Alain Perrin Posted 13 February, 2009 Share Posted 13 February, 2009 With Tories you know where you stand. Rich, greedy bastewards and proud of it. Whereas Labour? Slimy money grabbing bastewards who spout the opposite. Hypocritical to55ers the lot. Fooled the paying public into believing they care but really: Taking bungs off F1 moguls and delaying the tobacco sponsorship ban Taking bungs off people for gongs Taking bungs off the tax-payer to live with their 'sister'... Give me an honest con any day. Despicable bunch. Give me Labour over the Tories any day, each side has it's wrong 'uns and, at the end of the day, you have to hope that the 'good' 'uns do some things that you agree with. Truth is many of the policies are the same these days, you're just looking at a different face delivering it. Politics is just what we have on this board everyday. Blind politics, where one side is always whiter than white, and the other is evil. We have the Loony Left like Scooby and the Raving Right like Alpine (or Neo-facists like Stanley). To be honest I fear for Saints unless people can remember to support what's on the pitch, and forget what/who is in the Boardroom. Like politics, it generally makes feck all difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legod Third Coming Posted 13 February, 2009 Share Posted 13 February, 2009 Give me Labour over the Tories any day, each side has it's wrong 'uns and, at the end of the day, you have to hope that the 'good' 'uns do some things that you agree with. Truth is many of the policies are the same these days, you're just looking at a different face delivering it. Politics is just what we have on this board everyday. Blind politics, where one side is always whiter than white, and the other is evil. We have the Loony Left like Scooby and the Raving Right like Alpine (or Neo-facists like Stanley). To be honest I fear for Saints unless people can remember to support what's on the pitch, and forget what/who is in the Boardroom. Like politics, it generally makes feck all difference. Whatever you say about the Tories, they took on a failing economy, three-day week, high unemployment and delivered ten years of prosperity, home-ownership, a few mine closures admittedly and that poll-tax fiasco, but otherwise not bad for the majority. And then Labour came in and delivered spin, red-tape, an illegal war, more borrowing than a man can shake a stick at and then finally a depression. Hmm, not sure I'd be voting them back in again... But you're right, ultimately it's a choice between Lowe and Lowe at the moment. If only there were another 100 Lib Dems like Vince Cable... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 13 February, 2009 Share Posted 13 February, 2009 If only there were another 100 Lib Dems like Vince Cable... I agree with you there, he's one of the best politicians out there because he knows what he's talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alain Perrin Posted 13 February, 2009 Share Posted 13 February, 2009 Whatever you say about the Tories, they took on a failing economy, three-day week, high unemployment and delivered ten years of prosperity, home-ownership, a few mine closures admittedly and that poll-tax fiasco, but otherwise not bad for the majority. And then Labour came in and delivered spin, red-tape, an illegal war, more borrowing than a man can shake a stick at and then finally a depression. Hmm, not sure I'd be voting them back in again... But you're right, ultimately it's a choice between Lowe and Lowe at the moment. If only there were another 100 Lib Dems like Vince Cable... Can't disagree that Maggie did a lot of good and necessary medicine was taken. They also left public services to rot, had consistently high unemployment and homelessness and had their own fair share of sleaze. I'd agree red tape has a lot to answer for, but I'd argue that's a global trend, rather than a red or blue thing. The war is an interesting one, Blair was damned if he did, damned if he didn't, in my opinion (I can't see the Daily Mail supporting pacifism if ultimately an Iraqi originating chemical weapon was lit off in Central London). As it was he took a wrong call, but he, like Lowe, gets paid to make decisions and has to live with the consequences. Take Lowe for example. Delivered stadium and a cup final (bull**** caveats aside he did achieve this), got us relegated and facing admin. Which will people remember? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 13 February, 2009 Share Posted 13 February, 2009 Give me Labour over the Tories any day. Whatever you say about the Tories, they took on a failing economy, three-day week, high unemployment and delivered ten years of prosperity, home-ownership, a few mine closures admittedly and that poll-tax fiasco, but otherwise not bad for the majority. Regardless of party the first four years of any administration are normally better than what preceded them, the second four are so so and after 10 years they have totally lost the plot. After winning in 1979 the Tories should have handed over in 1989 and similarly Labour were pretty good up until 2007. Too long in power isnt good for any politician. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ponty Posted 14 February, 2009 Share Posted 14 February, 2009 Is this really Saints related any more? