View Full Version : UK General Election

Pages : [1] 2

1st Apr 2005, 18:09
From the Jet Blast Rules of Engagement: We'd prefer you not to discuss politics & religion. Two subjects that almost inevitably seem to lead to some people losing the plot completely and Mods having to work overtime. But since these subjects also lead to some of the most interesting threads, and life can't be all "Mornington Crescent", if you choose to participate in such a thread, show some restraint and a goodly dose of maturity.

5th Apr 2005, 08:19
The first to lose was Aznar dismissed by Spaniards.

Seems that Berlusconi lost last elections in Italy on same grounds as Aznar (people there rejecting military intervention in Iraq under Bush authority).

I don't know if our French party leaders of the moment can survive a NO to Constitutionnal project.

What do you think about Tony's future?

henry crun
5th Apr 2005, 09:15
I think Mr Drapers future is quite secure. :)

5th Apr 2005, 09:38
I think maybe another week at number one & then he'll drop out of the charts. Prolly not much hope for the follow up single either.:cool:

tony draper
5th Apr 2005, 09:45
One thinks out Tone will triumph agin the forces of darkness and reaction as did our good pal across the Atlantic, after all we still have work to do, France has not yet been dealt with.

Spuds McKenzie
5th Apr 2005, 11:41
But isn't Tony B. a "leftie luvvy" (at least on paper)?
Or is he considered acceptable by those who usually vote for the Tories, because he's fondling Dubya's tonsils from up the backside...?

tony draper
5th Apr 2005, 11:49
Indeed our Tones a socalist of sorts, but then, so was Adolf.

5th Apr 2005, 11:52
The vote will be for the party, not the man. Those on the left will vote for Labour expecting Gordon Brown to take over after the election, those on the right will vote against them for the same reason. Very few will vote against their party of choice just because of the war, whilst a factor there are more important issues at hand.

Though, no doubt, win or lose, it will be claimed as such.

Standard Noise
5th Apr 2005, 11:53
Bring back Maggie, or Adolf for that matter, anything other than Bliar. :suspect:

5th Apr 2005, 13:42
Au contraire, I think there may well be a statistically significant percentage of would-be Labour supporters voting (against) the man, rather than the party. Bliar's a bigger liability than he thinks.

I think the most entertaining outcome would be a hung parliament, which would at least bring back some meaningful debate and interesting politics to the Commons in contrast to the shabby autocracy that we've grown used to. Might even help reverse the general malaise of an apathetic electorate.

I won't be holding my breath though.


Send Clowns
5th Apr 2005, 13:46

Not just voting for the party, but in Labour's case it looks like voting by the party, with the postal voting corruption they have previously used (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4410743.stm).

Windy Militant
5th Apr 2005, 14:08
Ah! So Tones has learned something from his close association with George then! :rolleyes: :p :p :p ;)

5th Apr 2005, 15:22
From memory I have voted in 5 UK elections so far.

Am I unusual in that I do give some thought to local issues and how the different candidates in my consituency will benefit the locality. I guess you have to weigh it all up and decide or is that too complicated for the majority of the populace :confused:

5th Apr 2005, 15:29
show some restraint and a goodly dose of maturity.
Let the battle commence.......... :}

Don't worry, I'll only be watching. What the heck do I know anyway? :rolleyes:

5th Apr 2005, 15:29
Even though Tony is of the party on the left, he has shown he will stick to his convictions in the face of opposition and political risk. Whether you see him as having been right or wrong, you must respect his fortitude in weathering the storm. You know he will do what he thinks is right. That's a big part of why GWB was re-elected as well. He told us what he believed and he acted on his beliefs, rather than telling us what his advisors thought we wanted to hear. They're both my kind of leader. In the end, Tony will prevail as far as I can tell.

Send Clowns
5th Apr 2005, 15:33
Sticks to his convictions. Would respect someone who did that.

So we now have no nuclear weapons?
We are about to leave the EU?
We have stamped down on corruption?
We have regional assemblies?
We have full student grants?
We clearly aren't going to have a referendum on the constitution (well, we're leaving the EU under Blair anyway).

Need I really carry on the list of the volte-faces this arch politician has made? He must be dizzy.

tony draper
5th Apr 2005, 17:13
I don't care who wins as long as its not that fat ginger haired Jockistani git.


5th Apr 2005, 17:22
I read somewhere that escapes the grey matter, that a high percentage of people vote the same way their parents did - and don't really give a damn about the real issues.
Has anyone else read or seen this report ??.

5th Apr 2005, 17:38
Can't stand the sanctimonious prig but lordy oh lordy what would a tory government have to do to be more right wing? It don't bear thinking about. I have voted in every local and general election sice the time of Wilson and the only real conclusion I have come to is that the best we can hope for is a strong opposition. I detest the Labour party for their weakness during the Maggon's reign and I despise the Tories for their weakness now. We need some political and intellectual heavyweights on both sides.

5th Apr 2005, 18:35
I live in a Tory strong-hold, and whilst I wouldn't vote for him, our local Conservative MP Tony Baldry seems to be quite good. I will probably vote Labour, but it's like pi$$ing in the wind round these parts...that said though, I just can't bring myself to vote for the Lib Dems.

5th Apr 2005, 19:29
ORAC, you may be pleasantly suprised.

I know of at least one former Labour party member who will be voting yellow and not red this election.

Make that two, I forgot about the candidate who 'crossed the floor' this morning.

5th Apr 2005, 20:08
I think the most entertaining outcome would be a hung parliament,

I'm with you on that - I'll just nip off and get me rope.

Seriously, though I don't have a lot of time for any of our party leaders at the moment, let's be thankful that we aren't in Zimbabwe, Ivory Coast etc, etc. We may not like Blair, or Howard, but we know that if they are not elected they will bite their lips and stand aside like gents and let the other guy get on with it. You can stick a Tory party poster up in your window and no government goon is going to come around and beat you up or prevent you from getting food. No doubt there is a lot about British democracy that could be improved - but it could still be an awful lot worse.

When you feel like chucking something at the telly because of yet another party political broadcast - just remember that at least it isn't Mugabe touting for our votes.

Solid Rust Twotter
5th Apr 2005, 20:13
Mugabe touting for votes?

Do you honestly think it would make any difference to him?:(

5th Apr 2005, 20:32
Thank you for voting in our OneBigVote poll.

Most of the polls you see in national newspapers are based on small samples of responders, nothing like the 28,000+ people who have responded to OneBigVote. Your answers have contributed to some very interesting results that we would like to share with you below.

Conservatives dominate poll with 35% of the votes

Over a third of voters claim that they will opt for the Conservative party in this General Election whilst just under 50% will be split between Labour and the Liberal Democrats. 8% are undecided or will not vote and the 'other' parties sweep up the remaining 10% of voters.
How do you intend to vote in the next General Election?
(How did you vote in the 2001 General Election)

Conservative - 34.73% (21.89%)
Labour - 23.77% (34.31%)
Liberal Democrats - 23.62% (14.35%)
Will not vote - 3.09%
Undecided - 4.81%
Other - 9.98%

1 in 5 choose Michael Howard over Blair as choice for Prime Minister

The poll also revealed that Michael Howard is the favourite candidate to lead the country for the next five years. The current Prime Minister, Tony Blair, is placed third after his party colleague Gordon Brown.

Voters will not change their minds

Voters do appear to have made up their mind, as 91% are not at all likely, or not very likely to change their vote whilst as for the success of the parties campaigning so far, the majority, 64%, feel insufficiently communicated to from the various parties and that their vote is not being fought for.

No need to say anymore

Link to OneBig Vote website (http://www.onebigvote.co.uk/)

5th Apr 2005, 21:19
The problem as i see it, is that individually many MP's (whether Labour, Lib Dem or Tory) are generally nice, decent people with their constituencies best interests at heart, perhaps because they still have their surgeries and are living in the area etc etc. I know our local MP, Dari Taylor has done a lot to combat Yobs with Air Guns.

However, the leadership and front benchers, who i would imagine spend most of their time in London, living in a bubble away from real people, tend to be people i woulnt trust with a blunt knife, never mind a country, and that goes for the lot of them.

This is the first year that i have ever voted in a general election, and whilst i do intend to vote, i am sincerely tempted not to, as i know that they are all as bad as each other. same flavour, different box, as it were.


5th Apr 2005, 21:33
Tony;I don't care who wins as long as its not that fat ginger haired Jockistani git. Has Gordon Brown been to the hair salon in preperation for the run ups?
(Maybe to grasp the ginger vote?) ;)

5th Apr 2005, 22:41
MMEMatty i am sincerely tempted not to, as i know that they are all as bad as each other. same flavour, different box, as it were Whilst I can understand to a degree the reason why you say this, you really do need to thing beyond the immediate situation.

A few points to maybe make you reconsider?

Firstly many good men and women gave their lives for the right to vote. To fail to exercise your vote negates their sacrifice.

Secondly, all over the world a struggle for democracy still goes on.

Thirdly, Bliar and his lot have done immeasurable harm to the democratic system of this Country and its Institutions. They and their supporters will stop at nothing to attempt to win a third term. Just look at their cynical lies posted on billboards all over the UK. Read about the corruption of postal voting about which they refuse to speak, but still intend to force upon us even though it is rigid with fraud (but in their own favour).

Fourthly, do you really want to suffer from the continuing stealth taxes, and if they win again the inevitable tax rises that they MUST make as the economy is now in serious trouble as a result of their uncontrolled and inefficient public spending.

Fifthly, not voting removes your moral right to complain about the Government as you will not have been involved in its re-election or removal.

Sixthly, a non-vote is a lost vote, it achieves nothing it neither removes nor reinforces an electoral mandate.

I would ask you, and indeed anyone else who is considering not voting to seriously think again.

If you do not like the mainstream candidates I am sure that there may well be an Independent candidate of a suitable calibre. Why not give them your vote? The one thing it will do is to re-inforce voter concern at the mainstream parties, and you never know it may just start to wake some of these people up to the state that we are in as a Country

5th Apr 2005, 22:59
One assumes Blair will even win his constituency against the mighty Al Lockwood! Brown is screwed anyhow after the debacle over Scottish regiments, so at the least we will have a decent chancellor who doesn't sell gold to buy pointless Euros!

5th Apr 2005, 23:16

You are quite right.

All my life I lived in Liberal ([au]Tory) strongholds, and felt my vote was wasted - because I was voting Liberal, too! Only thing was, they were putting taxes up , to give handouts to the centrists in marginal seats.

Now, I live in a [gb]Labour seat, though in a wealthy part of London, I feel my vote might mean something. Like throwing a wet sponge at a tank, I suppose.

The lesson is this - live somewhere marginal.


6th Apr 2005, 01:43
Wedge, you are free to decide that the JB ROE does not apply to you.
Thereby disqualifying yourself from the thread for a while.
JB Mods

6th Apr 2005, 06:06
Don't sit at home in protest and waste your vote.

Better yet don't waste it by voting for Tony, Michael or wossisname with the ginger hair.

Put your vote to good use, vote Monster Raving Loony.

Its probably against the rules but what the hell, this is election time, isn't it? Click on this link (http://www.omrlp.com/) to read our manifesto or even join the party.

Do the sensible thing - Vote insanity, you know it makes sense!

I bet you think I'm kidding don't you? :8

Well I'm not. Think about it.

6th Apr 2005, 07:13
....a high percentage of people vote the same way their parents did.....
Wot.........Chamberlain? :confused:

Send Clowns
6th Apr 2005, 09:48

I was responding directly to something BenThere had said. I was pointing out that it was not true. I made no comment as to whether that applied to any other, as that did not relate to BenThere's post, which was about Blair.

If your post is not negative, can you give me the current Labour party definition of negative? You seem to be using the same one as Princess Toneeeee. Tony who jumps on every bandwagon going, often the one Howard started, by addressing genuine concerns; or else any bandwagon started by a "celeb", maybe a chef?

Glass houses and stones, pots and kettles.

6th Apr 2005, 10:56
All this ranting about stealth taxes gets me. If the great British public weren't so cagey about direct taxation then stealth taxes wouldn't be so prominent. If either electable party was to say "yes council tax is unfair we'll lower it and get the money from income tax." You would all squeal like stuck pigs. Be honest, not many of us will accept that it is unfair that the main tax burden is on people less well off than us. Or at least when we do accept it we still baulk at paying more ourselves. What ever anyone says about "waste" most of the money raised goes on health, education and the armed forces. The stuff we go on about, hospital accquired infection, I know about that one as I have been off work because of it for three years, crap schools, crap school meals, inefficient immigration and shite services in general are quite probably rooted in compulsary competetive tendering and "best value", a wonderful way of cutting my tax bill. Ok maybe we can have it our own way on the cheap but only if we are prepared to kill off a substrantial minority of our population in the sink estates etc..

For my part I am grateful that I lived under a government that taxed me so hard but gave me back a health service that I don't have to pay for at the point of use. I would not want to live under a system like that in the US where thirty dollars in every hundred spent on health goes into the pocket of the insurance companies.

I hate to say it but those of us earning well have never been so well off. I wish that the same could be said of the more vulnerable. Remember that most of these buggers are playing on our greed and venality.

6th Apr 2005, 18:38
In their last terms has the Government kept its election promises?

Have they controlled Immigration?

Have they controlled welfare spending?

Have they increased the number of people employed by the government?

Have they raised taxes directly or indirectly?

Are they likely to rise again if they succeed in coming in again?

Have they increased the number of unelected quangos consuming taxpayers money which could be dispensed with?

Has violent crime increased?

Have we recieved adequate protection from Brussels for the national protections ceded away to them?

Having asked yourself the questions decided how happy you are with what you came up with, ask yourself do you want the same bunch in again. I certainly know my answer.

6th Apr 2005, 21:02
I'm already :bored: :bored: :zzz:

Solid Rust Twotter
6th Apr 2005, 21:09
Viewed as an outsider, it appears the UK is heading for a USA situation in that the winning party may not necessarily be the one that garnered the most votes.

More acrimony......:(

7th Apr 2005, 18:09
Probably never is with the proportional representation, quite apart from the 'banana republic' postal voting just introduced by the present government. These combined with it's efforts to suck in as many refugees immigrants and those who are most likely to be dependent upon welfare and therfore vote for the government whose policy is to provide just such a service, paid for by the ever dwindling proportion of taxpayers whose burden steadily rises, it might be ventured that the deck is being stacked as we speak.

7th Apr 2005, 18:15
Paying much UK tax out there in Saudi Paterbrat?;)

7th Apr 2005, 18:16
No back here living on welfare.:D

8th Apr 2005, 17:27
What would it be ???

8th Apr 2005, 17:35
Do you really think the British public support you? Or do you just feel that they vote for you because there are no alternatives?

In fact, I would probably just ask if he fancied a jam on the guitar.

Probably the only thing we would have in common :}

8th Apr 2005, 17:40
Now that you are in opposition how are you adjusting to back-bench life?

8th Apr 2005, 17:58
Is it painful with a president's hand up yer ar5e!!
:E :E

8th Apr 2005, 18:14
Does it feel good having stuck it to the tories for a third term?:)

8th Apr 2005, 18:51
How does in feel to know that you have acheived nothing good.


8th Apr 2005, 19:57
How did you get such a lovely smile?:D

8th Apr 2005, 20:13
Why do you lie?

cessna l plate
8th Apr 2005, 20:21
Whatever possesed you to fancy Cherie?????

8th Apr 2005, 20:29
When you are alone with Cherie, does her world renowned mouthy smile change to a :ooh: ?

And at the same time, are you aware of any bugging going on in your private rooms??

Thats 'b u g g i n g' for those listeners hard of reading. No 'e r' as that allegedly happens at Buck House, not Downing Street, (or does it??) !!

8th Apr 2005, 20:32
I'm reeally tempted, but, no - even Jet Blast has limits (nowadays :( )

8th Apr 2005, 20:32
How much will the next four years cost me?

8th Apr 2005, 20:36
Do you believe what you say or say what you want us to believe?

tall and tasty
8th Apr 2005, 20:37
Mine would be plain and simple:


and then the world is your oyster expanding that phrase and watch him squirm with the answers :p :p


8th Apr 2005, 20:40
he'd have to have a conscience to squirm

9th Apr 2005, 03:35
I think only the economy could bring down this lot. In the long run that could be a good thing. The great white hope of the Tory party appears to be Davies in my opinion, a win in 5 years' time could bring a longer, more stable time in office for them.

Although I live in Hoon's constituency, so I'll do anything possible to see that jellyfish out of politics.

16 blades
9th Apr 2005, 05:15
it is unfair that the main tax burden is on people less well off than us.

Not true - it is the hard working and law-abiding middle earners of this country who bear the brunt of the tax burden. And that burden has increased dramatically under this govt. The poor and the very rich have done quite well indeed under this regime.

What ever anyone says about "waste" most of the money raised goes on health, education and the armed forces.

I'd check your figures again if I were you - from the IFS website - Govt spending figures for FY04/05:

HEALTH - £67.634bn
EDUCATION - £26.291bn
DEFENCE - £28.402bn

All of which added together are still dwarfed by:

WELFARE STATE - £130.477bn (£119.843bn in DSS benefits, £10.634bn in tax credits)

The total welfare budget is much higher than this as it includes many payments to other govt departments.

Conclusion - this Labour govt spends more on jobless chavs than on Health, Education, and Defence put together.

Go 'figure'.


11th Apr 2005, 11:26

The Government is understood to have offered to pay the wages of thousands of MG Rover workers at Longbridge from the public purse for at least four weeks to give the administrator time to secure the future of the Birmingham car plant.

The move, if agreed by Price Waterhouse Coopers, is likely to be seen as a cynical stunt by Opposition parties because it would help Labour put off the political fall-out of thousands of job losses in the Midlands until after the May 5 general election......

11th Apr 2005, 11:49

"I don't care who wins as long as its not that fat ginger haired Jockistani git."

Are you perhaps referring to the glorious leader of the Liberal Democrats, Charles Kennedy?



11th Apr 2005, 12:27
Since I would like to see:

-A reduction in public expenditure of at least £100bn.

-Income tax at a flat rate and personal allowances set high enough so that the poorest don't pay any income tax.

-Inheritance tax abolished.

-All tax on savings and investment abolished.

-The government out of education and health.

-A genuine elected upper chamber of wise men and women to restrain the wilder excesses of the House of Commons (members of and donors to political parties to be excluded from standing).

-The ban on hand guns repealed and other planned restrictions
on legal gun ownership dropped.

-The ban on hunting with hounds repealed.

-The human rights act repealed.

-Britain out of the EU (recovery of the agriculture sector and fishing industry would follow).

-All illegal immigrants and bogus asylum-seekers found and deported.

-A determined effort to stamp out political correctness wherever it manifests itself.

-The abolition of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly.

-The BBC forced to stop producing and transmitting sh1te or the TV licence abolished.

-Vehicle Excise Duty abolished (the tax on fuel is enough).

-Speed cameras removed from places where they are blatantly sited to produce revenue.

-Car clamping made illegal.

-No ID cards.

-Chief Constables elected ( ie they would NOT be policemen/women).

