LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksI hate those buses too!Originally Posted by oolon
Oh no you don't; you're not getting away with a generalisation. Who exactly is better qualified?
I hate those buses too!
Oh no you don't; you're not getting away with a generalisation. Who exactly is better qualified?
Alright, I'll narrow it down for you ...... anybody that hasn't spent most of the last 13 years mucking it up is better qualified than someone who has. They may still be a complete numpty, and a hopeless incompetent, but at least they haven't proven it over and again. Yet.
And now, I'm off to watch Question Time. Catch up with you tomorrow, santa.
You sneaky git. You know darn well that doesn't narrow it down. C'mon, name your man
Actually i believe I could do fair better than GB however the only way to be elected here is be in a party and i don't like any of them and don't wish to do years of slimeing to get there.You sneaky git. You know darn well that doesn't narrow it down. C'mon, name your man
(\__/) All I wanted in the end was world domination and a whole lot of money to spend. - NMA
(='.*=)
(")_(*)
Well after actually having had a look at the policies of the major parties I can see where you are coming from. Whilst I very much doubt that I'll ever be inclined to vote Labour (well, unless things change massively - either personally or politically) I do think that labour have been subtely (or not so subtly) shifting their focus, attempting to make themselves a possible choice for the new middle class that has flourished in the last 20 years.
I'm no great fan of any of the major political figureheads but if labour had a clean break from the scandal of the blairite era and the perceived dimwittery of brown then they would have a distinct chance of retaining their political dominance. Pre election this is highly unlikely, however given what they've potentially left the conservatives with then it is not beyond possibility that they will be back at the next election, or earlier if there is a hung parliament.
So, it appears we have a bit of a waiting game, which is potentially in a lose lose situation over the future of Britain - woo...
Its strange how times change, Conservatives are obviously a rich party... but strangely Labour seem to be just a different type of rich....
Tories arn't rich?Its strange how times change, Conservatives are obviously a rich party... but strangely Labour seem to be just a different type of rich...
Go do your research, they are swimming in it, even Cameron's wife.
Its because you just ignore these big important issues. A country that goes bankrupt does not go well at all, look at those which have recently had a bond crisis.You're always telling me that I don't understand things. It makes me feel so inadequate.
Even a term of the BNP would be less devastating than that (Assuming the genocide would be lower numbers than the starvation, I completely accept that there would be racial divides where as a bond crisis is colourblind!). Given that I think the NAZIs had much more sensible policies when they where elected than the bunch of nick griffins that run the BNP, this is about as strong a sentiment as I can get. The worst option so to speak.
My point is what ever your political view these issues are massive, so I assume you either:
Ignore them because you don't comprehend them.
Ignore them to wind me up.
Ignore them out of some type of religious zeal love of old Labour.
Please read the post your referencing and redact your comments as required.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
2 out of 3 of our last Prime Ministers have been un-elected (Gordon Brown, John Major)
Makes you think...
John Major did then go on to win an election though, we will have to see if Brown can do the same thing.
(\__/) All I wanted in the end was world domination and a whole lot of money to spend. - NMA
(='.*=)
(")_(*)
Oi ...... who told you my middle name? I don't use 'sneaky' in public.You sneaky git. You know darn well that doesn't narrow it down. C'mon, name your man
But it does narrow it down, Santa. It narrows it down by one .... but an absolutely critical one.
As for naming a man, well, that's where I have a problem. Assuming we're talking about those actually in the political arena, I can't see anyone I especially want. I know it's a popular viewpoint, but Vince Cable is probably the best qualified .... but I certainly don't agree with everything he says or wants, and of course, you can't have him without having Clegg (who leaves me wholly unconvinced) and LD policies (which strike me as opportunistic, about as consistent as a budgerigar feather in a hurricane, and almost entirely unscrutinised, and much of which I don't agree with).
Then there's Cameron and Osborne, etc. Cameron is (IMHO, of course) certainly the most personable of the available options, and the best in front of camera. But then, so was Blair so that doesn't mean much. Osborne is sharper than most people seem to give him credit for, but in direct contrast to Cameron, not especially good at PR. However, that may be no bad thing - I'd rather have brains and competence that a smooth snake-oil salesman.
The problem I have is that I regard all politicians as snake-oil salesmen, and am worried that while Cameron is certainly the slickest salesman, that may be all he is.