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alain Perrin Posted 14 February, 2009 Share Posted 14 February, 2009 Regardless of party the first four years of any administration are normally better than what preceded them, the second four are so so and after 10 years they have totally lost the plot. After winning in 1979 the Tories should have handed over in 1989 and similarly Labour were pretty good up until 2007. Too long in power isnt good for any politician. Agreed. It is a pity term limits won't work in our party system. Kind of like why 4-4-2 doesn't work with our players (notice my desperate attempt to keep this on topic:) ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bungle Posted 14 February, 2009 Share Posted 14 February, 2009 Is this really Saints related any more? Who knows, but I am feeling more at home with political debate. Interesting to see Stanley likes the BNP. Goes to prove he has no common sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFC Forever Posted 14 February, 2009 Share Posted 14 February, 2009 That could be why our young team has collapsed so much lately. They have all played more than 10 games and need to be replaced by those still to get a game.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solentstars Posted 14 February, 2009 Share Posted 14 February, 2009 Whatever you say about the Tories, they took on a failing economy, three-day week, high unemployment and delivered ten years of prosperity, home-ownership, a few mine closures admittedly and that poll-tax fiasco, but otherwise not bad for the majority. And then Labour came in and delivered spin, red-tape, an illegal war, more borrowing than a man can shake a stick at and then finally a depression. Hmm, not sure I'd be voting them back in again... But you're right, ultimately it's a choice between Lowe and Lowe at the moment. If only there were another 100 Lib Dems like Vince Cable...they were just has bad has labour,i remember early 1980,s has mass unemployment,our industrial base destroyed by over valued pound and the start of the chav class,fatcats and record interest rates and short time working.the partys are just has bad has each .i agree with you about vince cable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solentstars Posted 14 February, 2009 Share Posted 14 February, 2009 Is this really Saints related any more? not really:Dbut we so many threads about lowe,its a change to talk about something else, we even had a silly thread about the sad smokers whinging which had more interest then the football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 14 February, 2009 Share Posted 14 February, 2009 (edited) As if the likes of nickh really give a flying-f**k about the 50 families involved... i have stayed out of this thread because it is bordering on the distasteful.Alpine you have shown yourself up to be a pathetic human being who is peddling in the misery of people to try and make a lame point. I hope the day doesn't arrive when you are made redundant.If it does do not complain that a thread is put up on here glorying in the fact. Football is a game FFS, 22 men kicking a bag of wind, (not you). Those 50 people should be left out of your petty and pathetic and SFC campaign How about starting a thread up taking the p### about Fords making redundancies Im sure you can wriggle RL into it somehow. Edited 14 February, 2009 by OldNick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 14 February, 2009 Share Posted 14 February, 2009 Lol. I bet they are outraged. If they knew that their lives had been looked upon so lightly by a load of internet geeks, then they may well be.Forget not some of those would be fellow Saints fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 14 February, 2009 Share Posted 14 February, 2009 (edited) i have stayed out of this thread because it is bordering on the distasteful. That's funny, because you were in this thread yesterday adding your twopenneth worth!!! what type of sick brain uses the tragedy of 50 people losing their jobs and their famillies detriment to try and get polital points on an internet forum. I think it is sad that redundancies are being used as an arguement in support or against any party. Pretty sad and pathetic thread. These are peoples lives that are being used as a tool for pathetic reasons. I think the original post definitley missed it's target and was unnecessary(although some in the following thread certainly didn't disappoint in using it to score points on both sides), but I have to say some of the sanctimony, hypocrisy, posturing and bullsht that followed has been just as bad. Edited 14 February, 2009 by um pahars Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legod Third Coming Posted 14 February, 2009 Share Posted 14 February, 2009 they were just has bad has labour,i remember early 1980,s has mass unemployment,our industrial base destroyed by over valued pound and the start of the chav class,fatcats and record interest rates and short time working.the partys are just has bad has each .i agree with you about vince cable. The early 80s?? They came to power in 79 with rubbish lying in the streets, black-outs because we had no power, three-day week and just about the most demoralising, depressing country a man can remember! Give 'em a chance. I loved Maggie. She could see we needed tough medicine