-No further treating with Sinn Fein/IRA.

I don't suppose I'll vote for any of them.

11th Apr 2005, 23:19
16 blades
Conclusion - this Labour govt spends more on jobless chavs than on Health, Education, and Defence put together.

Good job the jobless are at a record low level then!:p

12th Apr 2005, 04:07
I shall not be voting this time around.

I am angry and fed up with no choice and no democracy. The choice is between one party that says they have (and will) cut public spending and provided tax cuts simultaneously and another party that says they will cut taxes and cut public spending.

I trust Gordon Brown at the Treasury. I do not trust any of the other muppets in "New" Labour to sit on a toilet the right way round. Howard was the most incompetent Home Secretary ever except for - errrr - all Labour Home Secretaries.

I don't want to have to choose between a bunch of right-wing freedom-encroaching fascists and a bunch of Tory copycats.

I don't want to choose between a bunch of liars who took us into an illegal war and the idiots who egged them on, declining to act as an opposition.

Both Labour and Tories have provided sufficient degeneration in Parliament that PMQ's has turned into even more of a farce than it ever was, and government by sofa cabinet means there is no accountability to anyone.

Basically, I don't give a damn about the politics involved. There's not a damn to choose between one bunch of jerks and the other.

What I DO want is democracy and accountability in this country. Sadly, both major parties have been conniving at destroying it as fast as they possibly can.

The only hope is for total electoral reform so that a government is elected that truly reflects the wishes of the voters.

Vortex what...ouch!
12th Apr 2005, 05:38
I was browsing the BBC web site and looking at the election info. Anyway as most people know they on occasions invite viewer comment. Well if you go over there and look at the balance of opinion it appears as if people really have gone off labour and swung across to the Tories again. Take a look http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/vote_2005/have_your_say/4419733.stm

Also using the results of the one big vote site in the BBCs seat calculator it shows a labour collapse.

LAB 176
CON 371
OTH 31

There may be a very real chance of booting these unscrupulous lying chancers out.

16 blades
12th Apr 2005, 05:39
Good job the jobless are at a record low level then!

Er.....no they're not. 2 million of them have been encouraged to pretend they have 'back pain' or are too 'stressed' to work.

True 'jobless' figure is nearer 3 million.

That does not include all of the idiots that have been pushed into university where they do not belong and will not achieve anything(convenient having 50% of 'yoof' not showing on jobless stats, isn't it).

...Or the 800,000 pointless jobs that have been created out of thin air by this govt which taxpayers have to fund (5-a-day, anyone?).


12th Apr 2005, 07:21

Hear! Hear! :ok:

Your post encapsulates my own thoughts to perfection!

.......I just wish I could express them as brilliantly.


12th Apr 2005, 08:59
Be wary of relying on the OneBigVote site for an indication of voter intentions. I have heard from a friend who seems to be in the know that the results my be slightly "skewed" by activists from one of the major parties voting multiple times.

I think that if you really want to to do something useful with your vote, weigh up all the pros and cons of the parties that actually have a chance, (only 3-4 then) and pick the lesser of the evils available... They all Lie, so you can pretty much ignore ALL of those arguments, so its just down to the policies, and what you think they actually will achieve....

Michael Howard as PM? Can't see it myself. Oliver Letwin as Chancellor? Too scary for words, this is the man that came up with the ever so successful Poll Tax during the Thatcher years. As for the rest of the Tories? No idea who they are, or what they stand for. The Tories certainly did not act as an opposition party when Bliar told a bunch of porkies to take us to war.

New Labour. Oh dear, such a bunch of chameleon politicos have rarely graced British politics. There have been improvements in some areas - hospitals do seem to be improving, education does seem to have changed for the better in some areas. Other issues like transport and the unbelievable expansions of PFIs leave a huge amount to be questioned. I have a nasty feeling that they are going to get back in by default, in the same way the John Major was relected. There isn't a credible alternative.

I cant tell you who the best party is to vote for, but I have my opinions on which are the worst ones, (and there are more than one), thing is, the UK is full of people who vote for parties based on who their dad/grandad voted for or on sound bites they hear on the TV, and worst of all who Rupert Murdoch decides he likes the best. Sadly most people don't have a clue about what their tick in the box means.

Watching PMQs on TV, is frankly an embarrassing spectacle of name calling, shouting like children and paper waving. It really is time that the British system of government moved into the 21st Century.

Send Clowns
12th Apr 2005, 09:44
XXTSGRI trust Gordon Brown at the TreasuryYou trust the man who caused the pension crisis while protecting or even increasing the pensions of his colleagues, many of the natural supporters of his party and of course, increasing his own? Helping incidentally to destroy Rover due to the pension shortfall that was a liability SAIC didn't want. In the same action helping to cause the shortfall in many endowment policies, by artificially suppressing the value of the stock market. The government has completely diverted attention from this by a loud investigation of "mis-selling", that undoubtedly did go on but is not the root cause of the problem.

How about trusting the man who lets his deputy go on Radio 4's Today, as Brown's did this morning, and tell a complete lie about opposition policy? In fact repeating a lie that the Labour Party had already been forced to distance itself from when made on a campaign poster - that the Conservatives plan to reduce public spending. The policy is not at issue in the case I am making (I actually think spending should be reduced). The issue is trust, and the blatant lie that has been told.

12th Apr 2005, 09:52
We are still weeks away from the Big Event and the Radio and TV are starting to show the Election Broadcasts, it just makes me want to switch off. I am going to vote for the opposition regardless of policies and agendas because Tony B is getting complacent and used to the job, every 4 years we should change the government just because we can and prevent all this childish prattling. I am amazed how many 'great' ideas Labour have got for the next election, why haven't they implemented them over their 8 years of stealth tax, diminshing road condition and destroyed public services. I agree with the right honourable members (couldn't resist!!! sorry) comments that the Conservatives aren't a good opposition party but we need a change at the top to keep the politicians aware that we vote them in and we can vote them out if we do not like their manner!!!

Rant over!!

12th Apr 2005, 10:43

Don't take it personally chum, we can't all have the same opinions now can we? I'd hazard a guess that the majority of posters on PPRuNe are going to be voting for the Conservatives, but that doesn't necessarily mean the majority of the UK population hold similar views.

I disagree that we tend to follow the politics of our parents, in my experience my parents are ardent Tories yet I am somewhat further left in my views and wouldn't dream of voting blue.

I am aware that the Conservatives made changes under John Major, which led to the stable economy Gordon Brown has presided over since '97, but I still can't bring myself to trust the party responsible for years of boom and bust.

12th Apr 2005, 10:52
There may be a very real chance of booting these unscrupulous lying chancers out.And replacing them with the other load of unscrupulous lying chancers? :hmm:

XXTSGR says it all so far I'm concerned. :ok:

Curious Pax
12th Apr 2005, 11:37
In my heart of hearts I agree with XXTSGR that effectively Labour and Conservative are much the same, regardless of what their campaigning says. Last weeks Private Eye was making a few pithy remarks over things that Labour opposed prior 1997 that have not bin ditched or replaced since they came to power. However I don't believe that the Conservatives or anyone else would be any different should they come to power.

What I suspect counts against the Tories more than anything is impact of some of their policies in the early 80s which many people remember. Because they slashed public spending, the immediate impact was not good - remember the teacher strikes and deteriorating school buildings? As a result I think a significant proportion of those aged 10-16 in the early 80s, which translates to probably 35-45 year olds now, have a distrust of the Conservatives, almost regardless of how bad Labour get. I fall into this category, and I don't think I could ever bring myself to vote Tory as a result almost regardless of what Labour get up to.

As a result I am torn between voting Labour (but in my constituency that will most likely be for the 3rd place party); not voting (triggers feelings of guilt); or voting Lib Dem (uneasy about the effect they would have on the economy, but I tend to gravitate towards the underdog, within reason, and wonder if they should get their chance).

Many valid points about Labour policies over the last 8 years have been raised, but with at least some of them I am very doubtful that a Conservative government would have dealt with things much differently - I'm think particularly of pensions, Rover etc and Iraq.

And yes, I realise that most of the above are negative reasons for not voting for the Tories, rather than positive ones for voting for anyone else, but I suspect I am not unique in that.

Send Clowns
12th Apr 2005, 12:36
Only those that believe Labour propoganda, Curious!

I am 31, so was at school throughout the Thatcher years. My schools were nothing short of excellent, both state schools, secondary education at a comprehensive. What I suspect made them good was an LEA run by a Conservative council. All other schools in the area were also well-maintained and well-equipped, although they did not have quite the academic reputation mine did (which also beat the local private schools, by the way). Labour councils were accused of spending money on ridiculous projects, and perhaps that is so and they had less for the schools, but they always blamed it on the Tory government.

Interestingly, while my old school is in similar good state of repair the academic standards have dropped recently. My mother teaches there, and the main problem at the schools seems little to do with government provision (many of the teachers are the same even), but seems to be to do with the children. Lack of self discipline that I put down to left-wing ideas spread in the 60s and 70s to the parents of this generation are killing education.

The government putting problem kids back into mainstream schools has finished the destruction of mass education.

Of course the reduction in tax that you comment on helped the Thatcher government to save an economy savaged by the Labour administrations and the weak government of that ridiculous cretin Heath in the 1970s. That would truly have been an impossible election choice - Labour or a Heath-led Conservative party!

12th Apr 2005, 13:09
I hope the British public vote out those american loving warmongers...:=

Curious Pax
12th Apr 2005, 13:20
SC - just because I don't totally agree with you, it doesn't mean that I swallow Labour propaganda! There's a difference you know!

I think that you are fortunate in being too young to remember the worst of the impact, which was 1980-1982 IIRC, when you would only have been 6 or 7. Probably you would need to have been 10 or older to have really noticed. Having said that I'm sure that it didn't apply everywhere, and it definitely was not down to the colour of the council - I was at school in a Conservative area, in fact one of the last with that still had (has in fact) the 11 plus with Grammar schools, one of which I went to.

That also reinforced my view that the idea of single sex grammar school being the bastions of great education is a pile of s**t, it is mostly down to those running them, and the staff, not whether it is mixed or not, and not whether it is comprehensive. The support of the LEA that you mention is also important. How many times have failing schools been transformed by a change of head and some key staff - much like a business in that respect.

Fortunately for the current children in the area my old school is now an upmarket housing estate, as they merged the 2 single sex grammar schools into a mixed version, got rid of the heads, cherry picked the staff, and it is now a much better school.

I don't entirely disagree with your comments about the impact of the 60s and 70s ideas on education, but you must concede that by following it with the 'me me me' 80s matters weren't helped.

Send Clowns
12th Apr 2005, 15:26
I turned 7 in 1980, and certainly can tell in hindsight that my school of the next 4 years, with free music lessons just brought in (with free loan instruments, could never have afforded a violin let alone a cello), a swimming pool, a well-stocked library, computers as they became available in suitable size and well-maintained buildings was not starved of resources.

I would have to disagree about the 80s being a unique decade of "me, me, me". The argument I would put is that the 60s and 70s were the decades where "me, me, me" started to become the important thing, divorcing the individual from inter-dependence with the community, and in the point I made responsibility to bring up children, and do so to the benefit of the children not themselves. It was the removal of personal responsibility for the consequences of ones actions, and laying of the responsibility on the government. This was of course partly a response to welfare reform in the late 40s / early 50s, partly due to liberal values throughout the western world.

That side of the 80s was just a similar philosophy reaching a different section of the community, one that had to that point retained its responsibility from being inately conservative (note lower-case "c"), keeping responsibility and respect as a tradition until a new generation took over. In fact a large part of the Thatcher philosophy was taking resonsibility for oneself and one's own actions, and therefore gaining the benefit of ones own actions; any problems caused by some people being excessively rewarded for doing so were minute compared with the benefits to the country, and as far as I can see were largely mythical based on envy.

12th Apr 2005, 16:05
All true words, Vortex what...ouch!, 16 Blades, Send Clowns and, especially, Wingswinger!

12th Apr 2005, 16:32
Send clowns - You forgot to mention Mr Brown selling off half the country's gold reserves shortly after taking office making us one of the countries in the euro zone with the lowest holdings. I believe the price of gold now is substantially higer than it was then.

12th Apr 2005, 17:01
SC, yes, I do trust Brown at the Treasury. I also trusted Ken Clark. He was also a very competent Chancellor.

I don't blame the pensions crisis on Brown, but on Labour as a whole. Sure, they should have donw something about pensions ages ago instead of fooling around with bloody stupid constitutional timkering like House of Lords reform, or the fox-hunting bill.

But I don't expect anything greater from the Tories either. Oliver Letwin is stupid enough to let a bunch of chavs raid his house when he's in it. Anne Widdecombe writes stories about fluffy bunny-wunnies one the one hand and then demands hanging and flogging on the other, and who the heck are the rest of the idiots? Nobodies.

LibDems have to be the most honest of the lot - let's face it, they have to have principles, because with their electability as it is, they aren't going to be there for the power, influence and glory, are they?

There is only one requirement to be a successful politician in Britain - and that's to be an unprincipled lying, cheating SoB. The difference in the USA, of course, is that you have to be a RICH unprincipled lying, cheating SoB.

12th Apr 2005, 17:04
The polls show that Labour are still well in the lead. They are not going to lose the election, their majority will be significantly reduced I have no doubt.

Since it is a straight choice between Tony Blair and Michael Howard I know which way I will be voting.

The Tories are running a clever, populist campaign, tapping into people's fears on immigration, giving the issue much more air time than it deserves. Howard's speech on Sunday was long on immigration and short on everything else. He's running a grubby, opportunist campaign which no doubt will reap rewards.

Howard is a clever politician, but he still hasn't completely thrown off the 'something of the night' image, and the British people are going to vote for the devil they know in this case. Blair's reputation has been irreparably damaged by the Iraq war, but not enough to turn over the huge majority that Labour currently enjoy.

On the subjest of voter apathy, it's my view that politics is no more corrupt and sleazy than it ever was (in fact I think it is much less so), but the information age has meant politics is now a 24/7 industry on which the media spotlight never lets up, and as a result politicians are held to account in a way which they once never were.

On the economy, Brown is the best man for the job, he's not put a foot wrong in eight years and that buffoon Letwin in Number 11 would be nothing short of disaster.

12th Apr 2005, 17:22

On the subject of gold reserves, I seem to remember the Conservative government lost HUGE amounts of gold in their bid to prop up the pound during the EMF fiasco in the early nineties.

12th Apr 2005, 22:43
16Bno they're not. 2 million of them have been encouraged to pretend they have 'back pain' or are too 'stressed' to work.

Would these be the same "skivers" having to go through the means testing that is so unpopular?

I will rephrase it. There are more people IN work than ever before.

You read Billy's Daily Liar don't you? Go on admit it, you must be getting that tripe from somewhere. No one spouts drivel like that unless they read 'The Mail'.:yuk:

tony draper
12th Apr 2005, 22:57
Dunno why any of these jokers take to the road and appear in various towns spouting shite from every orifice,who the **** believes a word they say anyway?
By jokers I mean every single politician regardless of party who exists now, has ever existed, or will exists in the future.
They should do themselves a favour and remove themselves from public view and remain silent until after the election.

Send Clowns
12th Apr 2005, 23:44

Throughout the Tory years of high unemployment so often quoted by Labour, employment was rising, just not as quickly as labour supply. So it's different is it when it happens under a Labour government?


You mean the time the government finally followed a policy that had been enthusiastically advocated by Labour and the Lib Dems for years? That was somewhat analogous to the Euro, a precursor no less, except we could escape? So under Toneeee's policy (or Liberal Democrat policy for that irrelevant matter) we would be stuck in it with no hope at all?

So that sounds a great reason for voting Conservative - thanks for the support!

16 blades
13th Apr 2005, 01:49
You read Billy's Daily Liar don't you? Go on admit it, you must be getting that tripe from somewhere. No one spouts drivel like that unless they read 'The Mail'

It always amazes me just how utterly terrified lefties are of the Daily Mail - one of the few papers that cuts through their bullsh!t and tells the truth - that which lefties fear the most, for if people knew what was behind the spin, the lefties lose thier ability to control and regulate - that which they crave the most. You've obviously never read the Mail - they have a number of resident left-wing columnists who's views contrast with the overall editorial bent, giving a much more balanced view than any other paper I read.

Perhaps you prefer that bastion of truth, the Mirror (fake photos)? Or maybe the Sun (reprinter of Cambell's black propaganda)? To put your mind at ease, I read a number of newspapers, and watch several news channels, to assimilate as much information from all sides as I can. I then do what lefties hate people doing - make my own decisions and choices based upon the broadest spread of opinions I can find, rather than just letting the PC police tell me what to think.

Please back up your assertion by quoting ONE example of a 'lie' that the Daily Mail has printed - I won't hold my breath.

The FACT is, there are almost 3 million people in this country who are NOT in work - a SIGNIFICANT proportion of those are people who are too lazy to work, or who are swindling Incapacity Benefit, encouraged by this govt in order to keep the 'jobless' stats down. It is VERY EASY to do this, despite your assertions - just go to a doctor and tell them you are 'stressed' or that 'your back hurts' - it is very difficult to disprove, and many have taken advantage of this fact, and of the over-generous welfare state.

Before you accuse me of being some middle-class, Mail-reading fantasist, you may wish to know that I grew up on a tough council estate, where such practices were widespread - almost compulsory, in fact. If you weren't 'fiddling the social', you were regarded as somewhat strange.


13th Apr 2005, 07:33
I am not sure who I will vote for, but this means I will vote against Labour.

Indepenent: Blair to fight for 'yes' vote on Europe

Tony Blair will take the biggest gamble of his premiership today by committing the Government to fight for a "yes" vote in the referendum on the European constitution.....

The manifesto to be unveiled today will tie the hands of the whole Government, including all cabinet ministers and lower ranking ministers, to campaign for a "yes" vote.

The refusal to allow ministers a free vote has caused a row, and would lead to sackings if any ministers broke the line to campaign for a "no" vote..... "The manifesto does contain a commitment which is binding on the Government," said a senior Labour figure. "It makes it clear that ministers will be expected to support a 'yes' campaign.".....

The decision to force all ministers to campaign for a "yes" vote caused protests when the manifesto was discussed at a private meeting of trade union leaders, cabinet ministers and members of Labour's ruling national executive.

Dissidents were angry when they were told that they could not amend the manifesto, and it was a "take it or leave it" ultimatum. Dennis Skinner, the anti-European left-wing MP, protested that ministers should be given a free vote as they had been under Wilson. "It's completely unworkable," said another senior party source.....

13th Apr 2005, 18:53
Please back up your assertion by quoting ONE example of a 'lie' that the Daily Mail has printed - I won't hold my breath.Oh well......

In December 2003 and January 2004, the Daily Mail and Sunday Mail printed articles falsely claiming that comedian Rowan Atkinson had suffered a nervous breakdown and was unable to work as a result. Mr Atkinson sued and won, donating his "very substantial" 5-figure damages to charity.

In July 2003, the actress Nicole Kidman successfully sued the Daily Mail for falsely claiming that she was responsible for the breakdown of the marriage of another member of the cast of a film she had recently made.

