Why is this man the president?

[JPreston]

Hey, it's the guy who said:

the tories flounder so badly...because they cant come up with any decent proposals because the labour government is using all of them...

....only now you're calling me the typical Labour supporter. Why? Because I said I will vote Lib Dem next time and gave a list of terrible Labour policies that have led to this decision? Typical Labour supporters, they're cunning that way, what with voting for parties other than Labour and all....

Most of us in this thread are already engaged in intelligent debate, thanks - but I do have to chuckle at:

aint that the truth he clearly has no idea how local and government politics work, any of the partys policys, what changes labour have made, he obviously has no hands on experience...

...because - and I realise this will make me the pantomine villain here but WTF, my mum worked for the NHS as well - you know about those £m's the public sector wastes on those consultants with notebooks? That one over there...no not that one, next to him....yep, that's me! MWA-HA-HA-HAAAAAAA

Yep up to a few years ago nearly all of my work was for London boroughs, unitary authorities, PCTs, hospitals, charidees, PFI partnerships, right down to district and parish councils in fact. I know them inside-out. I'm somewhat the expert. I'm very expensive, at any rate. Would you like some free advice? Try not to make sweeping assumptions about what other forum members know about... .

[mcmiller]

[JPreston]

Because it takes two to tango?

[chicken]

You know, for all it's foibles, I actually believe this conversation is approximately 37.4179 times more intellectual than had it carried on being about the President of the United States of America... him and all his peaches...

[Bazzlad]

JPreston.
I look forward to seeing the Tories in power again.

The best bit? For all your rantings there is SFA you can do about it. So it'll be your turn to rant and rave about the mistakes the Tories are making, just as we've had to do with this joke of a Government we've had/got in power.

Good bye New Labour.

End of.

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=430042007

Bad link, but you get the point.

[Bazzlad]

Oh and whoever spoke about the American voting system being messed up, what about ours?

Which party had the most votes last election?

Which party won?

To put our system into perspective, it's like allowing Canada to vote for America's President.

Ridiculous.

[JPreston]

JPreston.
I look forward to seeing the Tories in power again...

Bully for you, old boy. Your refreshing triumphalism brings to mind a young William Hague addressing the Party Conference of 1977, if I may be so bold

I'm not sure why you think that in common with everyone else who won't be voting for Labour next time, I will be dismayed should Labour fail to gain anything other than another landslide victory. Perhaps you think us 'Labour voters' - you know, the ones who don't vote for Labour - are just funny that way?

I'd genuinely be interested in hearing which Tory policies you agree with - because technically they don't actually have any since they got spanked by the electorate over all that dog-whistle racism last time around. Is it the 'culture of respect' you like? Maybe the 'fostering cohesion'? Or any other meaningless soundbite particularly grabs you?

...Oh and whoever spoke about the American voting system being messed up, what about ours?...

Our system is far superior to the US', where the political funding system requires any presidential candidate to be 100% in the pocket of lobby groups and corporations even before the primaries. Do you know how much they spend on misinformation and propaganda, compared to us? Our system actually works quite well, though perhaps less so where one party* has a huuuuuge majority - but I suspect you just don't like it because it's your chaps that get left unpicked on the touchline all the time. Plus compared to the US we have a far, far more informed and intelligent electorate - just look at how they vote according to the baby jesus, abortion, and the spectre of terrorism. They don't actually have 'political opinions' in the conventional sense over there.

Speaking of the US, which party had the most votes in the 2000 election?

Which party won?

Hhmmmmmm....?

...To put our system into perspective, it's like allowing Canada to vote for America's President...

Now you're really on a roll. While I resent subsidising their Irn Bru and woad face-paint as much the next man, Scotchland has been part of Great Britain since 1707. That's a pretty long time - for example it's about 150 years longer than Texas (in fact, much of the republican south) has been part of the US. You don't have a problem with that though, do you?


* clue: L A B O U R

[Rave]

(I knew this was inevitable, as though the thread wasn't OT enough now you'll give me your regular economic review and maybe I'll tell you how to drive a bus )

Are you an economist? For some reason I thought you were an accountant. Anyway, assuming you are an economist, can I take it therefore that you're invoking your right to win this argument by default? Is my economic analysis automatically discounted because of my day job? No need to argue the facts when you can pull rank eh?

This thread was OT long before I got here, and I was reading it in a fairly disinterested fashion until I saw my name invoked. Your initial dig at me was funny, your response when I rose to the bait was, frankly, weak and sneering.

