I mean smaller, slower cuts. It's not ideal in my view, but it's better and the only political alternative at the moment. The Tory policy is full-on suicidal and has failed even according to its own criteria.
I've read enough of Brooker's "I hate Toriez!" screeds to suggest otherwise. I don't doubt that the feelings in Labour heartlands are genuine. However south of Watford, it's been nurtured by juvenile teachers, journalists, entertainers and the rest of the commentariart.
One need not have been alive during a leader's term in office for one to feel the ramifications of that leader's poor decisions and policies.
Ecky - forgot to add: compare and contrast your own back yard. Oldham's woes due to the decline of manufacturing are much lamented. The ones due to mass immigration without integration, not so much.
If they have enough time to drop their work or studies and piss around on the street with beers I'm not entirely convinced that are feeling such ramifications.
No arguments on it failing, but they've been left with one hell of a poisoned chalice and why Cameron persists in keeping Osborne as Chancellor is beyond me. He's the epitome of student politics. Blair, Brown and Balls tied the UK's fortunes to the financial sector in such a manner it'll take decades to rebalance the economy, and given how both Labour and the Tories are still in the pockets of the likes of KPMG I have doubts it'll ever occur without another hefty fall.
There's also much disinformation about such things too. Manufacturing in the UK reached it's peak in 2008 - some years after Thatcher - however the type of goods had changed, as had the employment requirements. Which is expected as a nation advances. Many have this Industrial Albion concept, that they feel ought to have been contained in amber for all time. Of course that same mythical place was built upon the backs of the same Empire many hankering for the 70's back disown.
I have my own experiences with the legal system from doing jury duty. My conclusions: Was the prosecution interested in the truth? No, the truth may have harmed their case. was the defense interested in the truth? No, the truth may have harmed their case. Where the witnesses questioned in a way that lead to the truth coming out? No, they were questioned in a way that strengthened the questioners case and weakened the the counterargument. Was the judge interested in the truth? More so than the lawyers, but she was more interested in the procedure being correct than anyone finding out what actually happened.
I ignored the rest of your post after this most idiotic of comments. This is akin to saying to Hood "I spent two weeks on work experience in a GP's surgery so I know all about medicine" or to Marso "I flew a 747 to Ibiza so I'm a pilot". Total fucking garbage.
I never tried to claim I was an expert you retard. And I take it you think my experience of the British legal system was misrepresentative? I havnt spoken to a single person so far that thinks it was...
Ok Danny boy, misrepresentative? Maybe not. You having a very limited understanding of what was happening? Most definately. Maybe it's arrogance on my part, but my lack of faith in the jury system is reaffirmed by the fact that you can't work out why the judge was "more interested in procedure". Furthermore, you are using this as support for your rants against lawyers in politics, so damn fucking right you are pretending to know about the legal profession.
Answer this: In your 'opinion', is a lawyer more interested in A: the truth, or B: winning the case ?
Why do you evade the key point? You stated that your legal "experience" was proof of there being too many lawyers in British politics. Do you now disown that remark. As for your comment, it presupposes that lawyers either tell the truth or lie. The latter is conduct unbecoming a solicitor and as such I will not grace it with a response.
No I didnt you idiot, not too good at arguing are you? I claimed there were too many lawyers in government based on the numbers of lawyers in government. Anything over about 0.5% would be misrepresentative of the population as a whole and certainly of the proportion of the highly skilled people we should want governing us. Oh fuck off, not anyone, even other lawyers would believe that shit.
Bunch of shysters the lot of you, i would trust a lawyer about as far as I could comfortably spit out a rat. And I'd certainly never turn my back on any of them.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with that? Your quote is still the best thing I've heard all day.
Interesting statement from Frank Field - the only Labour politician I'd vote for - implying that Thatcher regretted that her policy of tax cuts didn't create an American attitude towards charity where the successful embrace philanthropy.
WRT people celebrating. I've heard that some of them were Chilean refugees in the UK who had fled the repression of the Pinochet government which Thatcher supported. I can sort of understand their feelings.
Pinochet was pretty mild as far as dictators go. A communist government in Chile would've (as it always is) far, far worse.
Brixton? That is the class I would expect from a place like that. Its like South Chicago, the kind of place you wouldn't want to walk through during the day much less at night. I am sure the Ghettos blame Thatcher for not giving them more hand outs.