That's two sets of lies.... you started breathing yet? :D

16 blades
13th Apr 2005, 19:10
Got anything more substantial than celebrity tittle-tattle stories, that nobody gives a to$$ about anyway?

Let's examine how many similar actions were taken by celebs against other newspapers in the same period?

I'm not talking about mis-reported celebrity tittle-tattle. I'm talking about substantial lies about things that matter, like govt poilicy for example. Or immigration. Or tax. Or any of the other things that lefty pinkos would rather keep from the general public, that the Mail exposes on a regular basis. Perhaps that's why the pinkos are so afraid of it. And why Bliar and Cambell-end hate it.


13th Apr 2005, 20:20
X-Quork certainly don't, all sparring done in spirit of banter though sometimes have been known to occasionly get serious.

Can't help feeling that while Brown has done a creditable job he has also been riding on luck massive rise in public servants and Government jobs and an economy falsely bouyed up by rising property prices and massive loans taken out by the millions who counted on that as equity and have been happily spend spend spending.
Do feel the 'jobless?' numbers have indeed been falsley represented by huge numbers of 'sick?' on benefits. The taxpayer of course footing the bill.
Schooling and discipline has been in decline, Govt however do not however cease to hammer ability, it being apparently unfair to be more able than ones neighbor and thereby gain university places and scholerships. Would love to abolish private schooling in their ongoing class war.
Yobbish behaviour and violent crime on the increase, police hampered more and more by PC racialy equalising endless forms to fill in. teenage mums on welfare at an alltime high.
Immigration and asylum a total, complete, uncontrolled farce with the world free to wander in and out at will, (generaly in). Government without a clue as to who is legal or not and apparently for the last few years haven't cared.
Unelected quangos and regional assemblies that have been useless and or total failures while costing taxpayers billions.
Unacceptably large ammounts of UK powers handed away without so much as a by your leave to Brussels.
An ongoing chipping away of both Lords and the Commons powers to hold back Government of the day.
Introduction of a postal ballot that IS open to massive fraud and can only be of use to assist the stay at home voters most of whom have been ascertained to be labour supporters. Government belatedly admits it IS open to fraud however will only consider changing things AFTER ther election, funny that isn't it???
White flight from major cities due to lack of requirement for immigrants to even pay token lip service to adapting to the host and burgeoning numbers of immigrants not unnaturaly sticking together thereby creating areas where other simply feel unwelcome. No requirement by this country for any effort at all for incoming to even learn the language a requirement by most every other country allowing immigrants in.
A sad sad commentary on the last few years that have seen an inexorable rise in the stealth taxation of the working section of the taxpaying public and the inevitable taxation which will undoubtedly follow if they are re-elected.
A huge increase in public sector workers and the inevitable massive coming rise in their pensions, not to mention the recent cock-up caused a while back by DTI intervention in Rover, which has now resulted in taxpayers money paying the unfortunate jobless, while the Chinese happily waltz away with what they wanted ie the rights to an advanced western auto engine and two models which they will now happily copy call the Wang Po or whatever.
Oh very good these chaps have been. They had a chance over the last eight years and to my mind they have royaly f****d it.

The next government whoever they are will not be inheriting nearly as nice and tidy an economy as the present government did when they took over power but then that always has been this particular parties heritage.

Oh and I never mentioned the war, but then again I thought the end did justify the means, and to those who say it never does, your not speaking German are you.

Send Clowns
13th Apr 2005, 20:46
So, Caslance, shall we start on the destructive lies told by the Blair-supporting press for balance? If you are going to point out the errors of the Mail (that have, incidentally, nothing to do with this thread of politics, so 16 blades's point stands in principle although not absolutely) then you must admit that these lies are told. If not I will remind you of a very blatant one I have told before here.

How about confronting Labour lies in this campaign?


Where do you get your information? I suggest you look more widely.

How on Earth can you say poilitics is less sleazy? The Labour party's most recent is the blatant lies I have mentioned above, they have been caught out by the press, the Conservative party and the IMF, and had to back down on occasion.

The scandal of the vote rigging, systematically by the Labour party in Birmingham with a lot of investigation elsewhere is absolutely disgusting, worse almost than any other as it is a deep corruption of our franchise by the party of government and its supporters using techniques allowed by deliberate government policy, corruption the government was warned would ocur. They appeared smuggly, arrogantly complacent, which is horrifying enough, but were the central party worse, did they in fact expect this and hope for it? It was always pointed out that the change in the system would tend to favour Labour. Many of the other accusations, such as care workers filling out votes for people needing help, also tend to favour Labour. It is clear to me that this was an aim to get more Labour voptes, not more voting across the board. Many of these votes are corrupt.

You only have then to look back a few weeks to the previous piece of corruption, this time directly within the government. Just before an election the party in power started putting out adverts for its own bribes to the electorate. Some of these were pretty blatant but arguably excusable, as people do need to know about them to apply. However one recent set of adverts was for the ridiculous "child credits". Since everyone who is elegable is informed by post there can be no possible reason for advertising other than to increase government popularity by reminding people of the bribe they had or would receive for their children. It is absolutely shocking that £5 million of our money was used to advertise for the Labour party just before an election. It is sickening corruption, not the petty sleaze that a few minor Tories were accused of.

Of course that simply continues a thread of this government's drastic increase in budget for advertising, used to trumpet government policy.

These above are the latest examples. I have already asked in this forum on previous occasions which of the incidents in previous administrations in the last 20 years (when I could understand the news) have been on a par with the 2 Mandelson cases, the Mittal case, the Vaz case, Ecclestone or any of the others I cannot be bothered to list completely. These all involve senior members of the administration, not just backbenchers and senior party members. No-one has been able to give me more than perhaps a single example. I have given you 7 clear examples of corruption since 1997 here.

Your statements thrown out without any backing can look quite ridiculous!

You have obviously not read my previous post, my first on page 5, or Groundbased's reminder to me on the following page. I suggest you do, they clearly shows just the most obvious of the many wrong steps Brown has taken, and I shall not repeat them here. Until you can argue coherently against those (and I don't believe it is possible, but am willing to read your attempt) you cannot have any credibility with the statement that you made above.

Doors to Automatic
13th Apr 2005, 22:50
To use an airline analogy:

Today's political parties represent (in no particular order) an "Iberia" from the 1970s, an "Alitalia" from the 1980s and an "Olympic" from the 1990s when what this country needs is an Easyjet or a Jetblue.

Enuf said.

tony draper
13th Apr 2005, 23:20
One is wicked off to the back teeth already they are wiffling on about one of them having a bloody sprog on newsnight right now, they must be desperate.

14th Apr 2005, 00:32
the Daily Mail - one of the few papers that cuts through their bullsh!t and tells the truth

I heard a bloke on radio 2 the other day say almost exactly the same thing, Laff? I nearly...did! :mad:

The Daily Liar wouldn't know the truth if it rose up did a double backward somersault, hummed rule brittania, and slapped it round the face!

Your 'Mail' rhetoric of "Pinkos" and "lefties" etc shows you up for what you are.

A bigoted little englander frightened by tabloid scare stories which contain little substance but pander to your futile little attempt to hang on to a forgoton empire "when we ruled the world".:yuk:

The very fact that you mention the Mirror and Sun in the same breath as the Liar summs it up.

When was the last time you read an aviation article in a tabloid that actually stuck to the facts?
Doesn't happen does it, so why should they be any different on politics?

Do yourself a favour, stop reading the Liar and try and form your own 'Independant' opinion. :ok:

As for your request to correct the Liars lies, sorry the server ain't big enough!!!!:p

14th Apr 2005, 00:41
You have obviously not read my previous post, my first on page 5, or Groundbased's reminder to me on the following page. I suggest you do

I had already read your posts on page 5 and concluded, you will not be surprised to hear, that they could come straight from the Conservative Central Office propaganda machine.

and the blatant lie that has been told

To quote your good self, glasshouses and stones, pots and kettles.

I note with interest you have pointedly failed to flag up the Tories' latest transgression, the appallingly dishonest doctoring of the immigration poster for quite blatantly grubby and populist vote grabbing, tapping into the very worst of people's sentiments on immigration.

Of course the Birmingham vote rigging scandal was a disgrace, everyone implicated has been kicked out of the party and criminal investigations are ongoing. Are you trying to draw a connection between those councillors and the party leadership? Not even the opportunist Howard has considered that a reasonable course of action.

I'll be enjoying election night, when the British people once again refuse to let the hypocritical and corrupt Tories back in. I'm glad to say you won't enjoy the early hours of May 6th nearly as much as I will.

not the petty sleaze that a few minor Tories were accused of

This statement is so risible it doesn't even deserve a reply.

And er, Turin, re The Daily Hate Mail, I couldn't have put it better myself. I am unashamedly Labour, but a 'leftie' I am not.

16 blades
14th Apr 2005, 02:25
As for your request to correct the Liars lies, sorry the server ain't big enough!!!!


You have yet to give ANY example to substantiate your claims. Go on, just ONE will do. (excluding mis-reported celebrity tittle-tattle, as mentioned earlier, since all newspapers fall victim to that one).

...or maybe you'll just rant and (attempt to) ridicule again, since it seems that's all lefty pinkos are capable of when they are losing an argument, which they always do in the end.

Over to you.....


ps - I've never seen the terms 'lefty' or 'pinko' used in the Daily Mail. Maybe you should take the time to READ a newspaper before you denigrate it.

14th Apr 2005, 02:32
Paterbrat, your assertion that the ends can justify the means as far as the war was concerned disagrees with all international law jurisprudence experts.

Whatever you may feel about the war's worthwhile ends does not make it legal. Sorry about that.

And as for the rest of the arguments about whether the Daily Mail lies or not - if you think it never did, your naivety is astonishing.

And all the remainder of the argument is simply a waste of time. All it simply bears out is my previous assertion that the elections do no more than encourage one bunch of w:mad: nkers in thinking that they have more integrity and electability than the other bunch of w:mad: nkers.

A plague on both their houses. Neither are fit to run a junior school table tennis club.

14th Apr 2005, 10:53
Well 16b, I just did a quick search for 'daily mail lies' on google.

Ye gods! I thought I had a downer on the Liar!!

http://www.mailwatch.co.uk/ (http://)

There are dozens of these.

16b, open your mind, form an individual opinion based on facts, not this distorted nonsense pedalled by the Liar, scum etc.

You know it makes sense. :ok:

14th Apr 2005, 10:55
Anyone who requires proof of Daily Mail lies need look no further than today's front page headline :rolleyes:

14th Apr 2005, 11:24

What was today's headline for the Daily Mail?



Send Clowns
14th Apr 2005, 12:58
Ah, Wedge

Do you ever make an ordered, structured argument rather than just assert random opinion?

Your credibility reduces every time you refuse to back up your wild statements.

It is really poor (but actually very Blair-ish, ironically) to dismiss coherent arguments against you with off-the-cuff remarks. You have not addressed Brown's ghastly failings I pointed out, that have cost people thousands of pounds (I include myself here) with benefit to the exchequer a fraction of the losses. Until you do address these, talk of "Conservative propoganda" as a description of my opinion that I back with facts only points out that you are the one using (Labour) propoganda rather than fact.

Your second off-the-cuff remark about Labour lies also shows the paucity of your argument. I am not talking here about the usual political dissembling - all of them do it, it is irritating but I would argue not corrupt. I am talking about the blatant lies they put on posters, backed off, then repeated in a radio interview. They are trying to trick people into voting Labour by blatant, straight-out lies about Conserative policy, while not even admitting to their own. That is corrupt, and like Birmingham is corruption of the franchise, one of the nastiest forms. Now I have given you an example of a direct lie, corrupting the electorate. Can you give me an example from the Conservatives? You failed to in your last post, where you made the allegations.

Your own posts are remarkably hypocritical, not least, ironically, for accusing the Conservatives of hypocrisy.

You complain I have not heard of some issue of changes of a poster. However you seem to have missed the news for 8 years, thinking that corruption and sleaze have reduced under Labour. I gave you 7 examples of corruption, from the local parties helping to elect councillors to central government, and the PM. There are more. How horrifying is the corruption of the government appointee who selects which barristers become judges asking for funds for the Labour party of a dinner for barristers, eh? That is worse than all the Tory "sleaze" put together. How about the politicisation and bullying of the civil service? Senior appointees to the BBC on record as Labour donors? A corrupt Labour Speaker when it was the turn of the opposition to supply the Speaker after Betty Boothroyd, by tradition? Having failed to address these, do you not see the hypocrisy in complaining that I do not address a single issue you claim is Tory sleaze (I still don't now the detail, so cannot address it)?

Birmingham may not have been central government, but it was corruption, so it is evidence (against your assertion) that corruption has not reduced. The government was warned it would happen. They went ahead anyway with no protection. They did so (according to their own internal memos) because they thought more Labour voters would use postal votes than other parties. They have been astonishingly complacent about the issue - that is not "Conservative propoganda", it is the opinion of the judge in the Birmingham case. They are still doing nothing about it. That is corruption of central government.

You still have not come up with any exampe of Tory sleaze that is a patch on any of the major scandals. It's time to back up your assertions with arguments or back down from an untenable position.


You seem to be rather fond of international law. It is not like national law, but pretty much made up on the spot. It is made up of what can be asserted by political will and support. The support or lack often comes about for reasons nothing to do with the issue at hand, and often comes from or is refused by disgusting dictatorships. What on Earth does that have to do with whether we should have gone to war or not?

Argue the case, for or against the war, but international law should be completely irrelevant to any individual with morals!

Curious Pax
14th Apr 2005, 13:55
Labour corruption in Birmingham - disgraceful
Conservative gerrymandering in Westminster - disgraceful

SC: I'm not 100% certain, but I seem to remember that the Tories were fairly happy to have another Labour speaker due to the low number of MPs that they had at the time. (Speakers normally don't vote in parliamentary divisions of course). I had a look back into some of the newspaper archives at the time, and the Labour whips actually got their knuckles rapped for trying to get a Tory (Sir George Younger) elected, which their backbenchers rebelled against!

Send Clowns
14th Apr 2005, 14:10

The Conservative gerrymandering in Westminster was bad, but not nearly comparable to direct theft of votes with government complicity! It was also just the same as had been going on all over the country in many different councils of different colours. The only one where complants were made was Westminster. Apparently it is not the case now, for which we are to be grateful if true, but it is naïve to assume it was only there.

Unfortunately this government has set about gerrymandering the entire country, putting huge numbers of people on some sort of discretionary benefit - taking their money in tax then giving it back as if they were naughty children not to be trusted with their own decisions but to be given pocket money. This creates a culture of dependency on the state, known to make people favour Labour who are percieved as more likely to increase these benefits. The second form of gerrymandering has been the vast increase in numbers of state employees, well over 800,000 at the last count. These are also dependent upon the state, and so more likely to favour the Labour party who they know will not do anything about reducing their numbers, however oftent hey promise.

At least the Westminster gerrymandering was done by improving peoples lives. Labour do so by making them dependent and by control. It is always in Labour's interest for people to be dependent as they are more likely to vote Labour then, in Conservative interest for them to be independent and able to look after themselves as they are more likely to vote Conservative.

As I remember it the Tories were not at all happy with the speaker; I am not surprised, as he has been appallingly partial at times. There was certainly talk from them that it was their turn, as that is the only reason I ever knew it went by tradition in turns (echoed the rather unpopular appointment of a second Army CDS in a row, when it was the Navy's turn; I was in the Navy at the time. The Army officer was known to be more pliable to Labour defence policy, less likely to speak out). The government majority is so high that one here or there makes little practical difference. Gorbals Mick has done, disgracefully and unconstitutionally.

Nick Riviera
14th Apr 2005, 14:44

I have seen today's headline in the Mail. Please point out what is incorrect in it.

14th Apr 2005, 15:06
What was incorrect about the Mail headline? Apart from the fact that it's a piece of shameless Tory electioneering, the hijacking of a Policeman's tragic murder for cheap political point scoring?

To suggest that he died 'because we can't control our borders' is a shameless lie in my opinion. The tragedy occurred because the man was not handcuffed when arrested.

I have no intention of 'backing down ' from my position, that the Tories have a far worse record on corruption, gerrymandering in Westminster just one example (far worse of course that the recent Birmingham vote rigging, but SC and I are going to have to agree to differ on that). Nor have I any intention of listing the shameful catalogue of sleaze and corruption of the last Tory government, SC knows exactly what happened, and is being disingenuous to say the least in requesting that I should post the full shabby dossier or 'back down from my untenable position'.

SC, as you well know, you have the easy job here. It's far easier to pick at Labour's failings in government for the last eight years, than to have to answer for the failings of your own party which (fortunately) has not enjoyed power since 1997, and has the luxury of attempting to reinvent itself as a new real alternative when we all know that they are just the same old Tories. The electorate won't buy it either, I'm glad to say.

The facts are that the Tories are promising the earth to voters, yes, as Blair did in 1997, but if elected would deliver nothing of what they promise - their latest campaign poster suggests they will be able to eradicate MRSA from hospitals - fortunately we won't be subjected to a Tory government so we will never know how they planned to do this.

The latest tactic, the cynical use of the Policeman's murder to make cheap electoral points, demonstrates the levels that the Tories will go to to mislead the British voters about what they really stand for.

Nick Riviera
14th Apr 2005, 15:19
No, the tragedy occurred because a man who should not have been in the country was allowed to remain. Agreed, he should have been handcuffed, but if he had been deported as he should have been then the situation would not have arisen.

As for making a political issue of this tragedy, get real. What party doesn't do that sort of thing?

Send Clowns
14th Apr 2005, 15:30

If they have such a bad reputation, why on Earth do you refuse to give examples? Your assertions have absolutely no credibility if you won't back them up - how can I assume anything but that you cannot back them up?

I put it to you that the examples of Tory "Sleaze" were for a start fewer than the examples of Labour corruption, and also in general (a) not nearly as serious as many of the examples I have provided of Labour corruption (b) not related to ministers in the government like many of the examples I have given of Labour corruption, but related to backbenchers or party officials and (c) dealt with by the Conservative party in much the same way as you say excuses the Labour party from criticism in Birmingham, by the sacking of those involved. This argument stands until you or another can do more than sit back and puff out random assertions.

You have to learn that things are not true just because you think they are. You have to back your opinions up with arguments, or leave the debate to people who can do so.

Retract your statement SC knows exactly what happened, and is being disingenuous to say the least in requesting that I should post the full shabby dossier or 'back down from my untenable position'.Your implication is completely untrue, and a nasty assumption about me. I believe I do "know" approximately what happened but your implication that I believe it was worse than I admit is completely untrue and a cheap smear.

All murders in this country are all a political issue, as violent crime is rising steadily. The fact that the murderer was an immigrant means that the issue of whether or not he should have been in the country relates to this murder, so it also becomes a political issue relating to immigration.