and we took it. The problem was she broke the manufacturing heartland of this country along with the unions. But in truth, what exactly did we make that we could now be proud of?? We've proved the Japanese are better at building production cars in this country than we ever were!!! Which is a tragedy. We can build the best hand-made cars, boats or whatever, but we can't bolt an Allegro together... This country has lacked innovation and pride in manufacturing for years and I don't dispute the Tories did not help by considering it a kind of 'dirty work' - rather than celebrating and investing in our engineering, technology infrastructure. This is so wrong, when you think that of the grand tradition of engineers like Stephenson and Brunel. But doesn't this just reflect a cynicism in this country that prevents 'pride' in any job? And one of the reasons our club is in such a state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRobbie Posted 14 February, 2009 Share Posted 14 February, 2009 With Tories you know where you stand. Rich, greedy bastewards and proud of it. Whereas Labour? Slimy money grabbing bastewards who spout the opposite. Hypocritical to55ers the lot. Fooled the paying public into believing they care but really: Taking bungs off F1 moguls and delaying the tobacco sponsorship ban Taking bungs off people for gongs Taking bungs off the tax-payer to live with their 'sister'... Give me an honest con any day. Despicable bunch. What about the Referendum Party? They had a good candidate in the Cotswold's I seem to recall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hughieslastminutegoal Posted 14 February, 2009 Share Posted 14 February, 2009 I agree completely; the purpose of this thread was to try to pre-empt anyone trying to. Its very easy for jonah to get all huffy at my insinuation, yet I wonder how he would have reacted if I hadnt posted it. Sadly, we'll never know, but suffice to say it has served its purpose. Maybe you should have waited... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 14 February, 2009 Share Posted 14 February, 2009 That's funny, because you were in this thread yesterday adding your twopenneth worth!!! I think the original post definitley missed it's target and was unnecessary(although some in the following thread certainly didn't disappoint in using it to score points on both sides), but I have to say some of the sanctimony, hypocrisy, posturing and bullsht that followed has been just as bad.Um if you dont understand what staying out of a thread is then you are not as bright as I had you down for.I made posts that were not to debate the thoughtless original thread but to offer my objections. Your smarm is not what is called for when I rightfully IMO made objections to the use of 50 redundancies to make a point either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legod Third Coming Posted 14 February, 2009 Share Posted 14 February, 2009 What about the Referendum Party? They had a good candidate in the Cotswold's I seem to recall. Shame he didn't get in, and maybe he would then have got out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 14 February, 2009 Share Posted 14 February, 2009 (edited) Um if you dont understand what staying out of a thread is then you are not as bright as I had you down for.I made posts that were not to debate the thoughtless original thread but to offer my objections. Your smarm is not what is called for when I rightfully IMO made objections to the use of 50 redundancies to make a point either way. You stayed out of this thread by posting twice on it yesterday and then once again today, so forgive me if I find your (and others) sanctimony and hypocrisy on this thread somewhat wanting. Feel free to have the last word. HTH Edited 14 February, 2009 by um pahars Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 14 February, 2009 Share Posted 14 February, 2009 Definite lack of perspective on here , 50 people have lost their jobs and having found myself in exactly the same position on more than one occasion they certainly have my sympathy , indeed any of us working in the private wealth creating sector (as opposed to safe Government Jobs) may well be joining them before very long . But no ones actually died have they ? Most will find other work within a year or so and the state will ensure their family's don't go hungry in the meantime . Some dismounting from the old proverbial 'high horse' may well be in order . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickG Posted 14 February, 2009 Share Posted 14 February, 2009 Maybe you should have waited... thread was for two reasons 1) to strangely say these redundancies were positive and then to use it to have a go at the current board. 2) to bait. Although it clearly failed on first due to lacking logic or reason, it did succeed on second. I am as guilty as others of falling to the level of his childish bitter baiting. Must count to ten and move to another thread! (any football ones?