Do you seriously expect Labour to have re-nationalised the water companies, railways, and all the other non-competitive commodities that we previously collectively owned until the Tories sold them off? Where in the world has such a programme been undertaken?

Where in the world? Erm....in the United Kingdom, in 1948?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail

Did you think that British Rail existed from the beginning and built every railway in Britain?

If you mean, where in the world, in the last decade or so, then again, I have to say here in Britain...because the Government effectively did renationalise Railtrak...then continued to screw it up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railtrack

Hugo Chavez threatened to nationalise some oil fields but IIRC didn't, Robert Mugabe has nationalised lots of things (I don't think that has worked out so well though) but that's about it. FWIW the only political party idealistic/naive enough to include nationalisation of the water companies in their manifesto is the BNP - draw your conclusion whether that indicates it's a feasible proposal or not

You seem to regard privatisation as some drastically irreverible process. It's not. A far fairer comparison would be between the performance of our railways in the last ten years and those in a country where they've not been privatised- France, for example. France's railways have always received massive government subsidies, but then they've always been excellent to travel on.

SOLD - not the govt's infrastructure any more....

There never was a national grid for water. They could build one, and use it to encourage an actual market in water supply, rather than a crappily regulated monopoly. That was my point.

I agree with your sentiment but OTOH who'd be first to complain if Thames Water dug up the whole of London to replace their 100 year old porcelain pipes?

At the moment they cause massive disruption digging up the roads when the pipes burst. They might as well dig them up to replace them before they do.

I of all people certainly wouldn't complain, because I'm not paid by the mile.

Yes I was going to say something to the effect that the only people who are unemployed are those who can't be arsed to get a job but realised that would make me sound like Norman Tebbit - generally, that is a Very Bad Thing. Undoubtedly something needs to be done about people like you, you goddamn freeloader ( )

What, people like me who could afford to both eat and pay the rent while recieving dole and housing benefit, but couldn't while earning £5.35 p/h over a 38 hour week?

While I was on the dole/ benefits, I had just enough money to subsist. I would have had less money working for the minimum wage. Had I been able to subsist on the minimum wage, I would have done. Since in fact my unavoidable outgoings would have exceeded my earnings, working would have resulted in me either going hungry or getting increasingly into debt every week- and if you still think I'm a ponce for making the decision to stay on benefits, then you can **** right off until you've tried it yourself.

but that doesn't change the fact that we essentially have full employment and a mandatory minimum wage.

Full employment....hahaha! The number of people with Disabled Freedom Passes I see on my bus every day just keeps on going up and up. To be fair a few of them are obviously unfit for work, and I daresay a few have non-obvious serious disabilities....but no way are they all unable to work.

Under the Tories you would have had jack-all benefits and had to have taken a job sweeping chimneys for £2 ph and then maybe you'd have a right to complain -

I would have had jack all benefits under the Tories? Because one of Thatcher's policies was to chuck the families of the unemployed out onto the streets was it? Funny, 'cause I was alive in the 80s, and I can't remember that happening. Flogging off the council houses, sure. Familes living for months in bedsits, sure- as they do now, since Labour haven't bothered to replace the council housing flogged by their predecessors. Families on the streets- nope.

as it is you've directly benefited from one of Labour's few left-wing policies

Dole and housing benefit existed long before 1997, I think you'll find.

and had no problem working the system for your own benefit

Actually it took a long time to process my claim so I did have a problem 'working the system'. And I think it's a bit rich to say that I 'worked it for my own benefit' when I actually 'worked it' to ensure that I could afford food and a place to live.

so shouldn't really grumble about it now. "Damn you Tony Blair! You pay me more to sit on my arse than I can earn in the free labour-market, even though you've stacked that in my favour too by introducing a minimum wage! Now I'll be unemployed for life, because you have the nerve to support me to a higher level than I could provide for myself and will never require me to work a day in my life*!"

I take it that you don't actually deny that what I'm saying is true then? And, so, are you saying that the way forward is to appeal to people's sense of civic duty and ask them to work 38 hours a week doing a tedious job even though they'll be worse off than they would be sitting on their arses?

Well, good luck with that!

[JPreston]

Are you an economist? For some reason I thought you were an accountant. Anyway, assuming you are an economist, can I take it therefore that you're invoking your right to win this argument by default? Is my economic analysis automatically discounted because of my day job? No need to argue the facts when you can pull rank eh?....