14th Apr 2005, 15:39

My assertion or indeed opinion that the end in some cases justifys the means, is by your measure seemingly a matter for 'international law jurisprudence experts'. I would simply put it to you that the millions who willingly volunteered, suffered horribly and laid their lives down for what they believed in the last two world wars did so because to them they had a justified cause and turned to no such experts before they made a decision which is probably the biggest one they ever could have made and which for so many was paid for dearly.
Sadly the 'legality' of war has rarely ever prevented it. How can one ever cloak the unspeakable by deeming it 'legal' beats me. War is the last resort of the desperate who feel right or wrong either that there remains no other recourse, or that might will prevail. Note I do not say right because no doubt both sides will feel they are right.

Your statement "And as for the rest of the arguments about whether the Daily Mail lies or not - if you think it never did, your naivety is astonishing." quite frankly puzzled me, I never mentioned the Daily Mail, think you might have got me confused with some other ongoing clashes in the thread, easy to do I must confess

As two the 'plague on both their houses' for better or for worse we have a system of government where we the electorate get to choose who shall be the ones to run the country. A privilage many round the world do not have. There is no such thing as a perfect world, never has been and to my mind never will. Any elected government will whatever it does not please all the people,that is impossible. It will make mistakes, a human condition. There will be lies evasions mistakes corruption and the following of policies which will cause their opponants to foam at the mouth and gnash their teeth with rage.

Rather that with the chance of either forcing them to see where they might have gone wrong or voting them out of office than a gent such as Saddam who would quite happily liquidise your testicles make you drink them, then kill you over the next week for not 'voting' for him in the mock election he just held, or having your tongue torn out for publicaly speaking out against him, both rumoured to have happened. It could be argued that he was not Mr Nice however the Iraqis now will have their chance to vote him back should they want. Ironic isn't it.

Having pointed out the porosity of our borders, the inneffectiveness of our immigration officials to deal even with those illegals who have fallen foul of the law, or sadly the other way round, we now find out, and it is no consalation at all to do so, on this mornings news that what one is decrying has been confirmed yet again. The government has appeared not to worry at all about the unknown number of illegal immigrants within the country, their lack of accountability, their impossibility to be traced or tracked down, the increased pressure they add to already hardpressed public services. Social services, NHS, welfare are all heavily drawn upon, the taxes required to support them have to come from somewhere. If you are illegal how do you pay taxes? The horrendous inadequacies in place for monitering and policing the system and administered by the present government over the last two terms of office does them little credit and is cause for censure. After all it appears there is no functioning system in place

Send Clowns
14th Apr 2005, 17:27
More corruption. Now they've removed the independence of committees for public enquiries. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/04/14/nlaw14.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/04/14/ixhome.html) Considering the contempt with which they take the results, I am surprised they bothered, but it is disgusting all the same.

14th Apr 2005, 18:41
Got anything more substantial than celebrity tittle-tattle stories, that nobody gives a to$$ about anyway? You asked for a single example of a lie, 16b, and I've given you two from many.

Or do only certain types of lie count? You should have been more specific in that event. :rolleyes:

You issued a challenge and ended up coming second. It happens to us all at one time or another - and I'm no exception.

Take it on the chin and move on, man! :ok:

14th Apr 2005, 20:29
The Left and Labour. A few points
Daily Mirror - Iraq lies?

The Murdoch Newspapers parroting of Labour lies and inuendo?

Blatant Labour lies about non-existent Conservative cuts?

Labour using public money to pay for Milburn to run their election?

Labour appointees scouring the records and releasing selected and modified pieces of information in an attempt to blacken the reputation of Conservative MPs, whilst at the same time using the FOI Act to refuse to release the full text which would prove the truth and refute the Labour lies?

61 'Stealth Tax' increases despite continuing assertions that taxes would not rise?

Blatant statistical lies that recorded cleaners as 'nurses', and classroom assistants as 'teachers' in order to the allow 'increases' in staffing to be parrotted?

How many people who have donated to Labour hold rank and position through Labour patronage for which they are totally unsuited?

Labour declared that it would end loopholes whereby money was moved abroad through carefully worked schemes in a deliberate act to minimise UK tax liability. All seemed OK but then on taking power these plans were very suddenly dropped. I know why. Do you?

How many people donating large sums of money to Labour and receiving patronage as a result actually really do pay tax in the UK?. Do a bit of research.

BBC emasculated for telling the truth.

The Lords emasculated so as to rid this House of any opposition to Labour, however even they got fed up with being treated as fodder to 'nod through' inept and corrupt legislation.

I really don't have the energy to go on although I could.

The consistent ranting by those desiring a Labour victory so fitting envelope the phrase "...and fool some of the people all of the time......"

Labour lies and blatant misrepresentation has got so bad that even the Labour supporting press have been forced to question them.

15th Apr 2005, 02:39
Send Clowns, yes, I've got great respect for the law. When you know how international law is formulated, negotiated, approved and ratified, then come back and argue with me. Until then, don't spout nonsense.

Paterbrat, I never said you mentioned the Daily Mail. I was referring to other posters.

Why people here think that Labour are wise, statesmanlike saints who tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth and the Tories are cheating idiots who can't be trusted with the management of a piggybank without embezzling the contents or (depending on your point of view) vice versa is beyond me.

The entire lot of them are incompetent, lying, manipulative, cheating idiots and I wouldn't consider voting for any of them.

15th Apr 2005, 08:41
Send/Wedge et al,

Your continued posts of who is worse/better than the other between the Tories and Labour should just serve to show why no one with a hint of common sense should vote for either.

Common sense is not something you associate with those who read the Red Tops so there will still be a large number of people who vote whatever way the bird with her knockers out tells them to.

It is sad to think that these are the people who will shape how the next 4-5 years go.



Nick Riviera
15th Apr 2005, 09:05

As you are no doubt aware, the government yesterday admitted that it accepts responsibility for DC Oake's murder and conceded that our borders are not secure. Given this, I am sure that you will now retract your assertion that yeaterday's Mail headline was a 'shameless lie.'

Send Clowns
15th Apr 2005, 09:53

I am not spouting nonsense. Much of what I said is true in every sense. The rest is, in practice, true. Look at the case in point, Gulf War II. It is said that had the UN agreed another resolution as worded by the UK delegation it would have been, beyond doubt, a war legal under international law. However that would have required the agreement of China, a disgraceful dictatorship, Russia a de facto dictatorship and France. The final blow was when the French said they would never agree. That decision was not made on any basis to do with the war, but on trade interests, particularly oil rights. By general opinion in international relations the Russian and Chinese could have been persuaded to change their stance after concessions on other issues from the US and UK had the French not had a veto. Change their stance due to completely unrelated issues.

How were the Nuremburg trials set up? International law, pretty much made up on the spot. The Nato invasion of Kosova was never approved under international law. Even if laws have been made and ratified in an open process and are pretty much uncontroversial they are meaningless without compliance, and enforcement is by political will and horsetrading. I have been forced to learn enough international law to know this - maritime law, aviation law it's all international!

Until you are realistic about how international law actually works, rather than how it should work in theory, you can't argue the case.

International law is not a moral way to decide whether or not to go to war. It seems clear to me that it disgustingly immoral to talk about the legitimacy of war in any legal terms when legality means this. A decision is made on which people die by international intrigue.


That is a ridiculous statement. Since one or other is going to get into power, and no party in power anywhere has ever been completely clean of minor corruption we must decide between a back-bench MP being paid to ask a question and a party that charges out government policy at £1,000,000 to party funds! It is clear that the Tories were never especially corrupt, as even Wedge who has been decrying them for years cannot come up with examples. Remember most of the "sleaze" was actually sexual impropriety, which seems to be accepted by this government - Cook, Blunkett ...

15th Apr 2005, 10:56

Please excuse me for not being cock a hoop at the thought of being governed by a procession of crooked bar stewards.

It almost makes me wish for a return to the rule of the Royalty.

At least when they were crooked and unjust they were honest about it.

And boy did they do it with such flair.

:) :) :)



Send Clowns
15th Apr 2005, 12:28
:rolleyes: Another one making accusations without bothering with justification. I have asked what the Conservative administration did to be called corrupt. So what makes you think they were crooked in government, BHR? Just your prejudice and the sight of news headlines, or have you actually an informed opinion?

You do democracy disservice to just dismiss them as "all crooks" without any intervention of thought!

15th Apr 2005, 13:38

I have a list of disgraced Tories for you

Tim Yeo
Jerry Hayes
David Mellor
Cecil Parkinson
Alan Clark
Michael Brown
Steven Norris
John Selwyn Gummer
Edwina Currie
John Major
Jeffrey Archer
Tim Smith
Jonathan Aitken

Lets see how you get on with those to start with



p.s. I am quite aware that Labour are potentially worse.

15th Apr 2005, 14:10
It is said that had the UN agreed another resolution as worded by the UK delegation it would have been, beyond doubt, a war legal under international law.It is also said that if pigs had wings, they would fly.

Your "understanding" of international law is no understanding at all. Go away and have a read.

Stoney X
15th Apr 2005, 14:15
Quick question concerning the upcoming vote. I'm away doing ATPL exams that week so won't be around to vote. I've contacted the local council's electoral office and they say vote be post. However, I've never supported the idea of voting by post and recent events have done nothing to change that view. Anybody know how voting by proxy works? Any other options?


15th Apr 2005, 14:20
Stoney, I'm also out of town for a while. My local council's website has a form you can download. Fill it in, sign it and fax it to them so that someone you nominate can cast your vote for you. You need to be able to trust them to cast a vote the way you want! :E

Curious Pax
15th Apr 2005, 14:54
Apologies if this is old news to some, but having been away on holiday for a couple of weeks I was doing a bit of catching up, and found an article by Matthew Parris in the Times (actually from before my holiday as it was published on March 12th). It can be found at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1065-1521700,00.html

It is quite interesting in that Parris, despite being a Tory supporter, suggests that winning this time round would likely be a disaster for them. The argument for this is that they would have a slim majority at best (I think we can all agree on that - even SC can't forsee a 100+ Tory majority) and so would have the problems that all such governments have with knife-edge votes and perpetual backbench problems. This would be likely to lead to defeat at the next election, and a return to Labour for at least 2 more terms, as they said 'I told you so'.

He implicitly reinforces the argument that it often doesn't make a great deal of difference who is in charge as to what happens politically - he argues that Neil Kinnock winning in 1992 would have been a disaster for Labour, as all the ERM problems etc that beset Major's government shortly after winning would have hit Labour instead, the Tories would have said 'told you so' about Labour's perceived economic management abilities at the time, and they would have been out again after one term, probably for another generation.

His favoured scenario is a majority less than 70 for Labour, as then they will get the backbench traumas (based on his assumption there are about 40 troublemakers on their backbenches), plus any economic woes that come between now and 2009/10, and the Tories can then sweep to victory woth a good majority and stay put for at least 2 terms.

Politics, like good comedy, is all a question of timing it would seem!

15th Apr 2005, 15:10

With regards to the abortive second resolution in front of the UN.

The reason it was abandoned is considered to be because the non-veto members of the Security Council would not have voted of it either.

It was felt that the US/UK could get 6 or 7 out of the 15. This means forgetting a veto they could not even carry it democratically on the basis of one country one vote.

Furthermore, do you have a transript of the speech or a copy of the document from the French stating that the reason they would not vote for war was due to business or financial reasons?



Send Clowns
15th Apr 2005, 15:21

You are acting in a high handed, arogant and small-mineded manner. You are using personal attack rather than reasoned argument. Why? Perhaps your case does not stand up?

You seem to deny that with a UN resolution authorising force the second Gulf war would be "legal". However, since you can't justify your implication I will believe the experts who have been widely quoted on both sides of the debate, who all agree on that one point.


You list names only, not the actions behind them. That is because you are quite aware that many of them were involved in sexual impropriety rather than corruption. You are quite aware that those involved in corruption (a) for the most part were not in government, but on the back benches or in the party office and (b) while deplorable, the corruption was of a relatively minor nature.

Your list just shows the paucity of your case: to include Major and Curry (two for one on trying to make it look worse than it is?), David Mellor? Petty sexual indiscretions. I am talking about corruption here, the purchase of government, the theft of democracy, the selling of favours and jobs to the detriment of members of the public. Do you really not understand what this government has done over the last 8 years?

Labour are not just "...potentially worse". Their actions are out of the league of those you mention, a completely different order of crime.

It is not true about the resolution, by the way. It was finally abandoned when France said they would never change. The consensus was with France and Russia on board enough would follow to get at least 8, possibly up to 12.

Are you really naïve enough to believe France was holding out for its anti-war stance? It has never had that before, unless the likely loser was a business partner! 50 billion US dollors. Oil contracts. To Fina-Total-Elf. The company that bribed the French and German governments. The countries that armed Saddam Hussein. The countries with most to lose, financially, by war. The countries implacably opposed.

15th Apr 2005, 15:32

Corrupt is corrupt.

Seems like an over simplicication but it is also the truth.

These are people who abused their positions.

These are not the people I want making decisions that affect my future.

If you are happy with that then that is your choice.

I mean several of these guys went to jail.

If you notice I never even had to mention the Matrix Churchill affair. Oops now I did



Send Clowns
15th Apr 2005, 15:39

You cannot equate a back-bench MP who completely wrongfully accepts money, but does so just for asking a question in the House, with a government that sells policy for a £1,000,000 donation to party funds, or turns a blind eye to company mismanagement in exchange for a loan and some hospitality (paid for by the shareholders, who are the ones who finally lost all their mony - talk about salt in wounds!).

The former is a selfish individual out to get what he can, but has no power to harm.

The latter cases do real damage to real people and corrupts the centre of power.

You certainly cannot equate the man who sleeps with a woman who is not his wife with either form of corruption.

15th Apr 2005, 15:58
Until you are realistic about how international law actually works curretly it's the law of the strongest.

The resolution was abandonded when it became clear that countries like Chile, Mexico, Angola, Cameroon wouldn't bend under the enormous US pressure behind the curtains.

As for the infamous lie that France would oppose a 2nd resolution ‘under any circumstances’ for convenience's sake it's always forgotten that France wanted to await the result of Blix' investigation first before taken any further action and we know how right he was...

You certainly cannot equate the man who sleeps with a woman who is not his wife with either form of corruption. I can hear Clinton shout "hear, hear"...

Curious Pax
15th Apr 2005, 16:00
Jonathan Aitken was Minister for Defence Procurement when he committed the offences for which he was imprisoned, so not a backbencher. As yet no Labour MP (since 1997) has been charged with anything, although I wouldn't be so naive as to think there is no chance it would never happen.

As a regular Private Eye reader I ought to be able to remember more dodgy practice on both sides, but it's been a long week. Suffice to say that the number of MPs with deep defence contractor interests has always struck me as curious. Not that defence spending/selling generates vast amounts of cash you understand.

Anyway, nice watching you guys go round in circles - I'm eagerly waiting for the point at which you all agree, and change you vote accordingly! I'll keep polishing my black kettle!:ok:

PS. Whilst not wishing to defend the French, presumably no one thinks that the US entered Iraq for purely altruistic reasons, even if you don't go with the 'solely about oil' theory that many subscribe to?

15th Apr 2005, 16:06

I will be voting and for neither Labour nor Tory.

I live in the West of Scotland just outside Glasgow so what chance do you think a non-Labour vote has of making a difference???

I simply feel that Send has rose tinted specs when it comes to the Tories.

I guess it is true that the body has no memory for pain.



p.s. Send, I am not looking to go 10 rounds with you on this. I will step away and leave you to carry on with any others who come along. Take care.

15th Apr 2005, 16:13
It is not true about the resolution, by the way. It was finally abandoned when France said they would never change.

That's actually untrue. Chirac had said publicly during an interview that, as the resolution stood that night, he could not see France voting for it. There was still plenty of wiggle room for movement on the resolution and a yes from France. However, by that time it was clear the UK could not get a majority vote and blaming the French was by far the easiest "out" for Tony any co. They let the papers run with a misquote of Chirac and never bothered to correct it.

I agree with almost everything else you're saying about Labour though, I could never vote for them in their current incarnation. There have been more erosions of the checks and controls of our Parliamentary Democracy under Tony's watch than I care to list and the ambition to further neuter the Lords during a third term is one of the many reasons I'll be casting my vote elsewhere.

Curious Pax posts an interesting article which I also happen to agree with. Not sure I'll be decided on where to place the "X" for a while yet (aside from the fact it won't be for Tony) but I think whomever's in charge next time around is going to have to deal with an incipient mess. Gordon's been able to prop things up thus far with fortuitious windfalls and one-time cash grabs but future options are now wearing a little thin. Maybe it is better in the long term that Labour reap that which they have sown.


15th Apr 2005, 17:35
BHR - I am surprised at you! :*

Fancy you omitting Dame Shirley Porter from your list.

That's sexist, that is........:E

Caslance and Others of a Similar Persuasion And which persuasion is this, Astrodome?

Labour, Conservative, LibDem - it's all just names for sides, IMHO.

If you think that I support the current rabble then you've just not been paying attention, mate......:rolleyes:

15th Apr 2005, 19:56
Send Clowns, I have read and re-read your posts on page five which you claim provide 'evidence' for your assertions, and I don't agree that they do.

You trust the man who caused the pension crisis while protecting or even increasing the pensions of his colleagues, many of the natural supporters of his party and of course, increasing his own?

You have argued from the perspective that this is accepted, and I don't accept it. Can you explain exactly how Brown 'caused' the pension crisis? Can you further explain how you can lay the blame for the 'demographic timebomb' of an ageing population squarely at the feet of the Chancellor?

Can you further enlighten us as to how a Conservative government would deal with the pensions issue without raising taxes or cutting spending?

You would, I'm sure agree that it is impossible for anyone to demonstrate how things would have been any better had the Tories been in power since 1997, and nor is it worthwhile to assess the Tory policy on pensions before 1997 as both are irrelevant.

You have to learn that things are not true just because you think they are. You have to back your opinions up with arguments, or leave the debate to people who can do so.

Thank you for your advice. I will remember in future not to put forward an argument just because I believe it to be true. In fact, I will leave the debating to people who are capable. :rolleyes:

And, Nick, no I am not going to retract my words on the Daily Mail. Labour have accepted the man should have been deported sooner, that does not mean we have 'lost control of our borders'. If you can show me an example of any country whose borders are 'secure' from this type of illegal immigration I will retract. The Daily Mail's headline was a hysterical misrepresentation of the facts, and a lie, in my opinion.

The Tories I would list as corrupt, since I have been repetedly asked to:

Jeffrey Archer: proven in a criminal court to be a liar and a perjurer. Given a custodial sentence.

Jonathan Aitken: proven in a criminal court to be a liar and a perjurer. Given a custodial sentence.

Neil Hamilton: corrupt and dishonest in taking 'cash for questions'; ie cash and generous hospitality for tabling questions on behalf of Al Fayed.

Dame Shirley Porter: Proven to have engineered the most outrageous episode of gerrymandering in the UK's history, she has now managed to find no less than £12 million pounds to pay a surcharge in respect of this illegal act to Westminster council having previously claimed to be broke.

All of which was described by SC as "the petty sleaze that a few minor Tories were accused of."

I personally could not care less about any sex 'scandal' involving any politician of any party.

