He hadn't even stepped through the door of No.10 and he was already invoking Thatcher.
In the words of John Laurie: We're doomed.
We've got to work harder to pay for tax cuts for the richest 1000 families in the UK, thats what everyone voted for right?
And I hope we get to keep heredetary(sp) peers too
it's OK there's no such thing as society
I need to keep off the wine, I'm so Drunk, I've imagined that Cameron is PM, and Clegg, possibly deputy. Crazy, I know.
lol
If you think that's bad we've just been catching up on old Dr Who - the one where Saxon / The Master gets to be prime minister.
Strange echoes of this election.
Can we kill foxes yet?, I'm off to whip up the hounds!
igm - sorry for a minute there I thought you said old Doctor Who.
it's OK there's no such thing as society
I wonder how many of the lefties quoting that know or understand the context.
what's their policy on slicing people's heads in two with helicopters whilst hunting foxes?
Understand it perfectly - its very clear and obvious what she meant.
Don't ask what your country can do for you, ask, what can I do for my country?
Still he changed the words and these days that is about as original as anything gets.
Understand it perfectly - its very clear and obvious what she meant.
I can believe you might do, but you weren't quoting it. In any case, what did she mean then if it's so obvious?
Was it a cryptic crossword clue?
aracer - Memberit's OK there's no such thing as society
I wonder how many of the lefties quoting that know or understand the context.
I do, do you?
Can we kill foxes yet?, I'm off to whip up the hounds!
Fox farming and inheritance tax changes might be two things that get kicked into touch.
"We don't just ask what are my entitlements, but what are my responsibilities"
[i]"He hadn't even stepped through the door of No.10 and he was already invoking Thatcher. "[/i]
No he isn't [i]that[/i] stupid !
He was trying to invoke Kennedy.........a much wiser move :
[i][b]"my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."[/b][/i]
John F. Kennedy
Yes, thanks. If you do know the context, why use the quote out of it (and the fact the thread title is paraphrased from the same speech doesn't add the context, whatever you might think)?
It would have been funnier if he'd likened himself to a hamburger.. 😉
Being dole scum I'm taking Norman Tebbits advice and getting on my bike. I'm off to the home counties to train as a Master of Hounds. There's bound to be stacks of work soon
He delivered it poorly and left an insufficient gap before saying 'what are my responsibilities' so it didn't work really. The man's a copyist, first Blair and now Kennedy.
Yep as dole scum meself I REALLY hope I can get a job bloody soon. It's tough enough under labour. I dread the thought of what is going to happen.
""I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation."
Seems pretty clear to me.
Sort yourself out because the State will no longer help you. Sort out the old lady next door because the State will no longer help her.
Do what we want and we 'might' just see our way to seeing if we can help in some nebulous future.
Wonder if all the people whinging about Gordon Brown being an unelected PM are going to be similarly angry about Cameron being an unelected PM?
A someone working in manufacturing in a temp (agency) situation i dread to think what the Tories will do to what's left of our manufacturing base, after all they have SUCH a GREAT record of success in that area don't they...?
Its more likely the newly climate aware tory will be ditching their quads for mountain bikes on the drag hunts so could always go for the job of quarry but its now likely to be an unpaid internship.
Ah no, it's "big society" now isn't it?
Hopefully it'll go the way of "Back to Basics".
Big society my f***ing arse. He wouldn't know society if it came up and bit his cock off. Anyway, when's he peeling the skin off?
A load of cars got vandalised on my street last night...I blame the prospect of a ConDem coalition.
dd - when's he peeling the skin off his cock, or your arse ? 😯
Can I ask why all the focus on 'family values'? To me (and i'm the fcucked up one...) it [family values] doesn't seem quite so appropriate today as it once was. Is that just because i'm fcucked up and have an alternate slant on the world, or, is it really 2010 and the 2.4 children nuclear family is as prosperous today as it once was?
grum - Member
Wonder if all the people whinging about Gordon Brown being an unelected PM are going to be similarly angry about Cameron being an unelected PM?
FFS lefty he won fair and square get over it 😉
...to reveal the lizard skin underneath.
Wonder if all the people whinging about Gordon Brown being an unelected PM are going to be similarly angry about Cameron being an unelected PM?
You mean CMD didn't win a leadership election and didn't become PM due to his party winning more seats than any other at a general election? I know my memory's bad, and happy to accept that Kinnock did actually win in '92, but surely I can trust what I think happened in the last week?
I can't ever remember "electing" a PM...ever. I once remember electing a president in Ireland...but then, that's a republic you see.
you did exactly what he said you would you do aracer
he didnt really win the election and get an absolute majority for his party now did he? That why that bloke Clegg and his lot are in alliance /coalition with him. Different from Brown , more legitimate who knows but he did not win the election alone he requires the support of another party to remain there
didn't become PM due to his party winning more seats than any other at a general election?
No that's not the reason. The reason he's PM is because he's done a deal with the LibDems. Had the LibDems done a deal with someone else, then he wouldn't be PM now.
I'm surprised you didn't know that aracer. And I'm surprised that you can't remember the results of an election which only happened last week.
He said it was not his pencil.
Ha! But you lie, for the evidence is in Brick Dust.
You mean CMD didn't win a leadership election and didn't become PM due to his party winning more seats than any other at a general election?
That's right, he didn't.