Calm down dear, it's just a commercial

Yes you're right, I've freely admitted I know about as much about economics as I do about driving a bus - hence my joke, which clearly didn't come across in the spirit it was meant - economics is about as much a part of your day job as driving a bus is part of mine, I wasn't pulling rank or sneering at all

Did you think that British Rail existed from the beginning and built every railway in Britain?

If you mean, where in the world, in the last decade or so, then again, I have to say here in Britain...

Oh, Dr Beeching! You'd be wrong about Britain, but I was wrong about Hugo Chavez cos I read
this earlier today - turns out he's renationalised loads of stuff. Doesn't change the fact that it was never a labour policy in the first place and we can't complain that they have pulled a u-turn just because we both think something might be a good and feasible idea. And yes, the only way to run a railway effectively is by national ownership like in France - railways by their nature are not competitive, unless you let Richard Branson build a competing network alongside the first. So privatisation basically left us with a collection of localised monopolies. I'm for public ownership, remember? Just don't agree with you on how effortless renationalisation would be.

There never was a national grid for water. They could build one, and use it to encourage an actual market in water supply, rather than a crappily regulated monopoly. That was my point.

Yes I know - my point was that we don't own any pipes in the ground at all, so why build the companies a water grid with public money?

....While I was on the dole/ benefits, I had just enough money to subsist. I would have had less money working for the minimum wage. Had I been able to subsist on the minimum wage, I would have done. Since in fact my unavoidable outgoings would have exceeded my earnings, working would have resulted in me either going hungry or getting increasingly into debt every week- and if you still think I'm a ponce for making the decision to stay on benefits, then you can **** right off until you've tried it yourself.

Hoi! I kept you fed and clothed after you'd made your decision, so keep a civil tongue in your head

Do you think that the total amount of benefits you actually received was higher or lower as a result of having a Labour govt as opposed to Tory? Do you think it should have been higher still, or lower? So what's your problem with the Labour govt?

...Full employment....hahaha! The number of people with Disabled Freedom Passes I see on my bus every day just keeps on going up and up.

...and here's me reading the broadsheets and so on like a mug, being told we have basically full employment. I just don't have access to a truly rigorous and impartial indicator of the country's economy, such as the number of people using free passes to ride Rave's bus - I trust you make your observations available to the DWP/ODPM/whatever they are called this week!

...I take it that you don't actually deny that what I'm saying is true then? And, so, are you saying that the way forward is to appeal to people's sense of civic duty and ask them to work 38 hours a week doing a tedious job even though they'll be worse off than they would be sitting on their arses?

Are you saying the way forward is to cut benefits to a level that would be impossible to live off? Or that the minimum wage should be increased to £15+ ph? You don't seem to be very consistent with your earlier rant here.

Oh - I bloody dream about working a 38 hour week! You need to come up with a more 'Grapes of Wrath' phrase there

[Bazzlad]

Bully for you, old boy. Your refreshing triumphalism brings to mind a young William Hague addressing the Party Conference of 1977, if I may be so bold

And your sarcasm brings to mind a young Jimmy Carr. Before he was funny. Which he isn't always.

I'm not sure why you think that in common with everyone else who won't be voting for Labour next time, I will be dismayed should Labour fail to gain anything other than another landslide victory. Perhaps you think us 'Labour voters' - you know, the ones who don't vote for Labour - are just funny that way?

I don't care who you vote for, I can see a huge, massive, dislike for the Tories, and, as previously stated, I'll be the one smiling when they're in power.

Your dislike borders on obsession, you've managed, single handed, to turn a thread about George Bush, into an anti Conservative post - how the hell you managed that I don't know, but you've kept it on for 4 pages now, bashing anyone who dares argue with your political knowledge.

You remind me of a football fan. No matter what you're always right. Bringing up the past is a way to win an argument (we won in 1997) and anyone who disagrees with you is deluded. Opinions are like arseholes, everyone has one, and making the loudest noise from yours does NOT mean you're right - I've, like you, worked in the NHS, and can tell you, that it's about as bad as it can get now.

Throwing money at the NHS, without restructure, without removing non key personnel, and without hiring in house cleaners who actually give a sh*t, instead of hiring (at a higher rate - may I add) agency workers is a joke. Pure and simple. And as for the nGMS2 contract, which is a way for Labour to whip their proverbial cocks out and state "in 2005 we saw 90% of people with key issues" is a joke. Let's fill up the waiting room with healthy patients, who may have a G3 read code on their file and get them to see a nurse practitioner who could be doing something crazy like actually helping people who are ill.