15th Apr 2005, 21:11
The fact that the Tory party has made relatively sudden massive strides forward to being a credible alternative has been an equaly massive jolt to the Labour party and all their supporters. Admittedly, it is an impressive achievement to go from "unelectable" to "almost unelectable" but the Tories present an opposition that is - for the moment at least - neither credible nor effective.

As a believer in democracy, I derive no joy from this whatsoever.

Far from it - this state of affairs is unhealthy in the extreme.

It leads to overweening arrogance and a sense of omnipotence - as successive administrations, both "New" Labour and Conservative, have demonstrated.

The case for electoral reform simply could not be clearer in my view.

The alternative is demagoguery and fascism - however it is packaged and labelled - and we are already well along that road.

16 blades
15th Apr 2005, 22:47

If you are going to post a link to support an argument, you might want to make sure it works.

Here, I'll do it for you:


So, please explain to me where the 'lies' are that are supposedly 'exposed' by this site - all I see are a collection of front page scans and lots of REALLY intelligent 'ha ha ha' comments. My my, there are ALOT of pinkos terrified of the Daily Mail, aren't there? Wonder why that might be?

Alternatively, I could give you a list of lies that the Daily Mail has exposed that this government has told.

As I've already stated, I read many newspapers, and watch many news programmes. I am not naive enough to think that ANY paper always tells the truth, and there are many issues championed by the Mail's editorial that I do not agree with.

So, for a THIRD time of asking - Please give ONE example, celebrity tittle-tattle misreporting excluded (ALL newspapers do this, and the Mail substantially less than most), of a substantial lie this newspaper has told. Then perhaps we can compare and contrast with the lies and government propaganda published in the lefty press.

I am not being beligerent, just asking you to back up your assertion with some facts, which is only polite at the end of the day.


15th Apr 2005, 22:49
Do you hear that creaking sound?

That's 16B shifting the goalposts, that is....... :ok:

16 blades
15th Apr 2005, 22:50
And exactly how have I done that, Cas?


15th Apr 2005, 22:52
Ho ho ho ho ho ho ho....

My side, my sides!!!! :rolleyes:

16 blades
15th Apr 2005, 22:56
Typical lefty. Avoid the issue and ridicule instead, when you've nothing left to say.


15th Apr 2005, 23:00
Who's a lefty?

In my experience, people resort to bandying vague labels like "lefty" about when they cannot muster a cogent argument.

They do this in the hope that the person they have labelled will rise to this bait and throw a few labels back, thereby generating a slanging match.

Faint hope of that in here, I'm afraid. :}

16 blades
15th Apr 2005, 23:03
Fair enough.

So how about an answer to the question - I don't believe I HAVE moved the goalposts. If you can see where I have, please point it out to me.


15th Apr 2005, 23:10
Oh dearie me.....

You asked for one single example of a lie in the Daily Mail - I gave you two.

You didn't like those lies (although m'learned friends had a field day with them) because they weren't serious enough, and now you want people to provide you with some more different lies that meet your exacting standard of mendacity.

If that's not moving the goalposts, I'd like to know what is.

I tire of this now..... :zzz:

16 blades
15th Apr 2005, 23:16
Noted, Caslance.

But could the same not be said of ANY paper, as I've already said?

I'm glad you've now tired of trolling. I see now why you browse 'invisible'.

Perhaps I should rephrase my question to say "Please give an example of why the Daily Mail tells MORE lies than ANY OTHER paper".

....or would you accuse me of moving goalposts again?


15th Apr 2005, 23:21
Trolling? Is that a pot I hear calling this kettle black? :p

And what's with the personal attack stuff anyway?

You're quite right, of course.

The popular press, whatever the brand, are no paragons of probity and truth. Far from it.

Your amended question makes a lot more sense and, I daresay, is much harder to answer.

16 blades
15th Apr 2005, 23:22
Cleaning the carbon from my @rse as we speak......


15th Apr 2005, 23:41

If you are going to post to support an argument, you may want to check that you only do it ONCE!!:p

Sorry, petty I know, but people in glass houses etc.....;)

Anyway, back to The Lies.

Eurofighter crashes at 45,000ft

22nd November 2002

Bl00dy big mountain if you ask me.:hmm:

If you want to read the article look for it yourself, I am too incompetent to post links!:{

16 blades
16th Apr 2005, 00:06
Fair point - twitchy mouse finger hit button twice. Now Corrected.

It is the first time a Eurofighter has been lost. Two test pilots ejected safely after what officials described as an 'incident inside the aircraft' as it flew at 45,000ft.

The prototype crashed into a field outside Toledo, 70 miles south-west of Madrid. Investigators were sifting through the wreckage last night in an attempt to pinpoint the cause.

And the 'lie' here is.........? although poor choice of words in the headline, admittedly.


16th Apr 2005, 00:33

Dr Kelly 'may have been murdered'

07:58am 28th January 2004

This little gem of a headline grabs ones attention straight away.

Read the article and it is a concoction of "quotes" from a letter to the Grauniad by a retired surgeon, a radiologist and an anaesthatist, who haven't even seen the body!!!

The 'Liar' does this sort of thing a lot.

Put the headline in quotation marks and they aren't liable because "it's a quote".:mad: :*

Send Clowns
16th Apr 2005, 00:36

Yes, I can explain how Brown caused the pension crisis. It is very straight-forward, remarkably simple economics. Brown must understand it, in not taking the blame he is being extremely disingenuous.

One of his first acts as Chancellor was to change the tax rules, and the effect on the pension schemes has been to take out £5 billion per annum. That is very close to the overall pension deficit. In addition this tax has also supressed the stock market value, further reducing the value of all financial products based thereon, such as pensions, endowment poicies, PEPs and ISAs. The actions of the FSA, which he has failed to control in its overenthusiasm have worsened the effect. It has nothing to do with demographics, but very simple economics.

Since it was raising tax that caused most of the problem in the first place, I think a primary-school child might suggest that it can be solved without raising taxes ;) !

Yes, remember not to put an argument forward just because you believe it. Try in future to put forward arguments you can actually back up when asked to do so ... a bit like I am doing now, in fact.


I seem to recall you are mistaken. Was Aitken not actually jailed for perjury, commited after he resigned his post to defend his case?

However your point stands in principle, but I believe I said at every turn that most of the cases were not from within government (if I slipped and said all, I correct myself). You have a single example of a junior minister. I have given examples of corruption by senior members of the Labour government, up to and including the Prime Minister (Mittal) and in government's administration of the country, for party funds or for friends, in ways that has caused genuine loss to voters. You reply with a junior minister asking a question in exchange for personal gain.

It is irrelevant whether charges have been brought. The relevanc is whether these things have happened, and whehter they are corrupt, not whether they are legal! Who would charge the Lord Chancellor with corruption for seeking party funds from a group of lawyers whose careers advancement he may well hold in his gift? It is sickening disgusting corruption, but I am not sure if it is illegal, and if it is which would dare prosecute?

Don't care how Wedge votes himself, just like pointing out the gaping flaws in his arguments, so others don't believe that garbage.

As a regular Private Eye reader you ought to recognise that Wedge is talking crap when he says there is less corruption now, and also recognise that there is more corruption in the Labour party than the Conservative. I once counted Rotten Boroughs for most of a year's subscription, and there was only one when Tories even equalled Labour!

16th Apr 2005, 00:59
Crime soars by biggest margin in a decade

12th July 2002

'.....And critics said it was no coincidence-that by far the highest numberof robberies happened on the drug-ridden streets of Lambeth, where muggings rose by 34 per cent. That is the South London borough where the Government is running a pilot scheme which allows cannabis users to escape arrest.....'


From the Metropolitan Police Service Crime Statistics

Borough of Lambeth

July 2001
Robbery 617
Burglary 624

July 2002
Robbery 317
Burglary 545

Crime statistics (http://www.met.police.uk/crimestatistics/index.htm)

This is a 48% reduction in robberies during the time of the 'cannabis pilot scheme'.

I rest my case.:ok: :ok:

16th Apr 2005, 01:12
Clowns, I have not insulted you at all. I merely pointed out that you quite clearly do not understand international law, and that you were talking through your hat. If you consider that insulting, then I think you need to be prepared for rather a lot more of it. On the other hand you have called me arrogant and high-handed... :confused:

A UN resolution would not have made the war legitimate. That resolution would not have been passed (had it been put to the vote) because enough members of the SC had enough integrity and honesty to stand up to the USA/UK axis and say they would not support an illegal war.

One wonders what the AG's advice to Tony Bliar reallywas...? :ooh:

16 blades
16th Apr 2005, 01:51

I can't actually see a 'lie' in that headline. Somebody believed that Kelly may have been murdered; the paper reported that opinion. Yes, it's emotive, and designed to have a certain effect. But it is not a lie.


As most people are aware, there are a number of different ways in which crime statistics are reported, recorded and analysed, and they all seem to contradict each other. It is noteworthy that during the period you describe the govt's methodology of publishing crime figures changed dramatically. Try links below for an explanation.

An extract:
In other words, when the Government claims that the BCS provides the most reliable picture of crime, it is missing out 600,730 offences against children under 16. It is also missing out offences against shops, offices and manufacturers. How many crimes against these victims are excluded?

I have to admit I cannot find any readily available statistics that back up the Mail's 34% increase claim. However, I would hazard that a full analysis using the stats and info provided via the above links would yield a similar figure.

We could do this ad nauseam and we'll never agree. Let's just agree to disagree.


Labour Sleaze? Let's have a look....

Bernie Ecclestone donates £1million to party...F1 curiously exempted from tobacco advertising ban.

Powderject Pharmaceuticals won a £32m contract just weeks after its chief executive Paul Drayson had given the Labour Party £50,000. The contract was awarded without normal competitive tendering. Tony Blair made Paul Drayson a lord.

'Cheriegate' / Peter Foster - days of denials until evidence published. (By the Daily Mail).

The Labour Party has attempted to gag one of its own MPs who strongly criticised a £90 million deal between the NHS and a private health company linked to Alan Milburn, Labour's general election supremo.

The American boss of IBM was granted a knighthood by Tony Blair, shortly after his computer company gave Labour high-tech software for 'next to nothing'. Louis Gerstner Jr received what is a rare award for a foreigner - and given access to Downing Street - following the deal for a system to keep party members 'on message'.

The husband of the culture secretary, Tessa Jowell, faces being put on trial alongside the Italian prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi, on charges of tax evasion and money laundering.

Immigration Minister Beverley Hughes sanctioned the fast-tracking of passport applications. Initially denied, until evidence published.

6 Labour councillors found guilty of vote rigging in the postal vote fiasco. Labour ministers ditched a bill to combat postal voting fraud even though leaked cabinet minutes show they agreed it was essential to make the electoral system secure.

Keith Vaz - charges various, including many, many 'cash-for-favours' complaints. Obstructed investigation at every turn.

Peter Mandelson - TWICE - Lied on a mortgage application (fraud), resigned. Was taken BACK into govt, then promptly resigned again because he fast-tracked a passport application for the Hinduja crooks.

Stephen Byers - LIED, LIED and LIED AGAIN to parliament, about various things.

The Mittal Affair - Blair intervened to help secure a deal for Lakshmi Mittal after he donated £125,000 to Labour.

'Shagger' Blunkett - fast-tracked passport applications for his shag-piece's nanny.

David Kelly - hounded to death by the Labour spin machine.

The whole Iraq affair - where do we start??

The Labour govt has been subject to more inquiries than any other in living memory, set up only after intense pressure. It has ensured that mandates have been limited, and has hand picked inquiry chairmen to ensure their exhoneration.

The previous Tory govt, in fairness, contained a number of self-serving to$$ers who were caught out. But the Tories are rank amateurs in sleaze by comparison - the above is just a small selection - I could've gone on for several pages. Nothing, ABSOLUTELY nothing compares to the grubbiness of the current Labour party.

Sources: Various newspaper archives, also see www.laboursleaze.com


16th Apr 2005, 08:43
What more has to be discovered about the lying, thieving, corrupt, cynical, arrogant and incompetent Labour Party before the electorate realises that they are simply not fit to be in charge of a parish council let alone a whole country.

16th Apr 2005, 12:40
Alas, there are none so blind as those who will not see.

16th Apr 2005, 14:19
I'm more than prepared to accept Labour have been disappointing in many areas and have not delivered all that they said they would in 1997. The corruption has been particularly disappointing, especially as they promised to put an end to the terribly corrupt Tory years.

The fact is, as I'm sure we would all agree, that there is only so much a government of any colour can do, and that all politicians knowingly promise more than they can deliver.

I stand by my comment that politics is no more corrupt than it once was, but that the media have a greater propensity to uncover and tell us about corruption when it happens. A point SC seems to have missed entirely. On the subject of SC 'missing' things, I note he has studiously avoided answering my question:

Can you further enlighten us as to how a Conservative government would deal with the pensions issue without raising taxes or cutting spending?

By which I clearly meant raising taxes on higher earners to fund the ever increasing burden of an ageing population.

Can you tell us exactly how the Tories hope to find the £12 billion spending cuts in 'non-essential' departments?

You've so far concentrated on where Labour have gone wrong these past eight years. Given that you will be voting Tory, can you explain exactly what the Tories propose to do to get things right should they be elected?

They've already been forced to concede that their promised tax cuts won't be possible immediately.

I'll be expecting fully costed evidence, of course; you have been tenacious in the pursuit of facts and figures from me ;)

16th Apr 2005, 14:26
Labour sleaze, Tory corruption. Is the Pope catholic? :rolleyes:

"A good politician is quite as unthinkable as an honest burglar. "

16th Apr 2005, 14:31
Is the Pope catholic?

Not at the moment, no ;)

16th Apr 2005, 14:57
Perhaps you could enlighten us on what this £12 million of cuts are ?

Are these perhaps the alleged 'cuts' that the media took Labour to task over very publicly and which Labour have had to admit were wrong?

Interestingly perhaps you would care to tell us where the money for Labour's 'proposed' spending will come?

What of the £10 billion black hole that everyone accepts but Labour assiduously try to hide and refuse to discuss? This of course is in addition to the above.

Can you further enlighten us as to how a Conservative government would deal with the pensions issue without raising taxes or cutting spending? By which I take it refers to the £5 billion tax raid that Bliar and Brown made on pension funds that has decimated the pension provision for us all to such a degree that it may well be two generations before the damage can be fully repaired?

You've so far concentrated on where Labour have gone wrong these past eight years. Given that you will be voting Tory, can you explain exactly what the Tories propose to do to get things right should they be elected? You really don't have the time to read it it would be such a long document.

16th Apr 2005, 15:06
Certainly, Astrodome, I've got this from the BBC, hopefully a 'neutral' source:

The Conservatives say their plans do add up: they are going to maintain Labour's spending plans over two years on health, education, crime, and aid, while cutting "non-essential" departments by £12bn to make room for £4bn in tax cuts and £8bn in reductions in borrowing.

Labour had claimed the Tories were promising £35 billion of cuts, the figure that you were referring to that Labour had to retract. The Tories claim they can save £12 billion, their words. Their commitment to following the Labour plan on health, education, crime and aid strongly suggests they endorse Labour's current spending plans, which leaves me rather confused as to how the Tory supporters on this thread suggest that they will handle the economy more effectively? :confused:

Labour's spending plans rely on continued economic recovery increasing tax revenue by the £10 billion you refer to, without the need for income tax rises.


You really don't have the time to read it it would be such a long document.

Ah, shame. No come on, humour me. I've got time ;)

Finally, on the subject of the Tories' immigration policy, Howard had a rather uncomfortable radio phone-in call from a Jewish immigrant yesterday:


16 blades
16th Apr 2005, 15:17
Labour governments haemorrhage money, exactly the same as Labour councils always have. Labour's OWN study identified £22Bn of WASTE in treasury funding - that's almost the same size as the defence budget. Sorting this ALONE would more than cover all the Tory proposals. Cutting the welfare budget would be a next good step (welfare is the single biggest govt expenditure - it accounts for more money than Defence, Health and Education put together). Then perhaps we could stop funding Five-a-day co-ordinators, Lesbian Outreach councillors, Asylum seeker's endless legal appeals, etc etc.

I have heard much noise from Labour about 'uncosted' and 'fantasy' Tory spending proposals. I have yet to hear any examples from them backing up their assertions - a common tactic of the left - all noise, no substance. So let's hear it.

I've got this from the BBC, hopefully a 'neutral' source:
Oh Wedge, PLEASE tell me you were not serious with this comment!!!!


16th Apr 2005, 15:20
Ah, 16B, you are saying the Tories will be able to save £22bn by cutting public sector waste.

Now where have I heard that one before? :ok:

16 blades
16th Apr 2005, 15:29
I'd like to see them saving £166Bn by abolishing the welfare state, personally.


16th Apr 2005, 15:31
If I've learned anything over these last few decades, it's that, at best, you can trade in one set of corrupt, self-serving, ignorant, spin-doctoring, pandering assholes, for another.

Over here, anyway.

Not cynical or anything.

16th Apr 2005, 15:35
I'd like to see them saving £166Bn by abolishing the welfare state, personally.

Would you really? Shame you're not making Tory policy then, that one really would consign them to the history books once and for all.

16 blades
16th Apr 2005, 15:38
You are right of course, RT. However, the set of corrupt, self-serving, ignorant, spin-doctoring, pandering assholes that take less of my hard-earned money from me to give to lazy, scrounging [email protected], will get my vote.

So Wedge, I presume you feel that £166Bn on welfare is a good deal and not at all a waste?


16th Apr 2005, 15:40
Hmmmm.... no Retirement Pensions? Old and vulnerable people reducing to penury despite having paid NI contributions throughout their working lives?

No sickness benefits? The sick reduced to begging or left to rot?

No unemployment benefits? Those left without jobs through no fault of their own left to fend for themselves - and their children with them?

That'll bring the votes rolling in, for sure.

And where does this magical £166Bn figure of yours come from - the Daily Mail? :rolleyes:

What's your next proposal - bringing back bear-baiting, or maybe burning witches?

16th Apr 2005, 15:41
Can't see what you are all gettin worked up about,........all politicians are scheming, lying, cheating gits.
I wouldn't trust a politician as far as I could throw one, not one party has a truthful agenda, and not one government has ever produced exactly what they said they would.
Case Over
:yuk: :yuk:

16 blades
16th Apr 2005, 15:42
"Cold is just God's way of telling us to burn more lefties"

Instead of a winter fuel allowance, I'd arrange a winter delivery of lefties to keep the old warm.....

It's probably just as well I'd never get elected.....


ps £166Bn is from the treasury's own figures for FY04/05

Don't forget to add the £47Bn for payments to other departments to the quoted £119Bn for welfare payments (Housing and Council tax benefits don't figure in the £119Bn as they are paid directly to Local Authorities). The figures are difficult to work through, as usual, probably to deter the plebs from scrutinising.

I'd post a link if I could find my way back to it........

16th Apr 2005, 15:46
It's probably just as well I'd never get elected.....Given that your definition of a "lefty" seems to be "everyone who is not to the right of Ghengis Khan", I heartily agree. :D

16th Apr 2005, 16:20
Do the right-wingers here actually think that the Tories would be any different from Labour? :rolleyes:

There is no difference between them. There is nothing on which to vote. There is nothing to be gained in trading one bunch of corrupt, self-serving incompetents acting as children having a tantrum for another.