My position,at least at the moment, Santa, is that I'm reduced to deciding how to vote based on who I want least, and voting in whatever way will do the little I can to ensure we don't get that person, rather than voting for who I do want because I can't honestly say I do want any of them.
I don't like that position, but it's the politicians that have put me in it .... largely because there's not a single one of them that is, in my view, actually being honest with us and facing up to the mess we're in. They're all apparently indulging in a tacit conspiracy of avoidance. They whinge on and on about things like this National Insurance as if it actually makes that much difference. It's like the barman on the Titanic worrying about one ice cube or two in the Captain's Martini - they won't even look out the window to see the visible bit of the iceberg, let alone acknowledge what lies beneath the surface.
Instead, they're mutually coming up with patently ludicrous false arguments because they don't want to talk about the real issues ... and I mean none of them want to talk about it. They all say they're going to deal with the deficit, but won't give ANY real detail as to quite how. Brown pretends it's going to be via "efficiency savings", but that he's going to "protect" the recovery by taxing the people and business more. Utter cobblers. Cameron pretends he can cut taxes and make "efficiency savings" and that that'll do the trick. Utter cobblers.
At least Nero reputedly played the fiddle while Rome burned. Cameron and Brown are still arguing over whether to call it it a fiddle or a violin. My message to them all .... stop your flaming arguing and start flaming playing, you morons. At least we might get some pleasant mood music while the country goes down the toilet.
They need to start being honest with us for a change. Until they do, they're merely snake-oil salesmen in my judgement, and I don't actively give any support to a single one of them.
And the really depressing bit? We, as a county, get the politicians we deserve.
I have no doubt at all that if one side or the other were to be honest, they'd scare people so badly they'd never get near power. So they lie, and deceive, and avoid and dodge, and evade and prevaricate, and play this nasty little game which is so corrosive of trust because they have to. Even if any of them actually do know what's best to do and have the balls to do it in power, they have to be deceitful to get a mandate to do it. They have a choice ..... deceive us and gain the power to make a difference, or be honest about what's needed and not get the ability to do anything about it.
So ..... you want me to name names. I can't. All I can do is say that Brown has had 13 years running either the economy or the country (or both), and look at the mess he's made. Look at the mistakes he's made. The man is snow-blind, unable to see the real state of things because of the glare of his own ego and self-publicity. He believes his own propaganda, especially about his own competence. For a classic case, there's the claim he'd "abolished boom and bust". I haven't heard him parrot that particular piece of trite drivel recently. I wonder why?Muppet. He might as well claim to have abolished gravity, because it's about as likely.
So on a national level, my hope is that Cameron wins, though I'm not all that happy about it. Why? Because I can't see any feasible prospect of voting patterns changing sufficiently for the LibDems to stand a prayer of power, and I don't think I'd be wanting them even if they could win. At a pragmatic level, we therefore have a binary choice .... Labour or Tory. And I know I don't want Labour, or more specifically, absolutely don't want Brown, and I don't see Brown giving up power if he wind the election.
That's my preference for the national result. Locally, I will vote for whoever I think has the best chance of dislodging the currently incumbent disgraceful Labour Minister, even if I have to hold my nose and swallow back the bile while doing it.
And if I get my wish and Cameron wins, I just hope he's not just all mouth and no trousers, and can actually get things done, even if he won't discuss much of what it will be beforehand in case he scares the kids.
As far as I'm concerned, this coming election is rather like the condemned man being offered the choice of death by firing squad, death by 1000 cuts, or a humane exit in a posh Swiss clinic. In case you need me to explain which is which, Cameron is the posh clinic, and Clegg the firing squad. I wouldn't be wildly keen about the clinic option, but it beats the firing squad. And as for 1000-cut-Brown ...... shudder!!!
Though actually, thinking about it, maybe Brown is more like 100 lashes, then having your gonads fried off by electricity, then being skinned alive and eaten by Hannibal Lecter .... with him starting at the toes and working up, which really gives us something to 'look forward to' before he gets to the vital organs.
santa claus (08-04-2010)
For those perhaps contemplating voting Labour, please ensure to read and digest the Labour "list of shame" first...........
