Thread: What have the Conservative Government ever done for us ?

Originally Posted by Cabana

Quite a number of things...

Not sold us out to Europe.
Not sold us out to the US.
Not allowed immigration to go out of control.
Not allowed PC to get out of control.
Not sold of our gold reserves to fill their own pockets.
Not brought the country to its knees.
Not gotten us involved in needless costly wars.
The list is endless.

I think that the original question that prompted the OP to start this thread is much more relevant.


I am not sure why the OP mentioned unemployed, officuial unemployment figures are nearing 3 million....I would like to know the real figure....it is probably double that knowing the lies that Labour tell.

The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development said it was more like 6 million a few weeks ago. DWP like to hide people on New Deal where they become trainees so do not show up on the unemployment figures + all those on Sickness Benefits who should really be unemployed.

Originally Posted by pandaplodder

I
The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development said it was more like 6 million a few weeks ago. DWP like to hide people on New Deal where they become trainees so do not show up on the unemployment figures + all those on Sickness Benefits who should really be unemployed.

I've got a niece who has a live-in boyfriend of about 22 who has never worked, and probably never will, because he gets, wait for it ..... 'panic attacks' if he has to go to work. Nothing humiliating like signing on is required, so he doesn't appear in any unemployment figures, he just sits on his bloated, fat, thick arrse all day drinking from cans of lager and knocking out kids like there is no tomorrow. They have two so far and another on the way. For this 'hardship' he gets a couple of hundred quid a week and all the benefits you can think of. Oh, and a nice new Barrett house on a brand new estate.

Maggies fault, obviously.

Originally Posted by Oil_Slick

Originally Posted by Twizzlelehope

Originally Posted by LateStarter

Magaret Thatcher - Nuff Said. :D

Agreed - "The Iron Lady" was not for turning.

You'll never see that fat cvnt Brown in a tank,


Even if he wanted to, he couldn't squeeze through the hatch.

And he would only need a mono-goggle if such a thing exists.

Originally Posted by Awol

Originally Posted by pandaplodder

I
The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development said it was more like 6 million a few weeks ago. DWP like to hide people on New Deal where they become trainees so do not show up on the unemployment figures + all those on Sickness Benefits who should really be unemployed.

I've got a niece who has a live-in boyfriend of about 22 who has never worked, and probably never will, because he gets, wait for it ..... 'panic attacks' if he has to go to work. Nothing humiliating like signing on is required, so he doesn't appear in any unemployment figures, he just sits on his bloated, fat, thick arrse all day drinking from cans of lager and knocking out kids like there is no tomorrow. They have two so far and another on the way. For this 'hardship' he gets a couple of hundred quid a week and all the benefits you can think of. Oh, and a nice new Barrett house on a brand new estate.

Maggies fault, obviously.

Well, in fairness she did introduce incapacity benefit. To hide the real level of unemployment.

Originally Posted by PoisonDwarf

Originally Posted by StickyEnd

Anyway, as a Nation we became a far wealthier one due to Thatcher's policies. Was it all good? No. Was it all bad? No.

Wealthier? Wealthier than what or whom? Isn't it all relative / comparative?

At the end of the day, the OP isn't going to get a balanced view of a political question on ARRSE. It's like a drunken version of the Daily Hate.

OK, I'll put it another way. The average family in the UK had far more resources to use/consume in 1995 than in 1975.

Originally Posted by Bazzinho1977

Well, in fairness she did introduce incapacity benefit. To hide the real level of unemployment.

Agreed, but the level is now up to nearly three million and climbing up from a few hundred thousand in 1994. So either the country is suddenly crippled by illness, or the criteria to claim have been lowered to the ground. At least Cameron has said that he will seriously shake up the system.

Probably by using doctors.

Originally Posted by CrownImperial

Don't know if we've looked at the military aspect yet, but conservative governments have presided over:


Winning The Second World War
.

Aside from the fact that the people who actually won those tete a tetes were the Soldiers and Sailors of Britain - what you have posted above is actually Shabite.

It was a Government of National Unity featuring the best from all parties. It was led by a Tory who was considered an outsider because of his constant crticism of the TORY Governments Policy of Appeasement under Chamberlain.