We will not have anything like decent, democratic, accountable government until people accept that we need electoral reform - ground-up revision, root and branch. And why don't the present jerks want that? Because THEY want to run OUR lives, and to RULE us. What I want is for US to run THEIR lives, and have them REPRESENT us.

Has anyone noticed that, whereas in the past, we talked about a political party being "in office", now they all talk about being "in power"? That's not a coincidence. Think about it.

16 blades
16th Apr 2005, 16:23
So, what would you reform XX? (not a jibe - genuinely interested)


16th Apr 2005, 20:08
Hmmmm.... no Retirement Pensions? Old and vulnerable people reducing to penury despite having paid NI contributions throughout their working lives? Indeed, directly as a result of Bliar and Browns £5 billion tax raid on our pension schemes, whilst ensuring that their own actually increased in value in the same period.

You bothered to check the value of your pension lately?

Wedge Labour\'s spending plans rely on continued economic recovery increasing tax revenue by the £10 billion you refer to, without the need for income tax rises.
Totally incorrect !

I suggest you do some independent research rather than listen to the sort of sh*te spun out by Bliar.

Whilst you are at it you may also wish to comment on how the AGREED £10 billion \'black hole\' created by Browns continuing \'public\' spending.

You should also note that most financial commentators suggest a net reduction in income from taxation AGAIN.

Brown has CONSISTENTLY over-estimated the income from taxation for years.

Rover\'s demise will just add to the Public Sector problems, as will the ongoing and very expensive war in Iraq.

This is how the Socialists see Labour New Labour and the Big Lie

The legislative programme announced by New Labour this week is another piece of scaffolding in the police state edifice that the Blair regime has been building since it came to office. There are eight "safety and security" Bills in the programme and a further eight in draft form. Taken together, measures like ID cards, a British-style FBI and trial without juries for terror suspects, will give the state unprecedented powers of surveillance, control, arrest and incarceration.

In its crude approach, New Labour lumps together terrorism, crime and "anti-social behaviour" as if they were the same issues to justify the new powers. This totalitarian thinking is reminiscent of the lying propaganda used by Stalinist regimes and dictatorships the world over.

New Labour, like magicians, conjure up a fantasy world to justify the lurch to authoritarian rule. Britain is painted as a country overrun by terrorists, criminals and people getting drunk late at night and disturbing their neighbours. The Blair government has no evidence for this. Instead, it uses focus groups which draw on people's perceptions to help them paint this lurid picture. Many of the perceptions in this house of images are, in turn, the result of the government's own unrelenting propaganda.

This approach is consistent with the Big Lie nature of the Blair regime. It lied its way to war against Iraq and has lied ever since about its intentions following the illegal occupation. Now it is lying about various "threats" - to browbeat the electorate and obscure the real issues confronting people in their day-to-day lives.

The impending collapse of the housing market, the inability of ordinary people to find affordable accommodation, the commercialisation of the health service, the collapse of many areas of state education, the appalling and expensive transport system and intolerable pressure at work - these are the issues that New Labour wants to avoid.

Market-led solutions so favoured by New Labour are clearly not working and increasing numbers of people are turning away from its kind of corporate-driven politics. The Blairites desperately need to get voters back into the fold by the time of the 2005 general election and are using a mixture of scaremongering and populism to do so.

Peter Hain, the leader of the Commons, was himself once framed by the state when he was an anti-apartheid campaigner. Now he is part of the same sinister circle, playing the card that George W. Bush played to defeat John Kerry - that his government and his alone could protect the country from terror. Hain told BBC Radio 4: "I believe the risk would be lower under Labour because we are bringing in the measures - including massively increasing the staff and resources of the security services - to deal with terrorist threats."

Yet there is no evidence of a massive terror network poised to strike at Britain. Just like the "case" over Iraq's phantom weapons of mass destruction, the anti-terror propaganda is undoubtedly laced with a huge dose of fiction. And what is real can be attributed to a reaction to the imperialist policies pursued by the United States and Britain, especially in relation to Israel and Iraq.

So a vote for New Labour at the next election is a vote for a police state which will drive through the requirements of global capital in terms of conditions at work and market-driven public services. The Movement for Socialist Future will renew its campaign not to waste your vote on New Labour. Instead, we should build a mass challenge to the power and nature of the capitalist state with the aim of creating new truly democratic bodies that will encourage co-ownership and self-management in place of the ruthless rule of the market.

Link to Socialist website (http://www.socialistfuture.org.uk)

16th Apr 2005, 21:29

There is nothing to be gained from changing one bunch of corrupt self-serving incompetents acting as children having a tantrum for another

Actually, I think there is. There would be one glorious moment of satisfaction gained from seeing them booted out (and losing their salaries) followed by a long, deeply rewarding schadenfreude .

16th Apr 2005, 23:03
16B, a few brainstorming ideas off the top of my head:-

I would like to see Proportional Representation to both the House of Commons and an elected Upper House, with and end to any inherited right to sit by Lords. No appointment of the PM's cronies to the Upper House. Different election methods for each (see the US system). Government ministers can sit in either House, but deputies must be appointed in whichever House the minister does not occupy.

All party revenue - gifts, subscriptions etc. to be declared and published, and the GAO to audit party funds.

All politicians to declare all financial interests, and discovery of any irregularity or significant undeclared interest to be punishable by being banned from holding any public office or plc directorships for life. Less significant undeclared interests to be punished by disqualification from the above posts for a period not exceeding 10 years. Fines and/or imprisonment a further option.

The Lord Chancellor/Justice Minister/whatever you want to call the most senior judge to be appointed from the ranks of judges by judges themselves or an appointments commission, and no seat in the Cabinet for him.

Possibility of removal from office of ministers by some form of agreement among MP's in cases of incompetence or dishinesty rather than at the PM's behest.

Enough to get started with? I don't say these are necessarily workable as I laid them out - just a few thoughts off the top of my head.

Standard Noise
17th Apr 2005, 06:55
I'm just cock-a-hoop over Bliar's refusal to rule out National Insurance increases after the election. Possibly by up to 3p in the pound. That'll be why they sneaked in that change last week to stop 'ring fencing' NI payments and toss them in with general taxation. B4stards.:mad:

17th Apr 2005, 07:57
One thing is certain. If on May 6th each of the main parties have attracted an equal percentage of the popular vote (say 34%) then Blair and his criminal band will have about 340 seats, the Conservative Party just over 200 and the Lib Dems and others about 90 or so giving the Thieves' and Liars' party an overall majority of about 40 seats. This will be because the Boundary Commission has yet to re-draw the constituencies to reflect the recent population shifts about the country which has resulted in many safe Labour seats (rotten boroughs) with small electorates and low turn-outs while many safe Conservative seats have much larger electorates and huge majorities. On average it will take 16,000 votes to elect one Labour MP but 22,000 votes to elect a Conservative one.

This is not news. It has been well documented in the press and reported on television and radio.

On top of this there is the Labour vote-rigging postal ballot scandal in Birmingham. There is a very strong suggestion that this is the tip of an ice-berg. It may have little bearing on the result but what if the result looks like being a hung parliament until the returning officers in certain Birmingham constituencies announce their results? Perhaps we should invite election monitors from Africa or the Ukraine to ensure fair play.

Does anybody feel anger rising?

17th Apr 2005, 08:41
Blair and his criminal band I have nothing but contempt for the grinning ninny myself, but this description is more than a little rich considering the number of prominent members of the Conservative Party who actually have faced criminal charges at one time or another - as discussed at length above.

Still, let's not allow the facts to get in the way, eh? :hmm:

17th Apr 2005, 08:50
Like a trout to a fly.

Oldjet Jockey
17th Apr 2005, 10:58
To me the most important issue is "Can we trust the leaders of a party to be truthful?".

My conclusion with regard to the Labour party is a clear NO.

There has been considerable discussion on the subject of the legality of the war in Iraq. The debate seems to have concentrated on whether or not it was legal for an attack to be launched without a further UN resolution. I am not a lawyer so do not want to get involved in the intricacies of that but rather concentrate on what was behind the claim by Bush and Blair that they did not need another resolution because there had been a material breech by Iraq in complying with UN resolution 1441 in as much as they had not included details of the disposal of WMDs that they were known to have posessed at the end of the first Gulf war.

I don't know how many of you have read a copy of resolution 1441, but for those that haven't I reproduce word for word the article of the resolution that called for a report within 30 days.

" Article 3. Decides, that in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required bianual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;

Now I remember very clearly that in December of that year when the declaration called for by the above article had been received I saw on television statements made by George Bush, Collin Powell, Tony Blair and Jack Straw, each of them claiming than the declaration did not include details of the destruction or disposal of weapons and materials known to have been held by Iraq in 1991. They all four claimed that the ommission of this detail in the declaration ammounted to a material breech of the terms of UN resolution 1441 and therefore gave them a right to take action against Iraq without a further UN resolution.

While it is clear in further articles of the resolution that a material breech could lead directly to action, I question whether the ommission claimed by these four politicians amounted to a breech of any sort let alone a material breech. I have read, read and re read article 3 that called for the declaration and nowhere can I find a requirement to detail how, when or where old stocks of weapons and material were disposed of. So far I have dealt with FACT and unless any of you with legal expertise can tell me I have misread or misinterpreted article 3 then My conclusion is that Bush, Powell, Blair and Straw deliberately mislead the world knowing that a further resolution would fail because of the oposition of several countries including the likelyhood of a French veto.

So my position is that whether or not it was legal to invade Iraq without a further resolution if the was a material breech, the real question is "Was there a material breech as claimed by Bush, Powell, Blair and Straw. I firmly believe that what was claimed to be a breech was no such thing.

Now for my opinion which can of course be pulled apart by any of you. I believe that even if it was only by word of mouth and a handshake Blair had given his word that he would support Bush and had put himself in a position that he had to go along with the American view. I also believe that with the huge and public logistical effort to move troops and equipment to the Gulf the politicians were in a position that they could not back down without loosing face and so when Mr. Blix supported by France Germany and others called for more time for inspections and the need to start operations before the heat of the summer made operations too dificult for the troops. Bush and Blair had to find a way to start operations without delay and for this needed to show a material breech in the requirements of 1441. I believe they made the wrong choice for a breech and were far less than honest.

My conclusion in relation to the UK election is that Blair and his cronies cannot be trusted and I would certainly not vote for them. As for the others I'm not sure who can really be trusted but I am sure about Blair and company. I am a strong believer that Lawyers should remain as lawyers and not get mixed up in politics. Lawyers are trained to try to discredit the oposition, stretch the truth or avoid it altogether. A prime example was Clinton trying to avoid blame by twisting the meaning of "Sexual relations". Lawyers generally do an excellent job in their prime profession but are too inclined to use their advocates tactics to fool the oposition in politics.

Tory, Liberal, Green or UKIP. I don't know.

Solid Rust Twotter
17th Apr 2005, 11:07
Mr Clintons lapse was a problem not so much for having a bit on the side, but for having lied about it on more than one occasion and in circumstances where it would be considered to have been seriously unwise, ie, under oath, if I'm not mistaken. A person with access to that red button that could fry us all should be above suspicion, but in the case of the present crop of world leaders, known liars and manipulators to a man, one is often grateful that one wakes up at all in the morning.

Using integrity in a leader as a yardstick, the choice is severely limited.:(

17th Apr 2005, 18:30
With reference to the question of postal balloting. There comes a time in anybodys life young or old when you can say to yourself. I may not be the richest, but neither am I the poorest. I am not particularly smart or intelligent however I think that I possess a reasonable ammount of common sense. I have travelled a bit, seen the world and I know right from wrong. I look around me and I see what is going on and this is what I think and this is what I am going to say.
Previously in this thread I have done that, and having done that I have gone away and though to myself, now was that over the top, have I gone to far? Do I wish to retract anything I said, whether through a sense of not wishing to offend, or of perhaps having overstated the case, been too outspoken, too opinionated.
I have since looked around thought about it and having done so will take the time to come back and say that I meant every word I said before. Every single one of us here exercises the privilege extended by the forum put here by Danny to do so, we are a community who don't all think the same way and are probably the richer for it.
I do read opposing views and go through them, some of them are thoughtfull insightfull and offer me a different viewpoint to opinions I have held, perhaps even causing me to shift my stance on some issues, one of the reasons I come here.
One does not have to be a reed in the wind and bend in every direction, nor yet does one have to be totaly inflexible, I believe that most people do have, and do persue logicaly and sincerely held held beliefs. The ability to do this in the political process we have is something of great value and to my mind greatly underappreciated in this country today.
To feel that this system it is danger of being subverted is to me a cause of great indignation.
The present governments tampering with the mechanisms of the process, it's acknowledgement of the failings of a facet in that process that it has instituted, yet its refusal to do anything about that failing untill the election is over, is to my mind a traversty of what it puports to uphold and be a part of.
The present postal balloting is just one part of what they have played with. It will be interesting to see just how much a part it plays in the upcoming election and to me just one more indication of the arrogance and failure of the present administration in it's resposibility to the electorate of the country as a whole.

17th Apr 2005, 19:53
it would be ridiculous to ask a geology graduate and aviation instructor to analyse them, I do not have the required training

Very well, you can't be expected to provide a detailed economic analysis to back up your random assertions, because you don't have the required training. I accept that.

You have to learn that things are not true just because you think they are. You have to back your opinions up with arguments, or leave the debate to people who can do so.

Oh, hang on a moment, I'm confused! :confused: It's not necessary for you to back up your arguments with evidence, but you expect your opponents to do so. That seems a tad unfair to me.

The Tories will be stopping the politicisation of the civil service
And how do they propose to do that? On what grounds do you make another random assertion that Labour have politicised the civil service?

They will be cutting back on the control of the NHS by central government
Can you be more specific please, exactly how do they propose this will hapen?

You can answer if you like, but it's all academic, as I'm afraid they won't be doing any of the things you have listed above, because, they are going to lose the election. In fact, the more effective the Tory campaign appears to be, the more the British public will realise that they don't want the tired old Tories back, which accounts for Labour's increase in the polls the past few days. I applaud your efforts to persuade people that the Conservatives could hope to run the country half as well as Blair has the past eight years, but you are fighting for a lost cause.

You've so far concentrated on where Labour have gone wrong these past eight years. Given that you will be voting Tory, can you explain exactly what the Tories propose to do to get things right should they be elected?

You've made only two points in answer to this which deal with nothing of the substance of the question. The Conservatives have effectively endorsed Labour's economic policy, and most of Labour's other substantive policies. The difference between the parties is that the Tories don't have anybody apart from Howard (and possibly David Davis) who could be remotely considered as government calibre.

The electorate know this, they can see through the Tories' vile campaign tactics, and will return Blair to power for another five years on May 5.

This debate ultimately hinges on the fact that you are a Conservative voter and I am a Labour voter. It is getting rather circular, so I don't propose to continue it any further.

Edit: It would appear that SC has deleted his last post which the above is a response to.

17th Apr 2005, 20:18
The Tories don't have anyone apart from Howard (or possibly David Davies) who could be considered government calibre

And Labour did in 1997? Not one of them had any experience of office. What is "government calibre" anyway? Is Blair "of government calibre". He is a liar and fraud. Is Brown? he has effectively destroyed UK private and company pension provision. He intends to destroy the value in our houses next. Was Blunkett? The man has been shown to be a fool. Is Clarke? An untidy mess who really should be sweeping streets. And that booby Byers? Was he of "government calibre"? Then there's Mandelson. Ah, yes, so much "government calibre" he had to resign twice. Don't tell me Prescott is "of government calibre".

Still, it's our own fault. Few of us are involved. We have the politicians we deserve.

17th Apr 2005, 20:50
Wedge, would you care to comment on postal balloting, immigration, border control, increased government service employment, the likelehood of rise in taxation in the next term should Labour get in, and why, the huge costs of unelected quangos and their proliferation under this administration?

17th Apr 2005, 21:24
Whilst you responded to SC I hope you will not mind me putting in a response as I really could not just let your points remain unchallenged.

On what grounds do you make another random assertion that Labour have politicised the civil service? Oh come now are you really so short sighted?. We could start with the 'Good Day to bury Bad News' story, could we not?

We could then look at Alistair Campbells involvement overall.

We could look at the fact that Campbell an unappointed grace and favour individual was allowed to chair critical meetings of civil servants and Government Ministers.

Shall we discuss the destruction of moral within the Civil Service press offices arising from his involvement?

After that let us talk of Dr Kelly and the vile and incessant negative briefing and smears, which continued even after his death (not suicide).

Press stories and comments from former very senior civil servants about the Politicisation of the civil service would do as nice 'afters' to that meal do you not think?

They will be cutting back on the control of the NHS by central government. Can you be more specific please, exactly how do they propose this will hapen?
I would suggest that by removing the control ij such a way as to remove the need for Hospital Managers to satisfy the needs of 35 DIFFERENT Regulators before they can even commence work each day. Source - BBC Radio 4 The World This Weekend report earlier today.

You can answer if you like, but it's all academic, as I'm afraid they won't be doing any of the things you have listed above, because, they are going to lose the election. In fact, the more effective the Tory campaign appears to be, the more the British public will realise that they don't want the tired old Tories back, which accounts for Labour's increase in the polls the past few days. Sadly you really do believe this don't you?. You are obviously read and listen to different media to me. Labour have actually been losing ground to the Conservatives. You don't seem to believe this. The remainder of this paragraph amounts to a leap of faith.

The Conservatives have effectively endorsed Labour's economic policy, and most of Labour's other substantive policies. Which suugests that you are probably the only person in the Country to think so. The monetary policies followed by Brown (a Socialist) are VERY much of the Adam Smith school, and are without doubt very much Conservative. A great many Trade Union leaders believe this and are at loggerheads privately with Brown over his economic policies. They would not agree with you.

The electorate know this, they can see through the Tories' vile campaign tactics, and will return Blair to power for another five years on May 5. This from someone who supports a Party whose whole approach has been to mis-state the truth, distort facts, tell blatant lies, publish completely inaccurate advertisements, and finally use the Houses of Parliament as a backdrop to a Party political boroadcast. A Party which used YOUR (and our) money for blatantly Party political purposes when leafletting people about a child allowance that would automatically be given to them, in an attempt to gain favour with the parents of young children.
I won't bother you with the fact that they have blatantly used the FOI Act to attempt to raise smear stories based upon half-truths, innaccuraces and inuendo to discredit the Conservatives, whilst at the same time using the very same Act to prevent the release of the full text of the same documents. This despite mild protest from Civil Servants who are now so worried for their futures as to not challenge anything anymore. Source - recent BBC Radio interview with former senior Cabinet level Civil Servant.

I am sure a number of people on here would welcome your views on the return of Campbellto run a completely negative and thuggish campaign, and no doubt we would be interested in your views on Milburn being paid a Government salary whilst being 100% dedicated to running the Labour election campaign (and not very well at that!)

18th Apr 2005, 08:56
No new posts here for over 12 hours so I take it everyone is bored with the election or just doesn't give a tinker's curse who taxes and rules us.