I'd genuinely be interested in hearing which Tory policies you agree with - because technically they don't actually have any since they got spanked by the electorate over all that dog-whistle racism last time around. Is it the 'culture of respect' you like? Maybe the 'fostering cohesion'? Or any other meaningless soundbite particularly grabs you?

Soundbites? Remember the 7 Labour promises?

Tough on Crime, tough on the cause of crime.

"You sir, are a criminal, have an ASBO"

Petrifying.

Uni Fees,
Massively rising crime - no matter how much they attempt to spin the statistics.
HOW many new taxes?
The Immigration Farce (One of Labours first actions in 1997 was to remove port immigration security. Good job.)

There's a few things I dislike about Labour of the top of head.

Our system is far superior to the US', where the political funding system requires any presidential candidate to be 100% in the pocket of lobby groups and corporations even before the primaries. Do you know how much they spend on misinformation and propaganda, compared to us?

Do you not realise the size difference between the two Countries?

Our system actually works quite well, though perhaps less so where one party* has a huuuuuge majority - but I suspect you just don't like it because it's your chaps that get left unpicked on the touchline all the time.

You'll find that the Conservatives actually accrued more votes in total last time. So explain to me why they aren't in power?

Plus compared to the US we have a far, far more informed and intelligent electorate - just look at how they vote according to the baby jesus, abortion, and the spectre of terrorism. They don't actually have 'political opinions' in the conventional sense over there.

We do, do we? Take a walk around Stoke or Dudley and tell me how much more intelligent our electorate is. Explain to me why Sandwell is the teenage pregnancy capital of Europe. Well informed.

Voting on religious beliefs is a choice, and belittle it as much as you like, it's their choice. You are not a superior being because you are not religious. If they don't agree with abortion it's their choice. Not yours. And the beautiful thing is, their choice is as valid as yours. It's a democracy. Get used to it.

Now you're really on a roll. While I resent subsidising their Irn Bru and woad face-paint as much the next man, Scotchland has been part of Great Britain since 1707.

Correct. But they don't pay for Uni Fees do they? In fact, they have a lot of their own rules don't they. In fact, they have their own Government (to an extent) don't they?

So why can they vote on what happens to me?

Find me one Scot who likes Great Britain. One.

So as stated, they get their own votes anyway, so why should they be able to vote on what happens in England. Time for an English Government too.

That's a pretty long time - for example it's about 150 years longer than Texas (in fact, much of the republican south) has been part of the US. You don't have a problem with that though, do you?

My house is older than Texas. No biggy.

[GeorgeTuk]

God politics is boring, no wonder nobody is interested look at this argument, without any disrepect to the people having the content is so dull.

[Rave]

Yes you're right, I've freely admitted I know about as much about economics as I do about driving a bus - hence my joke, which clearly didn't come across in the spirit it was meant - economics is about as much a part of your day job as driving a bus is part of mine, I wasn't pulling rank or sneering at all

Oh I see. Sorry about that then. I was a bit tipsy last night, just enough to get me a bit animated.

Doesn't change the fact that it was never a labour policy in the first place

It certainly was a Labour policy in the first place- the famous Clause 4, dropped in the mid-90s after Blair became leader. But no, it's not a New Labour policy.

and we can't complain that they have pulled a u-turn just because we both think something might be a good and feasible idea.

I'm not accusing them of a u-turn, I'm saying their policy- which they've more or less stuck to- is crap.

Just don't agree with you on how effortless renationalisation would be.

Well, the government now owns all the railway infrastructure again. They give out franchises to run the train services in a particular route or region. When those franchises expire, they could simply not give it out to a private company again, and instead form a public entity to run the trains. This wouldn't be effortless, but it would be, IMO, entirely legal and relatively simple.

There is at least one precedent for this: East Thames Buses, which is entirely owned by TfL.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Thames_Buses

Yes I know - my point was that we don't own any pipes in the ground at all, so why build the companies a water grid with public money?

Because ultimately the public would get their money back through decreased water rates, and they'd get a more reliable supply of water into the bargain. There's very rarely a hosepipe ban in Scotland or the north of England- they've got plenty of water.

Do you think that the total amount of benefits you actually received was higher or lower as a result of having a Labour govt as opposed to Tory?

About the same, I reckon.

....and here's me reading the broadsheets and so on like a mug, being told we have basically full employment. I just don't have access to a truly rigorous and impartial indicator of the country's economy, such as the number of people using free passes to ride Rave's bus - I trust you make your observations available to the DWP/ODPM/whatever they are called this week!

