|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Sept 2, 2024 16:07:28 GMT
Well that is the Torygraph's version of things; hardly likely to try and be impartial about Starmer. There are many, many perfectly valid reasons to remove a picture from a wall, the most obvious one being "he just didn't like it". Like I said, who but a dyed-in-the-wool Tory with a dominatrix fetish would like it? All The Best and Starmer finds her so unsettling he gets the portrait moved l It takes all sorts I suppose . Think that was Spitting Image wasn't it. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by Rebirth on Sept 2, 2024 16:09:31 GMT
Well that is the Torygraph's version of things; hardly likely to try and be impartial about Starmer. There are many, many perfectly valid reasons to remove a picture from a wall, the most obvious one being "he just didn't like it". Like I said, who but a dyed-in-the-wool Tory with a dominatrix fetish would like it? All The Best So you associate Thatcher with a dominatrix fetish and Starmer finds her so unsettling he gets the portrait moved l It takes all sorts I suppose . The far-left have a sick fetish over Thatcher. I imagine Starmer is just being a typical rentboy and parting his cheekies for immoral support from Raynor's thugs. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Sept 2, 2024 16:16:41 GMT
And a lot of social and financial damage. What was the social damage? She destroyed thousands of small and not so small businesses as she pushed up the number of people with no job to nearly 4 million. And increased the number of children living in relative poverty to 3 Million. She also increased the waiting times for hospital appointments and 12 month waiting lists for the likes of knee replacements. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Sept 2, 2024 16:17:44 GMT
So you associate Thatcher with a dominatrix fetish and Starmer finds her so unsettling he gets the portrait moved l It takes all sorts I suppose . Think that was Spitting Image wasn't it. All The Best No it was you. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Sept 2, 2024 16:20:40 GMT
So you associate Thatcher with a dominatrix fetish and Starmer finds her so unsettling he gets the portrait moved l It takes all sorts I suppose . The far-left have a sick fetish over Thatcher. I imagine Starmer is just being a typical rentboy and parting his cheekies for immoral support from Raynor's thugs. Thatcher was just nasty, even Righties should be able to recognise that. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Sept 2, 2024 16:26:08 GMT
So you associate Thatcher with a dominatrix fetish and Starmer finds her so unsettling he gets the portrait moved l It takes all sorts I suppose . The far-left have a sick fetish over Thatcher. I imagine Starmer is just being a typical rentboy and parting his cheekies for immoral support from Raynor's thugs. Thatcher never display kind of sexual impropriety . I find it strange that anyone wouid associate her with a fetish. Imo Starmer is an ungracious plonker |
|
|
|
Post by Rebirth on Sept 2, 2024 16:40:55 GMT
The far-left have a sick fetish over Thatcher. I imagine Starmer is just being a typical rentboy and parting his cheekies for immoral support from Raynor's thugs. Thatcher never display kind of sexual impropriety . I find it strange that anyone wouid associate her with a fetish. Imo Starmer is an ungracious plonker Fetish isn't always sexual: "An object of unreasonably excessive attention or reverence. "
Of course, there's also the possibility that the portait of the Conservative dressed lady was giving him an unexplained boner which the wife didn't approve of. I believe the same thing happened to Blair.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Sept 2, 2024 16:45:43 GMT
Thatcher never display kind of sexual impropriety . I find it strange that anyone wouid associate her with a fetish. Imo Starmer is an ungracious plonker Fetish isn't always sexual: "An object of unreasonably excessive attention or reverence. "
Of course, there's also the possibility that the portait of the Conservative dressed lady was giving him an unexplained boner which the wife didn't approve of. I believe the same thing happened to Blair.