18th Apr 2005, 11:27

It does not have to be that way.

Vote for the Liberal Democrats and experience the Real Alternative.



Send Clowns
18th Apr 2005, 13:17
Wedgeyou can't be expected to provide a detailed economic analysis to back up your random assertionsSince you are clearly have no idea of the techniques of research, I assume you have no proper degree. That is not a problem, I know many people of great intelligence who don't, but you may then require an explanation, as education below degree level doesn't usually try to teach research.

It is perfectly accepted in research that one takes another person's conclusions as being part of the basis for one's own, provided that other has the expertise and that no other research of similar standing contradicts the research used (in the latter case all research should be reviewed). This is often necessary for two reasons; there is not the time nor resource for each person who needs some results to research independently the same issue, and a person may need to use results from a field outwith his or her own field of experience. It is in fact then more accurate to use the published research of an expert than to find one's own conclusion outside one's expertise.

Therefore by accepting the conclusions of an expert in that field (or, in this case, a team of experts) not only am I not making a "random assertion" as you accuse me of, but I am making a better-informed conclusion than I could by my own research; as I told you, I am not an economist. You ask me something about rocks or flying, I'll do my best, but unless you agree that you'd be happy to be taught to fly by an economist who has never formally studied aviation, I will not agree to trust my own conclusions above those of the IFS.

Now that was deliberately long-winded. At every stage, unless you are a lot thicker than I take you for, you are deliberately misinterpreting what I am saying. Hence I, in a slightly sarcastic spirit I admit, put the above in such detailed terms I think would be difficult to turn around. However I would suggest that many of your arguments, based on apparently deliberate misinterpretation, are therefore rather dishonest. It seems that you should be studying your political view more critically if you can only defend it on this basis. Are you basing your whole opposition to the Conservatives on sophistry and debating tricks?

I believe that Astrodome has elequently answered your other points, although he forgot the Sixsmith affair as part of the politicisation of the civil service, which was one of the least defensible from Labour's point of view.

P.S. You still haven't given us an example of a piece of corruption of the previous administration nearly as bad as the worst Labour ones. I'm getting more and more for Labour with the help here, especially if you read the one about NHS I mentioned in another thread. You're falling far behind, mate!

Nick Riviera
18th Apr 2005, 13:17

The mail headline to which you objected inferred that PC Oake's death was the fault of the government. The government then admitted responsibility. You still insist the headline was a lie. Discuss.

Send Clowns
18th Apr 2005, 13:20
BHR obviously likes a comic turn :D

18th Apr 2005, 14:37
SC, this is all getting rather childish. As you are unable to answer any of my questions on the Tory policies, you have now changed tack and questioned my education and have now accused me of being 'dishonest'. I can take that on the chin, I don't agree of course, what's more you are wrong about my education, and if you must know I hold a degree in Politics and History and I am currently doing the post-grad Law conversion course.

Given that you have stooped to such base debating tactics, I'm afraid I am no longer interested in arguing with you.

Of course I appear to be 'falling behind' here in JB, because as you know the majority of posters here are Tories and their voice is stronger than mine. You earlier told me that I had to back up my opinions with arguments, and then implied I was incapable of debating. You might want to take your own advice. All you have done is regurgitated Tory rhetoric. I'll concede that I have done the same with the Labour rhetoric, but I'd be surprised if you have persuaded anyone on this thread to vote Tory.

Astrodome - yes I do believe Labour are going to win, their majority will be significantly reduced I have no doubt but I see it as almost impossible that the Tories could overturn the huge Labour majority this time round. I'll put money on it in fact.

The polls of the past five days have showed a slight increase in the Labour vote, you must indeed have been reading a different media to me.

Send Clowns
18th Apr 2005, 15:54
Do you genuinely think my calculations on the Conservative policies would be more reliable than the IFS? If so I withdraw my doubts about your honesty, but replace them with bafflement.

So you hold a degree, but if you expect everyone's opinion and hypothesis to be based only on their own calculation, then someone slipped up on training you as they should in a degree, to do research. You have not argued against my logic in using the IFS judgement, nor come up with an equally good source with a different conclusion.

I am perfectly capable of answering your points, but since it would not add a lot to what Astrodome said, I see little point in wasting PPRuNe bandwidth. Another thing I already said, but you seem purposely to ignore to belittle my argument, i.e. more dishonest debating tactics. If you continue using them to belittle me and try to mask the paucity of your argument with claims that mine is poor, then I will continue to pouint that fact out.

You're falling behind because you consistently fail to come up with an answer to the one thing I have consistently asked: what you think is the precedent for the current corruption. You come up with nothing, we come up with more and more, so you fall behind. You stated words to the effect that corruption is no worse now than at any other time, you have not shown such precedent, yet fail to back down from your statement.

I have not just "...regurgitted Tory rhetoric". I have told the truth as I see it, you have not shown it to be anything but, not even attempted to do so. Even if it were just "...Tory rhetoric" then the fact that you cannot seem to argue against it suggests that perhaps you should take some notice of it. If it is true then it is important, regardless of its provenance. In fact I am constantly surprised at what little use is made of Labour corruption by the Tories, perhaps to avoid giving the BBC the excuse to trot out their usual lazy call of sleaze, a word often associated with the previous Tory regime, although none of the usually well-informed members heere seem to be able to deny convincingly it applies more to the current bunch of crooks.

18th Apr 2005, 16:17
And it's not just me who thinks Labour are going to win, Astrodome, you won't get better than Labour 20/1 odds on and Tories 15/2 against with Ladbrokes:

Labour 1/20
Conservatives 15/2
Liberal Democrats 100/1

18th Apr 2005, 16:20
My bet is that ol' Tony will win, but won't sit it out.

18th Apr 2005, 18:26
Aye, a vote for Fibbin Tony will be a vote for Highwayman Brown as PM.

Then, instead of just thieving cash from your pensions, he'll have the authority to mess it up in many, many other ways.

And PM Brown, IMHO, will preside over a return to the bad old Old Labour.

Just when you thought it could'nt get any worse. :(

18th Apr 2005, 18:30
The level of debate on this issue seems to have finally sunk to "Whoooooo! Here comes the bogeyman!!!!"..... :hmm:

At the end of the day it won't matter a jot whether or not Labour remain in power.

The reason is simple - the fundamental agenda of both main parties is essentially the same despite all the hot air and rhetoric that is designed to mask the fact.

It's just the same old sh*t in a different packet. :zzz:

18th Apr 2005, 19:13
The fundamental agenda of both main parties is the same....

On economic policy in the short term, perhaps. In many other areas it is not. The Conservative Party is nothing if it is not a party of small government and low(er) taxes. It is the middle ground which is being fought over so they are saying what they think they have to say in order to get elected - just as Labour did in 1997. We have had socialism by stealth ever since.

If you want to have a smaller, less interfering government, to have lower taxes, to retain the pound sterling, to renegotiate our membership of the EU, to control immigration, to have the human rights act repealed and to attack the absurdities of political correctness, there is only one party who will give you these things. If on the other hand you don't...well...vote for Tone & Co again.

Actually, I think a much reduced Blair majority and a hand-over of the premiership to Brown is probably the best result. Things are going to go pear-shaped in the next few years just as they have always done with a Labour goverment. They will be unable to blame anyone else and they will be out of power for a generation.

FWIW, I reckon Howard Flight was sacked for letting slip the truth.
An annualised reduction of public expenditure of at least £80bn is achievable in the longer term.

18th Apr 2005, 20:51
We have had socialism by stealth ever since. Palpable nonsense.

We have had cronyism, incompetence, arrogance and blinkered dogmatic pig-ignorance (and many others things besides) from successive governments since 1979 but we have not had "socialism" of any description.

Both major parties are spouting the same kind of divisive "blame everyone else but us" populist claptrap and neither has a shred of integrity to share between the whole sorry lot of them.

As a nation, frankly, we deserve better.

18th Apr 2005, 20:59
Palpable nonsense

I don't think so. My tax bill tells me. The rhetoric tells me. The war on the middle classes tells me.

18th Apr 2005, 21:00
I don't think so. My tax bill tells me. The rhetoric tells me. The war on the middle classes tells me. Reel 'em in, boys. Reel 'em in...... :E

19th Apr 2005, 01:04
Agree that one thing we DON'T have with Labour is Socialism. Which is one of the reasons I vote Labour. Of course Brown's economic policy is of the Adam Smith school of thought.

Things are going to go pear-shaped in the next few years just as they have always done with a Labour goverment.

This argument was trotted out last time and sounds even more specious with Labour on the verge of an unprecedented third consecutive term of office.

Former Tory cabinet minister David Mellor in the Evening Standard argues that there is no 'clear blue water' at all between the two main parties on the economy, and urges the Tories to be bold and promise greater tax cuts.

"for the Tories, the economy is like the Basil Fawlty on the war: never mention it...Even under the Tories' own proposals the amount of national wealth gobbled up by the state will increase sharply. Against public expenditure for next year of over £500 billion, the £35 billion the Tories have identified as efficiency savings look inadequate, and the £4 billion of tax cuts pathetic...Yet so far Michael Howard's only response to suggestions the Tories could and should be bolder has been to sack the man who made them - Howard Flight"

The Tories have lost ground again according to two new polls today: Are you sinking like we're sinking?

19th Apr 2005, 01:11
Sadder and sadder fella.

You really cannot see beyond those rose tinted spectacles can you?

Why not start to answer some of the many points I have made in my various posts??

No-one on the Left has tried...Obviously hit a bit of a raw nerve there then?

Couple of questions you may wish to ask yourself....

You presumably own a house, have a secure job with a company, possibly a pension?

Finally to quote David Mellor, well that is a real beaut fella!. The guy was a complete tosser in power, a friend of John Major, and a liability that was finally excised, a bit like Kinnock for you guys I guess? Do find someone SERIOUS eh?

The sad but amusing thing is that when YOU FINALY realise that you have been shafted you will be one of the loudest critics, but then hindsight is such a marvellous thing don't you think?

A bit like those on here who gloatingly refer to Black Wednesday whilst conveniently forgetting that Major's policy had the FULL backing of Labour? Remember that? No....thought so !

19th Apr 2005, 11:47
Guardian (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foi/story/0,9061,1462770,00.html) - Tuesday April 19, 2005

Records of the prime minister's dealings with a controversial Labour donor, the millionaire businessman Paul Drayson, should be released in the public interest, the independent parliamentary watchdog has ruled. But Downing Street has refused to comply, and claims other documents have been shredded.

After a lengthy investigation, Ann Abraham, the parliamentary ombudswoman, ruled in favour of the publication of a memo recording the two men's conversation at a private breakfast in Downing St during sensitive contract negotiations with his company.

Following the refusal, the information commissioner, Richard Thomas, who has legal powers to order disclosure, will be asked to investigate.....

Send Clowns
19th Apr 2005, 11:55

So are the sleazy Tories who have been disowned by the party to be listened to now? Taxing wealth creation, massive increase in the tax burden at a time of economic growth and increasing the scope and power of the state is not socialist? I see you still haven't learnt any economics. What is the use of a degree in politics without economics?

Interesting that the Guardian seems to be giving Conservative Party propoganda now, isn't it ORAC?


Wedge has persuaded himself he is right. He has so much emotional investment in his previous decisions about Labour he cannot admit that the statements he makes might be wrong, despite not being able to back any of them up when asked. He switches instead to crowing that Labour will win, which might well be, but a phyrric victory for Wedge when he seems to be mistaken in every reason he has for wanting that win!

Send Clowns
21st Apr 2005, 17:48
"Everyone will be able to register with an NHS dentist". I paraphrase, but who said that? So how come my housemate cannot register, as none of the 24 dentists within 3 miles are accepting new NHS patients, and any further away will not take us at this address? He cannot afford private treatment.

So now I have to get dental insurance, because despite paying all these tax increases I get nothing, as this government doesn't see fit to bribe me and I have no wish to work for them. Similar to the private care I had to get because I would have had to wait at least 3 months for NHS treatment, and could not work much longer with the pain I was experiencing. That would be acceptible if we wanted a slim health service, and I would happily pay as I could afford it except for one fact: we are all paying for the excellent health service that should treat me immediately, having doubled our contributions in 8 years. We just don't get the service for which we have paid, we get targets the hospitals have to cheat to realise! So I pay twice, which I can ill afford, but the choice is not to work, which I cannot afford at all!

22nd Apr 2005, 07:22
The Times: Brown drags extra 500,000 earners into the tax net

HALF A MILLION more earners will be dragged into the income tax net this year after Gordon Brown’s March Budget again failed to raise tax allowances to keep pace with rising pay rates.

Revenue & Customs estimates show that the number of people who are liable to pay income tax in 2005-06 is about to climb to 30.5 million, having passed 30 million in the previous year. The latest steep increase in the number of taxpayers means that the total of people liable to pay income tax has jumped by 4.7 million since Labour took power in 1997 — rising from 25.7 million in the Conservatives’ final year in office......

The Revenue’s figures showing the continued increase in taxpayer numbers sparked further accusations from tax experts that Mr Brown is resorting to raising revenue by stealth through “fiscal drag”. This happens when the Chancellor increases tax thresholds only by inflation or less, so that, as pay rises faster, more people tax at higher rates, although the number of taxpayers can also be raised by a growing workforce as the population or employment rates increase.

“This Chancellor more than any other I can remember has exploited fiscal drag for the advantage of the Revenue’s coffers. He has dragged more people into the tax, and more of those into paying higher rate tax,” said Mike Warburton, senior tax partner at Grant Thornton, the leading accountancy group. As a result of fiscal drag, the amount paid in income tax has doubled since 1997, to an estimated £138 billion in 2005-06, without any increase in the tax rate........

Curious Pax
22nd Apr 2005, 10:31
SC: every sympathy with your dental plight (not an unusual one), but I think your friends in the Conservative Party caused that one when they were in power by allowing dentists to opt out of providing NHS care. There's a very valid argument that Labour should have reversed that ruling, but that was the root cause. Sadly it also takes years to train new dentists, so fixing the problem that way is a slow process.

ORAC: interesting article, as it implies that before wee Gordon got his hands on the purse strings the income tax allowances used to rise by more than inflation. Whilst I've no doubt that someone will be able to provide such figures back to the beginning of time, the tactic of raising these allowances by the amount of inflation has been an annual event for at least the last 20 years.

The most interesting point however is that it is a story spun (in my opinion) as an anti government one, which is surprising given the broad support for the government that The Times normally gives. Had it been in the Mail, Express or Telegraph I wouldn't have been surprised - maybe the Times is planning on not supporting Labour this time round, possibly to counterbalance the 'vote Labour' recommendation from its stablemate The Sun.

Send Clowns
22nd Apr 2005, 11:04
"... allowing dentists to opt out of providing NHS care ..." - what are we, a Communist dictatorship? Who gave us the right to decide which organisation a someone else must work for?

This government made a promise, very directly. It took the taxes to make that promise a reality, which taxes have become ridiculously high, but arguably justified if the promises are kept. There is no way to justify the tax rises if they are not kept!

Why should the un-taxed band not increase above inflation? It is too small, people are taxed on income they cannot possibly live on, then have to go cap in hand to the state. That was never a good state of affairs, but is more and more the case, that Brown takes our money just to give it back to those he sees as deserving. Doesn\'t that disgust you? It does me, and I am not the one cap in hand. I just lose the money, and cope with what he deigns to leave me. I am not ritually humiliated to get my own money back!

22nd Apr 2005, 12:11
possibly to counterbalance the 'vote Labour' recommendation from its stablemate The Sun.

The support from the premier Murdoch red-top is a boost for the Labour campaign. Perhaps it should not be over-estimated, but it will have come as a relief to Blair. 'One Last Chance' was the headline yesterday. Quite who the hell 'The Scum' think they are to decide on who governs us is not clear.

I accept of course that Labour have not delivered on all of their promises, I don't accept their record on stealth taxes is any worse than the last Tory government, who repeatedly introduced stealth taxes while dishonestly claiming to be the party of low taxation. Once again opinions are being passed off as 'facts' by those who appear unable to tell the difference.

The Howard strategy of concentrating on immigration, giving it much more prominence than it deserves and pandering to the worst racist sentiments of a section of the electorate has backfired. Of course 'It's not racist to impose limits on immigration'; but Howard knows very well that he is using emotive language that stirs up racial tension.

Curious Pax
22nd Apr 2005, 13:36
That's some spin on what I actually said! The current state of affairs with the dentists came about due to the Tories changing the rules regarding the NHS work they were supposed to do. Fair enough, as they were the elected government of the day, but it didn't take much insight to work out that as dentists could make more money from private work it would be the NHS patients that would suffer, and as there weren't vast armies of unemployed dentists sitting around to take up the slack there would be a gap.

Having said that, a dentist looking to set up a new practice can be quids in if they get lucky. My parents' dentist recently announced they were dropping NHS work, but fortuitously a new practice has just set up half a mile away that both had capacity, and is doing NHS work - I bet their practice will be getting patients a lot faster than they originally envisioned!

Much of it comes back to a comment I made a few days ago, whereby politicians of all hues, fuelled by their media interrogators really don't make enough of the fact that there is no instant fix to this sort of problem by either side when you consider that training a new dentist from scratch takes over 5 years I believe. No matter how many billions are invested, no matter how many inefficiencies are eliminated, if you want more dentists then they need to be properly trained, and that takes time.

As far as the tax bands are concerned, I wasn't arguing about the levels at which they are set - indeed there is a case for re-evaluating all the different allowances and simplifying things by reducing them whilst at the same time increases the basic allowance, to neutralise the effect. The point I was making was that what Brown has done in that respect is no different to his Tory predecessors for many years, and so criticising him personally for merely continuing the routine seemed unfair.

Stealth taxes get mentioned ad nauseam, but has anyone a link to a site that specifies what they all are, with a similar list using the same criteria covering the Tory years. I bet it would show neither party in a good light!

Send Clowns
22nd Apr 2005, 14:42

We're still waiting for all that corruption ....


That was no spin at all! I was directly quoting you and answering the implication, so if there was spin it was yours. You have not given any explanation of why the government should be able to control who works for whom.

They should give sufficient incentive to work for the NHS, or more sensibly change dentistry to a universal private insurance, with assistance for those that cannot afford or who are a high insurance risk, such as diabetics. Then at least you don't get people like me, not at all well-paid but moving a lot so having to register with a new dentist and ending up paying twice! I don't mind paying my way; it is paying twice to which I object.

Tony Blair made the promise, he is responsible for keeping it! If that was not possible he should not have promised, and so been elected on a lie. You can't blame the press, they did not force him.

I can get private care, so the problem is not lack of dentists, it is the fact that they are underpaid for their skills if they purely do NHS work, due partly to the increases of costs. Remember they are self-employed, so they do not get teh generous state pensions. They are a middle-class part of the cash cow this government treats with such distain, and onto whom so much burden is put (and yes, I am partly self-employed).