Well, the point is that it gives the lie to all these claims of full employment. If you want actual figures rather than my anecdotal evidence, have a read of:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NEET (and the link to the report therein)
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=127732005 - 2.7m on incapacity benefit? They're the ones riding my bus BTW.

Are you saying the way forward is to cut benefits to a level that would be impossible to live off? Or that the minimum wage should be increased to £15+ ph? You don't seem to be very consistent with your earlier rant here.

No, neither of those is the answer- the answer is to have a properly graduated scale of earnings vs. benefit reductions. If someone works 8 hours a week, and earns themselves £40, they should lose, say, £20 of benefit, not £40. That way they're incentivised to take any work they're offered, and the government pays out less in benefit, so everybody wins.

I realise that there is already a scale- I'm just saying that ATM it's very badly calibrated (if that's the word- hopefully you'll know what I mean).

Oh - I bloody dream about working a 38 hour week! You need to come up with a more 'Grapes of Wrath' phrase there

So do I. That's not the point- the point is that a lot of minimum wage jobs only pay 38 hours a week with no opportunity for overtime. An 8h30 (i.e. all day) shift in a shop for example will usually only pay 7h36 because the employee is not paid for their lunch break.

[No.72]

Tory Ftw!

[chicken]

Well it's local election time... I'm off tonight to count the votes in Tunbridge Wells. I don't think there's even a slight chance of it being anything but a huge Conservative majority.

[dannyboy83]

Im counting the votes in Wishaw, North Lanarkshire.

£240 becasue it's over tonight and tomorrow (2 elections)

Labour safe seat for years but the SNP have been sniffing around!

[JPreston]

And your sarcasm brings to mind a young Jimmy Carr. Before he was funny. Which he isn't always.

Oh thanks, I quite like Jimmy Carr. But before you manage, single handed, to turn a thread about George Bush, into an anti-Jimmy Carr post let me repeat my question from before:

I can see a huge, massive, dislike for the Tories, and, as previously stated, I'll be the one smiling when they're in power.

If you say so, but WHY? Do you even know? I asked you what Tory policies you were in favour of. You answered:

Remember the 7 Labour promises?

...

There's a few things I dislike about Labour of the top of head.

Now, do you see that you haven't actually come up with a single Tory policy at all there? Thinking about a future Tory victory might make you feel farm and fuzzy like when you used to climb the rope in gym class, but how do you know you aren't really a Lib Dem, MRLP, or (more likely) UKIP voter instead?

I've, like you, worked in the NHS, and can tell you, that it's about as bad as it can get now.

Quite a facile statement there. Far from being 'as bad as it can get now', I know a sure-fire way to screw up the NHS at a stroke. How? Slash funding to Tory levels - £20bn instead of £90bn. You can argue that trebling the budget has not been value for money - I know it hasn't; I know what my charge-out rate was - but anyone who seriously claims that there has not been a vast improvement in the NHS over the last 10 years must surely be a product of that great (Tory) idea "care in the community"

Take a walk around Stoke or Dudley and tell me how much more intelligent our electorate is.

Nice guy. Is that this 'compassionate conservatism' I hear so much about? Still seems unpleasant and snobbish to me.

I don't know where Sandwell is - I'm not that well informed - but I do know which country has the highest teenage pregnancy rates anywhere in the developed world. I wonder why? Which brings us nicely onto:

Voting on religious beliefs is a choice, and belittle it as much as you like, it's their choice. You are not a superior being because you are not religious. If they don't agree with abortion it's their choice.....their choice is as valid as yours. It's a democracy.

Actually it's not their choice - it's the individual woman in question's choice - HTH. It doesn't matter how many crackpots want to gang together to deny someone else access to medical services to satisfy their own puritanical bigotry, it's not an issue that anyone else should have any say in at all.

Perhaps you think it's 'valid' to substitute all understanding of the real world in favour of a wacky adulation of alleged bronze-age conjuring tricks when deciding who to vote for, but it leads to despicable and
retarded results. I dare you to disagree with that.

You don't have to be an athiest to understand there is something very wrong with this either.

My house is older than Texas. No biggy.

Noone was suggesting you were nouveau riche. The point is that during the time that Scotland has remained a contented (if drunk and violent) part of Great Britain, Texas has managed to join, secede from, and join again the (damn yankee) Union. Scotch folk have a very established right to vote in our elections. We'll even have a Scotch PM next . Won't that be nice?