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hughieslastminutegoal Posted 14 February, 2009 Share Posted 14 February, 2009 No, it's down to wholesale incompetence and greed. The buying and selling of debt is one way of making money. The buying of bad debt, wrapping it in gold foil and telling people it's good debt is tantamount to fraud and I hope every miserable banker who was responsible for misleading other myopic bankers, suffers as a result. Even Standard Life - that bastion of good faith - misled investors as to the security of their 'cash funds' which were invested in leveraged debt!!!! But above all, financial regulators and governments across the world simply fell asleep at the wheel. If something looks too good to be true, it is. And who pays the price? You and me. I thought this was a football forum, but an excellent synopsis nevertheless. And if there was ever was proof that the saying "put a poacher in charge of gamekeeping" is total garbage, putting bankers in charge of the financial regulators is that proof. Jobs for the boys and don't rock the boat. Very dangerous greedy (b)ankers every one. And as for the steering wheel, the governments (and just about every other "business" person) deluded themselves that fiddling around with the interest rate was the only steering device required. Turning the wheel doesn't do a lot when you've just driven over the cliff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 14 February, 2009 Share Posted 14 February, 2009 You stayed out of this thread by posting twice on it yesterday and then once again today, so forgive me if I find your (and others) sanctimony and hypocrisy on this thread somewhat wanting. Feel free to have the last word. HTH Objecting not posting to add to the debate.Even H'ierTH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hughieslastminutegoal Posted 14 February, 2009 Share Posted 14 February, 2009 Labour are spinning the whole crisis to try to find a point of blame to which the UK electorate can relate - first it was the US and their sub-prime which had caused it all and it couldn't possibly spread to here, now it's the naughty bankers being too greedy. Back to reality, and it has far more to do with (a) government policy, (b) regulators, and © credit agencies - banks will always work within the framework and boundaries they are given, which are set by the government and regulated by the FSA. However when a credit agency says a turd is a golden ingot, that compounds the errors with the first 2 problems. Rule number 1 of politics though, find someone else to blame... I'm surprised that's not our club motto by now. Do we have a club motto?? Yes, you clearly ARE a banker, and of course you only brought the world to the brink of financial collapse because you only worked within the rules... oh except people like you tell us all what the rules should be... and oh and they aren't really designed to ensure you and your ilk make loadsamoney, and allow you the ability to hide bad risk among good risk, and use that "security" as security to hide yet more bad risk, and so on and on down the chain of loans. But it wasn't the bankers who did all this, it was those nasty "credit agencies". Well if you want the "right" answer only ask people who will give you the answer they know you want. And even then it is really all the fault of the Labour government. Because their regulators were crap... oh but the regulators are bankers.. You total, total pr*ck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRobbie Posted 14 February, 2009 Share Posted 14 February, 2009 I still think the debate on this thread should be: 'Can Crouch now afford the £2m to save Saints this season?' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRobbie Posted 14 February, 2009 Share Posted 14 February, 2009 or... 'Has Crouch made 50 peopole redundant to raise £6m to buy Saints?' ... see Ponty, back on topic .... for 5 minutes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fowllyd Posted 14 February, 2009 Share Posted 14 February, 2009 The early 80s?? They came to power in 79 with rubbish lying in the streets, black-outs because we had no power, three-day week and just about the most demoralising, depressing country a man can remember! Give 'em a chance. I loved Maggie. She could see we needed tough medicine and we took it. The problem was she broke the manufacturing heartland of this country along with the unions. But in truth, what exactly did we make that we could now be proud of?? We've proved the Japanese are better at building production cars in this country than we ever were!!! Which is a tragedy. We can build the best hand-made cars, boats or whatever, but we can't bolt an Allegro together... This country has lacked innovation and pride in manufacturing for years and I don't dispute the Tories did not help by considering it a kind of 'dirty work' - rather than celebrating and investing in our engineering, technology infrastructure. This is so wrong, when you think that of the grand tradition of engineers like Stephenson and Brunel. But doesn't this just reflect a cynicism in this country that prevents 'pride' in any job? And one of the reasons our club is in such a state. I think you'll find that those particular bits happened in 1974 under the previous Tory government, not in 1978/9. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRobbie Posted 14 February, 2009 Share Posted 14 February, 2009 I think you'll find that those particular bits happened in 1974 under the previous Tory government, not in 1978/9. OK Ponty... 20 minutes! I tried mate, I tried I blame the Referendum Party personally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now