- £22,500 of debt for every child born in Britain
- 111 tax rises from a government that promised no tax rises at all
- The longest national tax code in the world
- 100,000 million pounds drained from British pension funds
- The highest proportion of children living in workless households anywhere in Europe
- The number of pensioners living in poverty up by 100,000
- The lowest level of social mobility in the developed world
- The only G7 country with no growth this year
- One in six young people neither earning nor learning
- 5 million people on out-of –work benefits
- Missing the target of halving child poverty
- Ending up with child poverty rising in each of the last three years instead
- Cancer survival rates among the worst in Europe
- Hospital-acquired infections killing nearly three times as many people as are killed on the roads
- Falling from 4th to 13th in the world competitiveness league
- Falling from 8th to 24th in the world education rankings in maths
- Falling from 7th to 17th in the rankings in literacy
- The police spending more time on paperwork than on the beat
- Fatal stabbings at an all-time high
- Prisoners released without serving their sentences
- Foreign prisoners released and never deported
- 7 million people without an NHS dentist
- Small business taxes going up
- Business taxes raised from among the lowest to among the highest in Europe
- Tax rises for working people set for after the election
- The 10p tax rate abolished
- And the ludicrous promise to have ended boom and bust
- Our gold reserves sold for a quarter of their worth
- Our armed forces overstretched and under-supplied
- Profitable post offices closed against their will
- One of the highest rates of family breakdown in Europe
- The ‘Golden Rule’ on borrowing abandoned when it didn’t fit
- Police inspectors in 10,Downing Street
- Dossiers that were dodgy
- Mandelson resigning the first time
- Mandelson resigning the second time
- Mandelson coming back for a third time
- Bad news buried
- Personal details lost
- An election bottled
- A referendum denied
Not true. Major was elected. Unlike Brown, Major stood for leadership of the party, faced competition, and was elected. As a result, he became PM. (* See note below)
Brown, of course, didn't faced an election because nobody would stand against him. Given the amount of coup attempts (of varying degrees of seriousness and competence) since, we have to wonder why nobody would? Could it be because they didn't fancy being on the receiving end of the "forces of hell", as his "colleague", our beloved Chancellor, recently referred to them?
Assuming, however, that what you meant was that 2 of the last 3 didn't become PM by already being leader of the party that was then elected to Government by us, the people, then that's correct. But it's nothing terribly new. We don't have a Presidential-style system where we ever directly elect the PM. The PM is merely the leader of the party we do elect.
I also question whether it's a good idea in the UK to elect a government based on a Presidential style choice of PM? We don't have the constitutional constraints, and the checks and balances of Presidential style systems, like the Houses of Representatives and Senate in the USA. The President may be very powerful in some areas, but he has to carry Congress to get most things done .... and can similarly block a lot that Congress may want. And it can (and often does), of course, result in a President from one party and a Congress dominated by the other. Unlike here, of course, where a PM with a large majority can use the whip system and the patronage of Ministerial appointments to drive through pretty much whatever he wants.
Note :
The first ballot in the election which gave Major the party leadership and hence premiership was between Heseltine and Thatcher. Thatcher won, but not by quite enough to have the required 15% clear lead to avoid a second ballot. She withdrew, and Major and Douglas Hurd joined in. Major, benefiting (it seems) from the Thatcher vote (or the not-Heseltine vote, at least) won, but not by quite enough to avoid a third ballot. However, Heseltine and Hurd then withdrew, leaving Major as last-man-standing.
Interestingly, those votes took place under a new system where that 15% lead needed to be of the electorate (which, of course, was Tory MPs), not merely those voting, as it had previously been. Had the previously rules still been in operation, Thatcher would have one the first ballot outright, there would have been no second ballot and Thatcher would have continued as PM. History would have been different, and who knows quite how?
Wow. Harsh words, and hypocrisy too it seems. As has been witnessed your concerns are often about money, money, money. Perhaps you ignore the other parties because you are driven by the rat race. There are those that don't give much of a hoot regarding wealth and see that under any government things won't become so dire because these things are as much within the control of the executive as they are you or I. To accuse another of being an idiot because their concerns differ i can see why the BNP appeal to you.
To err is human. To really foul things up ... you need a computer.
Hmm mostly that 'list of shame' relates directly to the consequences of a global recession. I don't think people are so stupid that cannot see that list for what it is. Oh i'm sure any other government would have miraculously saved the nation from recession given the same circumstances, wouldn't they? Let's be fair, that is utter nonsense. The service economy on which the country is based would not have ever allowed it to be so.
To err is human. To really foul things up ... you need a computer.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote