😀

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?

"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?

Both. He never won a leadership election. He never led his party to win more seats than any other at a general election.

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. 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. 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.

his party winning more seats

vs

never led his party to win more seats

Now those are different things, aren't they ?

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 😉 ]

Yes, but the reason the LibDems did a deal was because his party had more seats than Labour

No it isn't, and well you know it.

If that were true, then the LibDems wouldn't have bothered talking to Labour at all.

The reason the LibDems did a deal with Cameron's party is because they couldn't get a better offer from Labour.
If they had, Cameron wouldn't be PM today. Just admit you're wrong…………..and say sorry for being a Tory.

I shall be alright, I'm young and clever and have plenty of money and good teeth. But I hope they're right that what everyone else needs is to be left alone to have Society instead of government.

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. 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. 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.

So which bit of "there is no such thing as society" don't you understand ?

She clearly said "there is no such thing as society".

And it is clearly bollox.

scaredypants – i dont remember any opposition to Browns leadership campaign. it was pretty much a coronation by the party once Tony stood down.

You win

I'm young and clever and have plenty of money and good teeth

Not for long, sunshine…

I hardly ever buy Fairy Liquid….

Now those are different things, aren't they ?

If you want to split hairs yes. CMD led his party to win more seats than any other at a general election. GB didn't. Hence GB was never elected in any sense of the word (apart from in the same way as 649 others), no matter how far you want to stretch it.

If that were true, then the LibDems wouldn't have bothered talking to Labour at all.

Not at all. It was only that fact (and the way the numbers added up) which led to Clegg talking to the Torys though.

The reason the LibDems did a deal with Cameron's party is because they couldn't get a better offer from Labour.

One of the reasons maybe – though I wouldn't believe everything you see in the press, especially when the only information comes from those with an interest in spinning it one way or another. I'll ask again – are you seriously suggesting the number of seats had nothing to do with it?

Oh, and sorry. Happy now?

ernie – you're not doing yourself any favours by putting that Thatcher quote in context. If you're not careful people might read it properly and see what she meant, rather than what what the spin has been for the last 25 years or so.

Nice US spelling BTW. Whered'ya lift it from?

She clearly said "there is no such thing as society".

Indeed, nobody is disputing that. She also said a lot of other words to put it into context, which only the looniest lefty could suggest made it a rabidly right wing comment. Have you actually read and comprehended all that you quoted – I'd have thought there's actually a lot in there somebody on the left could agree with if you can get past the fact it was said by Facha?

which part of the context in which she said it dont you understand?

what is society?

NHS, who needs the NHS?

ernie – you're not doing yourself any favours by putting that Thatcher quote in context.

I've read it before and I can't see what the fuss is all about. She said there is no such thing a society. There is such a thing as society, in whichever context you look at it. It is complete bollox – however you try and spin it. Where's the problem ?

Clearly what she is saying is that it does no-one any favours to blame an amorphous entity called "society" when in reality society is just a collection of people who all have to make an individual contribution.

I'm not a massive Thatcher fan, but I find the constant abuse of this quote irritating.

Or are you being even more literal than I give you credit for?

Clearly what she is saying is …….

complete bollox. The whole bumph from start to finish is a load of bollox. I'm not going to get into it now. But it's nicely summed by "there is no such thing as society". It really does tell you everything you need to know about the selfish greedy daft tart.

I blame society for this pointless thread.

ernie_lynch – Member
Clearly what she is I am saying is …….
complete bollox.

Fixed that for you, ernie 😉

Given you clearly either can't be bothered to read and comprehend that properly, or you're sticking to a position out of ideology, it's pointless trying to discuss this sensibly with you.

Given you clearly either can't be bothered to read and comprehend that properly

I can read and comprehend. And I can also come to the conclusion that it is complete bollox.

I've already said that I'm not going to go into it, but just as an example, here's another bit of nonsense, quote : "many of the benefits we give, which were meant to reassure people that if they were sick or ill there was a safety net" That's not true, the British universal welfare state was never meant to be a "safety net", it was meant to be an entitlement. "Safety nets" is what they have in the US for poor people. She was getting her countries mixed up.

So why do I, or anyone else, have to agree with her if we "read and comprehend" what she written………..isn't it permitted to disagree with Thatcher ?

I didn't/don't agree with Thatcher. What she said was bollox. End of.

isn't it permitted to disagree with Thatcher ?

Of course it is. Disagreeing with everything she said just because she said it isn't a particularly strong debating position though.

Disagreeing with everything she said just because she said it

So where did I say that then ? If she said something I agreed with, then I wouldn't oppose it.

It's somewhat encouraging to see that Sputnik is disturbed enough to bring some levity to this otherwise very boring 'discussion'. 😀

I like that. Random odd pics, and strangeness. Good stuff.

This toy car represents all that is evil upon this Earth.

Discuss.

If she said something I agreed with, then I wouldn't oppose it.