Churchill was actually a liberal before a Tory, and changed his political views and clothes more often than most. It was precisely this that made him such a Good unity leader.

Originally Posted by StickyEnd

Originally Posted by PoisonDwarf

Originally Posted by StickyEnd

Anyway, as a Nation we became a far wealthier one due to Thatcher's policies. Was it all good? No. Was it all bad? No.

Wealthier? Wealthier than what or whom? Isn't it all relative / comparative?

At the end of the day, the OP isn't going to get a balanced view of a political question on ARRSE. It's like a drunken version of the Daily Hate.

OK, I'll put it another way. The average family in the UK had far more resources to use/consume in 1995 than in 1975.

Bless. Its like a four year old dressing up in mammies shoes and underwear. You have some of the things in the right place, but you still just look stupid to everybody else.

Right - what do you mean by resources? Are you counting levels of debt? Do you mean they had ownership of or access to? And does resources equal happiness? Was life better or worse in 95 than 75?

What do you mean by the average family? Mean, mode, median? Have you removed outliers for that average? Have you considered family size in your calculation?

etc. etc. etc. etc.


Or, are you just randomly dragging words from your brain and spilling them onto the internet?

Not sold us out to Europe

the major signings to the political EU happened under thatcher and major?

Not sold us out to the US.

thatcher and reagan could have even closer lovers than Blair and bush.

Not allowed immigration to go out of control.

why was powell so concerned then? could it be that under a tory government for example indian immigration to britain peaked during heaths government and the first 2 years of thatchers rule?

Not sold of our gold reserves to fill their own pockets

no just our institutions.

Not brought the country to its knees.

needs definition.

Not gotten us involved in needless costly wars

lol suez?

Didn't sell us out to Europe managed to get a large rebate of our now squandered money, that was happily handed back over.

Yes Mrs T and Raegan were close but we were not sold out or lap dogs to them

I am sure that Enoch Powell was talking about what could happen not what did happen,


Are you trying to blame Suez on Thatcher/major?

Are you trying to blame Suez on Thatcher/major

no 0.o. it was a conservative government under eden correct?

I am sure that Enoch Powell was talking about what could happen not what did happen,

read my post again. it *did* happen. the highest point of indian immigration to this country happened under heath (tory) and thatcher (tory). powell was prompted by current events not randomly spouting predictions.

Yes Mrs T and Raegan were close but we were not sold out or lap dogs to them

trident put our independent nuclear ability into US hands.
used our bases bombing libya
bending over when the US invaded a commonwealth nation (grenada)
never mind the behind the doors deals on intelligence etc.

sure we benefited from the relationship but to pretend we werent subservient is ridiculous. thatcher relied on the US for legitimacy on the world stage.

Originally Posted by Toxicseagull

Not sold us out to Europe

the major signings to the political EU happened under thatcher and major?

True, in fairness the Single European Act and the Maastricht Treaty were signed by Maggie and Major respectively. In their defence however, Maggie got us the rebate on contributions which Blair gave back...for nothing as far as I can see. Major, for all his faults a master of detail and a superb negotiator, got us the opt-out from much of the Social Policy, Working Time directive etc, which I seem to recall has also been surrendered or lost under the present incumbents?

Not sold us out to the US.

Thatcher and Reagan could have even closer lovers than Blair and bush.

And a thoroughly good thing too. It meant we had US support when we needed it in the Falklands, Dont forget, there were many in the US Govt. who weren't so keen to help,(Jean Kirkpatrick the Ambassodor to the UN for a start) it was the personal relationship between Reagan and Maggie that made it possible, along with superb diplomacy in the UN and elsewhere. It was also this partnership which led to the collapse of the Soviet Union, by standing firm over the deploynent of Pershing and Cruise missiles in the UK and Europe and supporting the mujahideen in Afghanistan (awaits utterly predictable and factually innacurate comments re: Taliban etc) and the Solidarity Union in Poland, hat-tip to Pope John Paul 1 there! Our best interests are and always will be in alliance with the US, end of story!

Not allowed immigration to go out of control.

why was powell so concerned then? could it be that under a tory government for example indian immigration to britain peaked during heaths government and the first 2 years of thatchers rule?