😉deadlydarcy - Member
...to reveal the lizard skin underneath.
Which of those things doesn't apply to Brown?You mean CMD didn't win a leadership election and didn't become PM due to his party winning more seats than any other at a general election?
And, while we're all ranting, why do politicians of [b][u]all[/u][/b] parties say that the country "has spoken" and told us that what it wants is ... when that's the definition of PR, as opposed to 600-odd political fiefdoms aggregating to see who takes charge of the place ?
[IMG] 
[/IMG]
😯
😀
you did exactly what he said you would you do aracer
You mean it was a troll to get a rise out of me? Well done chaps, very clever. I bow to you in awe at your forum skillz.
he didnt really win the election and get an absolute majority for his party now did he?
No, but that isn't required in order to become PM. See also Wilson in '74.
The reason he's PM is because he's done a deal with the LibDems. Had the LibDems done a deal with someone else, then he wouldn't be PM now.
Yes, but the reason the LibDems did a deal was because his party had more seats than Labour (and enough more that a ConLib coalition gave a working majority, whilst a LabLib one didn't). Are you seriously telling me that Nick Clegg might have chosen to make CMD PM had he not been forced into the position due to the way the number of seats added up?
Both. He never won a leadership election. He never led his party to win more seats than any other at a general election."You mean CMD didn't win a leadership election and didn't become PM due to his party winning more seats than any other at a general election?"
Which of those things doesn't apply to Brown?
muddydwarf, you quote a modified version of the origonal text, which puts the 'no such thing as society in a different portion of the interview' so as to make a nice little paragraph for the paper which published it.
I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand"I have a problem, it is the Government's job to cope with it!" or"I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!" "I am homeless, the Government must house me!" and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then also to help look after our neighbour and life is a reciprocal business and people have got the entitlements too much in mind without the obligations, because there is no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation and it is, I think, one of the tragedies in which many of the benefits we give, which were meant to reassure people that if they were sick or ill there was a safety net and there was help, that many of the benefits which were meant to help people who were unfortunate—" It is all right. We joined together and we have these insurance schemes to look after it" . That was the objective, but somehow there are some people who have been manipulating the system and so some of those help and benefits that were meant to say to people:"All right, if you cannot get a job, you shall have a basic standard of living!" but when people come and say:"But what is the point of working? I can get as much on the dole!" You say:"Look" It is not from the dole. It is your neighbour who is supplying it and if you can earn your own living then really you have a duty to do it and you will feel very much better!"There is also something else I should say to them:"If that does not give you a basic standard, you know, there are ways in which we top up the standard. You can get your housing benefit."
But it went too far. [b]If children have a problem, it is society that is at fault. There is no such thing as society. There is living tapestry of men and women and people and the beauty of that tapestry and the quality of our lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take responsibility for ourselves and each of us prepared to turn round and help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate.[/b] And the worst things we have in life, in my view, are where children who are a great privilege and a trust—they are the fundamental great trust, but they do not ask to come into the world, we bring them into the world, they are a miracle, there is nothing like the miracle of life—we have these little innocents and the worst crime in life is when those children, who would naturally have the right to look to their parents for help, for comfort, not only just for the food and shelter but for the time, for the understanding, turn round and not only is that help not forthcoming, but they get either neglect or worse than that, cruelty.
How do you set about teaching a child religion at school, God is like a father, and she thinks"like someone who has been cruel to them?" It is those children you cannot … you just have to try to say they can only learn from school or we as their neighbour have to try in some way to compensate. This is why my foremost charity has always been the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, because over a century ago when it was started, it was hoped that the need for it would dwindle to nothing and over a hundred years later the need for it is greater, because we now realise that the great problems in life are not those of housing and food and standard of living. When we have got all of those, when we have got reasonable housing when you compare us with other countries, when you have got a reasonable standard of living and you have got no-one who is hungry or need be hungry, when you have got an education system that teaches everyone—not as good as we would wish—you are left with what? You are left with the problems of human nature, and a child who has not had what we and many of your readers would regard as their birthright—a good home—it is those that we have to get out and help, and you know, it is not only a question of money as everyone will tell you; not your background in society. It is a question of human nature and for those children it is difficult to say:"You are responsible for your behavior!" because they just have not had a chance and so I think that is one of the biggest problems and I think it is the greatest sin.
The Big Dummy was a natural. It’s designed to carry a lot of stuff easily, and that’s just what it does. It was designed in conjunction with Xtracycle, whose modular plug-ins make it easy to carry groceries, garden supplies, tools, and just about anything else you’d normally carry with a car. It’s got an upper limit of 400 pounds (180kg) total rider and cargo weight, which is more than you’ll probably need, but not so much it’s impossible to pedal. It does ride a bit different than normal bikes, due in large part to its long wheelbase, but a couple of trips to the store is all it should take to convince you that this bike is not only exceptionally useful, but fun too. We include Xtracycle's V-Rack bags and snapdeck, but you'll find more options for attachments, like Wideloader platforms, on Xtracycle's website, http://www.xtracycle.com.
vshis party winning more seats
Now those are different things, aren't they ?never led his party to win more seats
DIdn't someone oppose Brown for the leadership but failed to get sufficient support to require a ballot. I'd suggest that means Brown did win an election, though he didn't require a vote [edit - for what little they're worth in elections 😉 ]
