I've no problem with unions existing and doing their best for their members, so long as they don't have any special priveleges, but can we not acknowledge that a major aim of theirs is to make it harder for unemployed people wanting to enter a certain trade, in order to maintain and increase their members' earnings? They're not fucking Santa Claus.
Which of course is an option to people. The potential downside then being you'll get such prosperous areas then overloaded with a comparably cheaper workforce that will undermine the current prosperity of said area.
Which of course is an option to people. The potential downside then being you'll get such prosperous areas then overloaded with a comparably cheaper workforce that will undermine the current prosperity of said area.
You're definitely on a very good wage though, & as a rule most people who are comfortable financially have sympathy for those tory cunts.
You had two mums? Makes a change from two dads I suppose.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_lawWho's this cunt on the BBC now... 'She really did change things'
Oh great.. so did Hitler and Stalin.
Who's this cunt on the BBC now... 'She really did change things'
Oh great.. so did Hitler and Stalin.
I've come back to say;
"Tatchahahahahahahahaha!"
? I don't get it ?
You are not funny obviously
You said ""mums was a cleaner...". I just took your typo and played around with it. I appreciate you are taking some flak in here so perhaps that influenced how you read what I wrote. Never mind.
ITT a bunch of butthurt 6cm'ers who are mad at a politician for forcing them to take some personal responsibility and not rely on entitlements and corrupt unions.
![]()
Or.... Destroyed parts of the country
Potato/potato
That doesn't work in text
ITT a bunch of butthurt 6cm'ers who are mad at a politician for forcing them to take some personal responsibility and not rely on entitlements and corrupt unions.
![]()
I love it when someone has obviously thought long and hard about a post and put a degree of effort into it thinking 'This is gonna read great'
And then once they click 'Post' they realise its actually a bit of a shambles. But its too late. Its out there. In the www. All shit looking and festering and bobous.
Too late the cry too late.
Oh youre an American. Well *that* improves my opinion of you.You can't even spell realize correctly so your opinion is invalid 😉
As I said Sunny - not a shred of evidence that Thatcher had negative opinions about Liverpool. Like all the other articles, the one you posted claims that some members of her Cabinet wanted to walk away from the problems of the city but she didn't. Actions speak louder than words and she was prepared to throw £500 million at the city. Don't forget that all the land reclamation and the building of the International Garden Festival site was at the national taxpayer's expense, as was the refurbishment of the derelict South Docks. Thatcher also spent £130 million in grants to modernise the Port of Liverpool.