The immigration issue to which Powell was referring was addressed by various provisions of the British Nationalithy Act which ended the anomaly whereby the entire population of the "New Commonwealth" had a legal right to live in the UK if they so desired. However it was not possible (or politically desirable ) to prevent all immigration but at least it had now been brought under controll and it pretty well ceased to be much of an issue until fairly recently ..under new Labour!.

Not sold of our gold reserves to fill their own pockets

no just our institutions.

Does it matter that your Gas and Electricity is now supplied by commercial companies instead of being owned by the state, like in North Korea or Cuba? It does to me in fact for obvious reasons!

Not brought the country to its knees.

needs definition

Are you living in a box? Take a look around you FFS!

Not gotten us involved in needless costly wars

lol suez?[/quote]

Well there are those who would argue (Andew Roberts for a start) that far from being unnecessary, the Suez operation ccould have done a great deal of good had it been allowd to succeed. It could have destroyed Nasser, a thoroughly bad influence on the middle east, he was a Ba'athist remember, and the root cause of many of our problems there. Anyway, the Tory PM at the time, Anthony Eden, was a seriously ill man, the result of a number of botched operations, and his erratic behaviour was widely attributed to the medication he was prescribed. How many other "needless costly wars" have the Tories gotten us into by the way?

Originally Posted by Toxicseagull

Not sold us out to Europe

the major signings to the political EU happened under thatcher and major?

Not sold us out to the US.

thatcher and reagan could have even closer lovers than Blair and bush.

Not allowed immigration to go out of control.

why was powell so concerned then? could it be that under a tory government for example indian immigration to britain peaked during heaths government and the first 2 years of thatchers rule?

Not sold of our gold reserves to fill their own pockets

no just our institutions.

Not brought the country to its knees.

needs definition.

Not gotten us involved in needless costly wars

lol suez?

Suez:

It really wasn't needless at the time and proved costly to us because Eisenhower and the US made it so. They were pretty keen to reduce British influence in the middle east amongst other reasons, including having the frighteners put on them by Russia. In political terms it became a disaster, but in military terms, was a huge success.

Not brought the country to it's knees.

Hmm, nothing to do with the reason that you are emigrating then

Originally Posted by Bazzinho1977

Originally Posted by StickyEnd

Originally Posted by PoisonDwarf

Originally Posted by StickyEnd

Anyway, as a Nation we became a far wealthier one due to Thatcher's policies. Was it all good? No. Was it all bad? No.

Wealthier? Wealthier than what or whom? Isn't it all relative / comparative?

At the end of the day, the OP isn't going to get a balanced view of a political question on ARRSE. It's like a drunken version of the Daily Hate.

OK, I'll put it another way. The average family in the UK had far more resources to use/consume in 1995 than in 1975.

Bless. Its like a four year old dressing up in mammies shoes and underwear. You have some of the things in the right place, but you still just look stupid to everybody else.

Right - what do you mean by resources? Are you counting levels of debt? Do you mean they had ownership of or access to? And does resources equal happiness? Was life better or worse in 95 than 75?

What do you mean by the average family? Mean, mode, median? Have you removed outliers for that average? Have you considered family size in your calculation?

etc. etc. etc. etc.


Or, are you just randomly dragging words from your brain and spilling them onto the internet?

Get you. I am not interested in a flame war, it is my opinion that for most working class families they had more wealth in 1995 than a comparable one in 1975.

If you want to refute that go ahead and I will respond.

Are you living in a box? Take a look around you FFS!

im not arguing labour are better, ive never voted labour. im making the point the assertions on the tory government highlighted are wrong.

It could have destroyed Nasser, a thoroughoy bad influence on the middle east, he was a Ba'athist remember.

quite, supported by the US, however plans didnt work out, a lot of people lost their lives and it cost us dear. we arnt working with "could of happened" this actually happened and it happened under a tory gov. it was a national disaster.

Anyway, the tory PM at the time, Anthony Eden, was a seriously ill man,

i hear brown is ill...does that mean we negate his affect on our country? or are you asserting eden acted alone and none of the other tory's supported his action?

How many other "needless costly wars" have the Tories gotten us into by the way?

depends entirely on your definition of needless.