Afaik Dominatrix is sexual and Starmer didn’t want to revere her or pay excessive attention. He wanted to move a portrait that he found disturbing. I wonder if other memorable PMs such as Churchill or the Duke of Wellington is being moved in case they trigger Two Tier Tosspot . |
|
|
|
Post by Rebirth on Sept 2, 2024 16:47:20 GMT
Fetish isn't always sexual: "An object of unreasonably excessive attention or reverence. "
Of course, there's also the possibility that the portait of the Conservative dressed lady was giving him an unexplained boner which the wife didn't approve of. I believe the same thing happened to Blair.
Afaik Dominatrix is sexual and Starmer didn’t want to revere her or pay excessive attention. He wanted to move a portrait that he found disturbing. I wonder if other memorable PMs such as Churchill or the Duke of Wellington is being moved in case they trigger Two Tier Tosspot . If I was to use dominatrix in the same sentence, like our Dragonborn did, then I would agree that something seems funny. However, I wouldn't put much thought into what the sexual deviants are referring to. Think only pure thoughts. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Sept 2, 2024 16:47:53 GMT
I don't much care Mrs Thatcher was very good at dividing opinion and that is exactly what Starmer is trying to do with moving her portrait.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Sept 2, 2024 18:52:15 GMT
What was the social damage? She destroyed thousands of small and not so small businesses as she pushed up the number of people with no job to nearly 4 million. And increased the number of children living in relative poverty to 3 Million. She also increased the waiting times for hospital appointments and 12 month waiting lists for the likes of knee replacements. Not quite right, there was a recession in 80/81 which saw small businesses decline and unemployment rise but after that there was a boom period when small businesses did well. Even in the recession in the early 90s we could not get staff in the medium sized business in which I worked despite unemployment being apparently high. Relative poverty is a rather loaded measure as often it is because all have much better incomes but the rich are much richer and throw many into relative poverty they were not in before nor believed they were actually poor. Not everything Thatcher did was good or bad there was some of each and some dogmatic principles that did not work but in the main it seems that stopping Labour in 79 was possibly the best thing as it is unclear where the UK would be had Callaghan secured another term with the team he had and the policies he followed. The winter of 78 to 79 was pretty dismal all round to my recollection with uncollected rubbish, ungritted roads and a general malaise and feeling of dissatisfaction. That could not continue. |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Sept 3, 2024 8:47:58 GMT
She destroyed thousands of small and not so small businesses as she pushed up the number of people with no job to nearly 4 million. And increased the number of children living in relative poverty to 3 Million. She also increased the waiting times for hospital appointments and 12 month waiting lists for the likes of knee replacements. Not quite right, there was a recession in 80/81 which saw small businesses decline and unemployment rise but after that there was a boom period when small businesses did well. Even in the recession in the early 90s we could not get staff in the medium sized business in which I worked despite unemployment being apparently high. Relative poverty is a rather loaded measure as often it is because all have much better incomes but the rich are much richer and throw many into relative poverty they were not in before nor believed they were actually poor. Not everything Thatcher did was good or bad there was some of each and some dogmatic principles that did not work but in the main it seems that stopping Labour in 79 was possibly the best thing as it is unclear where the UK would be had Callaghan secured another term with the team he had and the policies he followed. The winter of 78 to 79 was pretty dismal all round to my recollection with uncollected rubbish, ungritted roads and a general malaise and feeling of dissatisfaction. That could not continue. I think the bigger problem was 1983 Thatcher of course capitalised on the Falklands factor, and I suspect we are about to see what would have happened had labour been in charge then But the one magnificent thing we would have been had Foot been given the job instead of her is out of the EEC, seeing as it was a manifesto commitment in what was otherwise the longest suicide note in history that we leave |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Sept 3, 2024 10:13:18 GMT
She destroyed thousands of small and not so small businesses as she pushed up the number of people with no job to nearly 4 million. And increased the number of children living in relative poverty to 3 Million. She also increased the waiting times for hospital appointments and 12 month waiting lists for the likes of knee replacements. Not quite right, there was a recession in 80/81 which saw small businesses decline and unemployment rise but after that there was a boom period when small businesses did well. Even in the recession in the early 90s we could not get staff in the medium sized business in which I worked despite unemployment being apparently high. Relative poverty is a rather loaded measure as often it is because all have much better incomes but the rich are much richer and throw many into relative poverty they were not in before nor believed they were actually poor. Not everything Thatcher did was good or bad there was some of each and some dogmatic principles that did not work but in the main it seems that stopping Labour in 79 was possibly the best thing as it is unclear where the UK would be had Callaghan secured another term with the team he had and the policies he followed. The winter of 78 to 79 was pretty dismal all round to my recollection with uncollected rubbish, ungritted roads and a general malaise and feeling of dissatisfaction. That could not continue. The short recession 1980/81 did not cause a 9 year reduction in businesses (as unemployment continued to rise year on year), nor did it cause the destruction of enterprise or a gradual increase of over 2 Million people out of work. Many skilled people and many trained people who found themselves out of employment under Thatcher, changed direction taking on anything from 'shelf fillers' to retraining. I left nearly 30 years of engineering and retrained into mental health care, helping others but no longer indulging in money making production. You have a blind spot when it comes to Thatcher's ideological history. Labour under Callaghan repaid most of the IMF loan and reduced inflation from over 20% to 10%. Thatcher's corner shop Ideology saw Japanese industry replace many UK businesses. i.e. don't make it yourself, just buy it and sell it. I give Thatcher full credit for what in my opinion was the only thing she got right, which was in making Wild-Cat strikes illegal. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Sept 3, 2024 10:41:11 GMT
Not quite right, there was a recession in 80/81 which saw small businesses decline and unemployment rise but after that there was a boom period when small businesses did well. Even in the recession in the early 90s we could not get staff in the medium sized business in which I worked despite unemployment being apparently high. Relative poverty is a rather loaded measure as often it is because all have much better incomes but the rich are much richer and throw many into relative poverty they were not in before nor believed they were actually poor. Not everything Thatcher did was good or bad there was some of each and some dogmatic principles that did not work but in the main it seems that stopping Labour in 79 was possibly the best thing as it is unclear where the UK would be had Callaghan secured another term with the team he had and the policies he followed. The winter of 78 to 79 was pretty dismal all round to my recollection with uncollected rubbish, ungritted roads and a general malaise and feeling of dissatisfaction. That could not continue. The short recession 1980/81 did not cause a 9 year reduction in businesses (as unemployment continued to rise year on year), nor did it cause the destruction of enterprise or a gradual increase of over 2 Million people out of work. Many skilled people and many trained people who found themselves out of employment under Thatcher, changed direction taking on anything from 'shelf fillers' to retraining. I left nearly 30 years of engineering and retrained into mental health care, helping others but no longer indulging in money making production. You have a blind spot when it comes to Thatcher's ideological history. Labour under Callaghan repaid most of the IMF loan and reduced inflation from over 20% to 10%. Thatcher's corner shop Ideology saw Japanese industry replace many UK businesses. i.e. don't make it yourself, just buy it and sell it. I give Thatcher full credit for what in my opinion was the only thing she got right, which was in making Wild-Cat strikes illegal. We all have a story to tell I voted Labour in 97 and within six months was made redundant from 26 years in civil engineering materials. The Dongas, the Treehuggers and the Swampies got their way and road building was knocked on the head which some say cost the economy 10 billion, possibly more for when they did come to build those roads the price was through the roof and the staff had moved on to retraining and different businesses, and early retirement. Thatcher was a product of her time and in general terms my own situation did not change overly much over her period as PM. When Blair arrived my own situation changed dramatically and the change in the country was dynamic and detested by many and in fewer years than Thatcher did. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Sept 3, 2024 15:13:48 GMT
Under Thatcher manufacturing output rose so the idea that she destroyed UK manufacturing is a bit of a myth. What she did do was make it far more productive so that it didn't need as many workers.
|
|