Go on, give me an example 😈

Go on, give me an example

OK. If she had suggested that the UK government should engage in talks with Sein Fein to try to resolve the NI issue, I wouldn't have opposed it. I didn't oppose John Major engaging in talks with Sein Fein, so there's no reason why I would have opposed Thatcher doing so. I supported her over the Lancaster House Agreement btw.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=cameron+blair+changes&aq=1

As soon as I heard it, my immediate reaction was that it was lift of Kennedy saying "Ask not what your country can do for you" etc.

I don't see what's so offensive about it. It's easily something Gordon Brown or Tony Blair could have said, and I expect they've made very similar pronouncements in the past.

Christ, it's even something your full on Marxist might say whilst banging on about solidarity.

I dunno about this small govt big society thing. Why did they then have this policy about supporting marriage through taxes? Surely that's big govt interfering in how people live their lives? Society has evolved to give us alternative families, and you want to legislate to discourage it. Hmm.

Seems like you only like society when it's doing what you like (ie taking up govt slack as in the USA) but not when it's doing something you don't like (ie going against TRADITION how dare it).

The Tories have done a lot of research on this, and their conclusion is that marriage tends to result in better outcomes for the children than in non-married couples.

Ultimately, it's an economic policy – better outcomes for children = more productive workers = increase in aggregate supply. No different to banging on about eduction and training.

Tories – research? thats a load of bollox. Firstly because it simply is not true – wealth and love from parents are the important issues not marital status.

You say they have done the research – lets see it then. You won't be able to as it simply does not exist

It is different, tron. Funding training just gives people training. It doesn't tell them how to live their lives.

What about fixing the underlying problems resulting in kids in difficult situations? Not being married is not one of them, is it?

As TJ says, in fact.

The Tories have done a lot of research on this, and their conclusion is that marriage tends to result in better outcomes for the children than in non-married couples.

Bollocks, it's cheap moralising and playing to the Daily Mail 'family values' crowd.

Also, re the Maggie quote – it's not just taken in isolation is it – it's remembered in the context of everything her government did – promotion of greed and selfishness and lack of responsibility as being a good thing.

IDS's Centre for Social Justice has published quite a few papers on the subject. Sorry to burst your bubble.

lets see them then. Real research that shows marriage gives the best outcomes. Not policy paper that just make statements.

it would go against everything I have read about this which shows that marital status is irrelevant – two parents is good, parents in work is good, rich parents is good, parents that nurture children is good, marital status is irrelevant.

Tron – you made the assertion – lets see the evidence – and not just bald statements.

IDS's Centre for Social Justice has published quite a few papers on the subject.

Did they actually suggest that giving people a little bit of cash for being married was going to make any difference?

I was also wondering, isn't this going to affect, say – a married woman who's husband has been cheating on her then buggers off with another woman. Really seems fair to then hit her with extra taxes doesn't it? It's nonsense.

With this type of thing it's very difficult to establish the causal link anyway – maybe it's just that the type of people who are more likely to be good parents are also more likely to stick together – marriage doesn't necessarily have any relevance at all.

It would have been funnier if he'd likened himself to a hamburger

I assume you are referring to the 'Ich bin ein Berliner' quote by Kennedy where he was, some say, actually saying 'I am a jelly doughnut' not 'I am a Berliner'
According to an urban legend, Kennedy allegedly made an embarrassing grammatical error by saying "Ich bin ein Berliner," referring to himself not as a citizen of Berlin, but as a common pastry:[3]
Kennedy should have said "Ich bin Berliner" to mean "I am a person from Berlin." By adding the indefinite article ein, his statement implied he was a non-human Berliner, thus "I am a jelly doughnut".
The story stems from a play on words with Berliner, the name of a doughnut variant filled with jam or plum sauce that is thought to have originated in Berlin.
The indefinite article ein is omitted when speaking of an individual's profession or residence but is necessary when speaking in a figurative sense as Kennedy did. Since the president was not literally from Berlin but only declaring his solidarity with its citizens, "Ich bin Berliner" would not have been correct.[4]

🙂

lets see them then. Real research that shows marriage gives the best outcomes. Not policy paper that just make statements.

Don't be ridiculous. What you're effectively asking me to do is go and spend a day reading papers, and condense that into a couple of sentences for you.

On the other hand, the CSJ have been and done a load of research, and this is their end result. If you think they're lying, making it up, or whatever, then you think that. However, I would like to point out that Labour have a spectacular record on evidence based policy – they talk about it, commission the research, and then disregard it. As an example, see the ODPM's report on Surestart and Gordon Brown's constant banging on about what a glorious success it's been.

I was also wondering, isn't this going to affect, say – a married woman who's husband has been cheating on her then buggers off with another woman. Really seems fair to then hit her with extra taxes doesn't it? It's nonsense.

It's more a case that low income couples are penalised for staying together, and are driven apart by the tax and benefits system. You are effectively removing a penalty on couples, not penalising single parents.

I know that you are wrong tron – so lets see your evidence for your ridiculous statements or we know you are taklking thru your hat again.

You could simply link to the papers. But you won't 'cos you can't 'cos they don't exist

Like when you said the UK debt was the highest in the EU – which it simply isn't.