pursuing her agenda that she was prepared to sacrifice people and communities to get her way. Just to give one example, she employed McGregor to pick fights with the Steel and Miners' unions, regardless of the costs - which were astronomical, both in financial and human terms.

The tax policy was to shift the burden from the wealthy to the less wealthy: income tax was slashed for the richest from 98% (which hardly anyone paid) to 40%, and to pay for it VAT - which everyone pays, the poorer disproportionately so - went up from 8% to 17.5%.

I won't even mention unemployment and the cuts in health and education. OK, I just have.

98% income tax?