We have paid for the treatment in taxes. If I calculated the tax I have paid in the last 8 years that I would not have had to pay under the extant tax schemes in 1997 then by a conservative estimate it would have paid for me to have my own doctor for 2 months and a dentist for 3 weeks. Yet I still don't get the help of either when I need it! In that time the only care the NHS has paid for me was when I was a donor, when someone much less fortunate than I needed it. To keep myself, being only mildly ill, off invalidity benefit for 3 months I had to pay!

Curious Pax
22nd Apr 2005, 15:21
I'm obviously not explaining myself very well, so I'll try again.

I wasn't particularly taking issue with the rules under which dentists operate, rather I was pointing out that the situation that exists was triggered by the Tories changing the rules regarding dentists' obligations to the NHS. It is the change from one system to the other that has caused the problem, rather than the principle, although I'm not very sympathetic to the idea that the NHS necessarily needs to pay as much as the private sector. If dentists had to pay the full costs of their training, then I would agree with you, but given that they only pay a small proportion (granted it is slightly more now than a few years ago) then I would argue that that carries an obligation to contribute something back.

You may argue that this is different to most peoples degrees, where you get the degree then are free to do what you want, but I believe that the extra cost and time for training dentists (and surgeons come to that) justifies it. I've also found it hard to be sympathetic to any suggestion of financial hardship among dentists ever since I saw a survey suggesting that the dentists were the profession most likely to own a Porsche! Sweeping generalisation I know, but there we go.

I'm also not defending Labour for promising to fix it quick - as I have described before that is a pretty daft thing to say given the training time. However I'm unconvinced that there is a surplus of dentists - if that were the case.

I'm intrigued by your assessment that you have paid sufficient extra tax since 1997 (compared to what you would have paid at the levels at that time) to finance your own doctor for 2 months and your own dentist for 3 weeks. If it weren't so intrusive I would ask you to quantify that as unless you are earning a substantial amount of money I would find that very hard to believe. The NHS careers website quotes for 2004 a new doctor would receive around 35K, with a dentist not a million miles away - so you would need at least 8K to cover that (and I think that is understating it if you want someone experienced).

I understand what you are saying about paying twice, but that is the case for anyone who takes out any sort of health insurance, uses private education, toll roads etc - that's the way the system is designed. That could be changed, but they'd need more tax revenue, which I don't think you're all that keen on!

Send Clowns
22nd Apr 2005, 19:05
No, your explanation was fine and understood, although I had inferred criticism of the change made by the Tories that you may not have intended. My point is that Toneee has had the time to sort all this out, he has promised to sort it all out in a given time frame and he has not done so. If he had even made some headway I would probably accept the situation, as I am cynical enough to think that things always take longer than expected, but the situation seems to have become worse!

You cannot oblige someone to give back work due from training unless an explicit agreement is made beforehand. You cannot simply make it a retrospective commitment. I agree that such an agreement or making people pay for their training is an acceptible response, but the governemnt has not sought to make either change to the system.

My extra tax burden includes the tax relief I would have had on my training, which I did have to pay for myself. If you are a pilot you might realise how much I have invested in making myself employable again after losing a previous career, and I would suggest that it is unreasonable to expect me to pay tax on the earnings used to pay for that training, especially as I was on a low-paid temporarty job before training and had no income at all (not even benefits) while training. The Conservative government agreed, and encouraged self-training by tax relief. The Labout party told another lie when they talked about supporting "life-long learning", as they cancelled the tax relief I could have claimed.

I lost £9k there alone, but my estimate included other employment costs, holiday and sick pay, NI contributions.

On top of that I have a pension, PEP and ISA (the first as I take responsibility for myself, unlike those this government favours, the last two attached to my mortgage). These have all lost money to extra government tax, even before you consider the suppression of the stock market this has caused. Add that to my and my employer's extra NI contribution, I seem to recal lthat's 3% total of my earnings above £4500 per annum, and the fiscal drag on the bottom of the tax bands ...

I don't want private health care! However I need dental care available, I'm a pilot and cannot fly with certain dental problems! If my back is so bad I cannot stand in the classroom for 4 hours a day, and cannot move my back far enough to keep my medical and carry on flying, I cannot earn any money! The choice is to pay or go on invalidity benefit for 3 months until I get NHS treatment and let down my students and my employers; I lose, the taxpayer loses, my employers lose, my students lose. The only people that don't lose are Tonee and his cronies, because they get money to gerrymander, by putting people in state-dependent jobs, and others on state benefits, which on average increases the Labour vote!

I have no choice but to pay twice. It should not need more tax revenue to treat me - the health budget rose steadily in real terms under the Conservatives. Since 1997 it has doubled. My wholoe point is we have paid that tax, but get nothing for it! It has been wasted by "Prudence" Brown!

Can I tell you all again - it is a myth have to be earning a lot to have higher tax under Labour. Anyone who is not in one of their favoured groups, anyone they cannot make dependent upon the state, loses.

Correction: missed one section of hte course, an extra £1500 tax paid, make that £10,500.

22nd Apr 2005, 19:30
I accept of course that Labour have not delivered on all of their promises, I don't accept their record on stealth taxes is any worse than the last Tory government, who repeatedly introduced stealth taxes while dishonestly claiming to be the party of low taxation. Once again opinions are being passed off as 'facts' by those who appear unable to tell the difference. On that basis would you please state what so called 'Stealth Taxes' were introduced by the Conservative Government please?
On a similar note could you please enlighten us on what promises Labour actually HAVE delivered.

Curious Pax I am led to believe that there is not a shortage of dentists per se but a shortage of dentists willing to do NHS work owing to the low remuneration, which is something quite different.

Send Clowns
23rd Apr 2005, 00:32

I must admit I forgot to answer that one, so will add to Astro's comment. What was the overall tax burden in 1996/97 tax year? What was it this year? Which is the party of low taxation?

Or do you not know, and was your opinion just passed off as fact?

23rd Apr 2005, 05:50
I don't want a party of low taxation.

I'm bored with Labour and Tories both trying to fiddle the figures to show they will give us something for nothing when anyone with an ounce of intelligence knows that neither will do so.

I want higher taxation. I want an NHS system that actually functions. In other words, I don't want politicians sticking their noses into subjects they don't understand. As long as they focus only on hospital waiting lists, the system will be skewed. The NHS consists of rather more than that, and other areas have suffered for years. Dentistry is one, psychiatric care another. "Care in the Community" is a nonsense. Hospitals are now run by beancounters who don't understand what the bottom line represents. The Tories handed out free gifts to their friends in privatising services such as hospital cleaning, who employ the same people as were employed by the NHS before, except that their private employers now have to make a profit. So cleaning is more perfunctory, the cleaners are paid less in real terms, and are more demotivated. So Michaelllll Howard putting out glib slogans about MRSA I find sickening.

I want higher taxation to pay for the infrastructure of the country - rail, recycling, investment in future power, etc. I want taxation (by whatever name) to provide people with the state pensions they have worked all their lives to earn, only to find they are cheated just when they can do nothing about it.

I want immigration. I want skills shortages to be made up by suitably qualified immigrants. I want taxation to pay for a sensible form of screening of immigrants at our Consulates in their home countries, not to have them penned up in detainment camps and treated abysmally on their arrival here. I want taxation to pay for genuine asylum seekers - to allow them to work, to support them until they can find work, when we can tax them which we cannot while they are banned from supporting themselves. And I want taxation to provide a method of working out who are illegal immigrants and returning them to their last country of departure.

I want politicians who are accountable to their electorates, not people who smarm all over us once every four or five years and then treat us as if we were stupid ignorant busybodies who have no right to ask them questions about how they are doing their job.

I want higher taxation. I do not want anything that Labour or Conservative are offering. I see no future in the sort of banging on that we've seen on this thread:- "Labour did this" "Well, Conservative were worse" "Oh yeah? Well what about such-and-such?" "Nyaaaa nyaaaah" "Nyaaaa nyaaaaaah nyaaaahhhh to you with knobs on". Jeeez, it's almost as childish as Prime Minister's Question time.

23rd Apr 2005, 11:24

Well posted. I agree with everything you say, including the criticisms of Labour and the obsession both parties have with cutting tax while purporting to maintain the same level of public services. And you don't need a degree in Economics to see that's not possible.

Agree also that this thread is the predictable 'Look at what Labour have done', 'well look what the Tories did', of which I am guilty in no small measure of being a party to!

It's true that Hospitals and their NHS trusts are now so concerned with meeting their targets that care is suffering as a result. It's also quite true that the present problems with MRSA are directly attributable to Tory mismanagement and their flawed ideological obsession with privatisation.

On immigration, I agree, the question is not can we manage with them but can we manage without them? The fundamental problem however is the economic concentration in the South East at the expense of the rest of the country, which stretches the infrastructure in the South East to its very limits. This is what I would like to see politicians address.

That said, this election is a straight choice between the Tories and Labour and I know which one I trust on the economy, healthcare, education, immigration and the welfare state.

Send Clowns
23rd Apr 2005, 11:52
Well XXTSGR you are welcome to pay the government as much as you like. I am sure it won't be thrown back at you.

However I suggest that if you knew anything at all about economics you would not welcome high tax. The reason is that high taxation suppresses the productive economy. This in turn suppresses the amount of money moving round, and in the end reduces the total tax taken. It has been proved in practice, it is sound theory.

Even worse under the current rising of taxes productivity in the public sector has dropped so sharply that little is being gained from the massive tax rises that have occured. The money is just being thrown around, largely to gain the Labour party votes in the election. They are gerrymandering with it, bribing the public with our money.

You have not addressed the clear fact that although the NHS is getting everything you want - twice as much money as in 1997 - it is not significantly better. In fact the problems that Labour has tried to solve, such as dentistry, have got worse!

I want low taxes, I want to be responsible for myself and those who cannot do for themselves, not for a whole clot of people who think the world owes them a living, I want the restoration between effort and reward, so that the private pension I pay for makes me better off, rather than making me a cash cow to pay for the pensions of my contemporaries and those younger who are drinking their money away every night in town.

By the way, they didn't "...work all their lives to earn [the pensions]". That was a lie by the government that introduced the social security system. They worked all their lives to live and pay taxes. They paid a new tax called National Insurance, that was used as general taxation, it wasn't insurance at all. None of it was saved for retirement. We are paying their pensions. I'm just correcting your assumptions, I have no problem with that, except of course I pay twice, as I pay but am unlikely to get a state pension the way these things are going. A Conservative government will eventually remove state pension entirely, replacing it with a private scheme with support for the less well-off (quite rightly) or else a Labour government will take most of it off me on the quite irrational grounds that I take responsibility for myself and have a private pension, and those that spent all their money when younger should somehow be given mine whn older. You ever read the story of the ant and the grasshopper (http://www.wilk4.com/humor/humorm332.htm)?

23rd Apr 2005, 14:46
.....the clear fact that although the NHS is getting everything you want - twice as much money as in 1997 - it is not significantly better.

Have to differ there.

I, my wife and newborn daughter have had significant use of the NHS' excellent services over the past 4 years and I can without a shadow of doubt say that it is SUBSTANTIALLY better.

I saw it with my own eyes.

New equipment.
New trainee nurses, loads of 'em,
Local GP access improved dramatically, through changes in working practices and investment in new buildings etc.

Surgeons expertly rebuilt my arm after an ..er heavy landing in a hang-glider.

I appreciate that there are some hospitals and local NHS services that are below par but through my own experience in two major hospitals 60 miles apart, they are a credit to our society and I am indebted to everyone of it's staff.

I must also thank those British taxpayers, who have not had to use the system, for their contributions over the years for without it I would be bankrupt. :ok:

23rd Apr 2005, 17:42
Wedge, by all means postulate 'how can we do without them' I simply ask you differentiate between the genuine immigrants and asylum seekers and those who are lying cheating and sneaking in simply to enjoy the subsidised lifestyle which is supporting a great many illegals who have flooded in due to the non existant 'controlls' instituted and put in place???? by the present government over the last eight years.
A government who apparently believes there is no limit to the number that can be supported and that it is 'racist' to attempt to do so. Trumpets the 'racism' and 'stirring of racial tension' by the opposition by drawing attention to the fact that there are no controlls and that millions of taxpayers money are daily going on lying cheating people who have unfairly jumped the que, and are here simply for the money.

23rd Apr 2005, 18:20
I’ve just spent a rare two hours with a consultant haematologist while he supervised a machine that was doing something beneficial (I hope) to my blood. It gave me an opportunity to sound him out on what was really happening in the NHS.

I came away convinced that, given another 4/5 years of New Labour, the NHS will have deteriorated significantly. What I (or he) cannot say is whether it would deteriorate more or less under any of the other parties.

The drive to meet targets has been broken down into a multitude of mini-targets for each hospital doctor. This appears to be taking away from doctors the freedom to make sound decisions based on individual, medical aspects of a case. Rather, they are treated like third form students (his words) instead of professionals. He currently works about 60 hours a week and is paid for 40. He says that the new generation of consultants will only work 40. Many of those hours are spent in meetings discussing targets and new management procedures. When this happens, the treatment I was receiving, for which I had to wait one day, would only be available after a long wait as there was only one nurse trained to carry it out. He gave up his time to do it himself for which I am extremely grateful. I imagine it would have hit his targets badly but I got the impression that he was more interested in providing appropriate care.

In his opinion, the 20% extra spending on the NHS has produced 1% increase in productivity.

He told me that, in his experience, most current hospital consultants can’t wait to get out and that he was building up his pension to retire early. It worries me when I see this kind of commitment, experience and skill being put at risk.

It seems to me that, while the NHS may end up with superb controls and procedures, if it loses highly motivated, professional medical staff, it must deteriorate.

Modern bureaucracy never seems to recognise the value of personnel morale and motivation. It thinks that procedures and systems will make everything work efficiently and, for some activities it can.

I still don’t know how to vote but I am convinced that we have to get rid of national targets.

23rd Apr 2005, 18:38
Send Clowns, I suggest you don't attempt to patronise me. My understanding of economics is rather better than yours.

In examining economics you also need to examine the social history in which it operates. Slightly more complex than your O-level model. So spare us. It is, quite simply, not true that higher taxes reduce productivity. And the only reason that both major parties are trying to shove low taxes down our throats is the snake-oil salesman's trick of trying to persuade us we'll get something for nothing.

Your beloved Tories don't have the answers. After too many years of That Bloody Woman and her incompetent cronies and successors the country was in ruins. She made greed an acceptable motive and you demonstrate that quite ably. She started the politicisation of the Civil Service and Labour took her lead.

Labour don't have the answers either. They're stuck in the same rut as the Tories. Either party will say anything just to be allowed to leave their trotters in the feeding trough. They care nothing about the country or their electors. They have no principles, integrity or honesty.

A plague on them all and the system that permits them to sponge off the rest of us.

23rd Apr 2005, 22:38
Sorry for butting in, but it's all too complicated and long for me. :8

As I see it, a vote for anyone other than Conservative will ultimately end up with Labour returning to power.

A good thing for some, but I'd really hate to see Bliars, Browns (PM in a fortnight) and Prescotts gloating faces on the morning of the 6th of May.

Talk about getting away with murder, literally!!!:ooh:

A lot of things concern me and labour isn't my solution!
Thanks for your time.

23rd Apr 2005, 23:54
Did some electioneering in uniform the other day for the Conservatives, did not find many voting for TCB!

Oh yeah and its Sir John now! Well done, appointed by the Queen directly! Also a member of the MCC, top fella..unlike TCB who follows a very CH sport called soccer.

24th Apr 2005, 02:25

I disagree. Reagan and Thatcher proved that taxes had reached a point beyond which higher taxes sapped both productivity and government revenue. Send Clowns is quite right.

And contrary to your view, Maggie's regime stopped what was a seemingly inexorable post-WWII slide and restored vitality both to the British economy and its spirit. Just look at the numbers, be they inflation, unemployment, or GDP or virtually any other economic measure. And she saved the honour of the crown in the Falklands to boot. Collectively as a people, the US and UK put conservative governments in place from time to time to undo the havoc wrought by the intervening years of leftist rule.


24th Apr 2005, 05:57
Thank you for your opinion, BenThere. And you know what they say about opinions?

24th Apr 2005, 08:53

........ I don't want politicians sticking their noses into subjects they don't understand.

and yet you then say

I want higher taxation to pay for the infrastructure of the country - rail, recycling, investment in future power, etc. I want taxation (by whatever name) to provide people with the state pensions they have worked all their lives to earn, only to find they are cheated just when they can do nothing about it.

So you don't want the politicians sticking their noses into subjects they don't understand but want then to take more of our money to spend on....er things they don't understand i.e business.

Since when has any government ever spent money wisely?

The less of mine they take the less they can waste.

Socialism is an ideal that most of us grow out of by our mid-twenties, it doesn't work.

24th Apr 2005, 14:27
I simply ask you differentiate between the genuine immigrants and asylum seekers and those who are lying cheating and sneaking in simply to enjoy the subsidised lifestyle

I'm prepared to differentiate between legal and illegal immigration. Of course in an ideal world everybody would play by the rules. If they did of course, their chances of being admitted to the country would be greatly reduced, which is why I think it's repugnant to demonise a poor third-world would-be migrant for breaking the rules simply because they aspire to a lifestyle more akin to the one you and I enjoy. Immigrants are, and always have been, an easy target for politicians and the hysteria of the electorate. You have just demonstrated that admirably, Pater.

There is a difference of course between an economic migrant and an asylum seeker. By the same rationale, we all know it's far easier to dishonestly claim asylum than join the back of the queue for legal economic migration. If I was a third world migrant, poor, hungry, lacking in basic subsistence and healthcare, with no hope of finding a better life in my country I know what I would do, and I'd suggest you might well do the same Pater.

SC admits himself he is not an expert in economics, nor am I, but he also suggests that if you don't have a basic grasp of economic principles you are incapable of holding or putting forward a valid opinion. Of course, all of SC's arguments are underpinned by his ideological devotion to the Conservatives. I accept that Labour don't have all the answers, New Labour is essentially an ideological 'one nation Tory' party. And those who are suggesting that the current government do or ever have had anything to do with 'Socialism' are vastly mistaken. If you don't believe me, go and ask a Socialist what he thinks of Blair! Even staunch Tories like Astrodome have pointed out on this thread that Brown economics are of the right wing Adam Smith ilk.

I know enough about economics to know that the taxation v revenue and productivity scale is called a Laffer curve, and where on that curve you decide to put your cross is a matter of ideological opinion, NOT fact as certain posters would have you believe.

Ah, and since we have got on to the subject of Thatcher, it's always wise to remember the words of the great Stephen Fry:

"Well of course, he's absolutely right, it is ludicrously easy to knock Mrs Thatcher. It's the simplest, easiest and most obvious thing in the world to remark that she's a shameful, putrid scab; an embarrassing ludicrous monstrosity who makes one feel frankly ashamed to be British and that her ideals and standards are a stain on our national history. That's easy. Anyone can see that. There's nothing difficult about that." :ok:

tony draper
24th Apr 2005, 20:00
Hmmm, Any reason why should we in England be subjected to a party political broadcast by the Scotish national party?
:confused: :rolleyes:

24th Apr 2005, 20:32
"illogical devotion to the Conservatives" Wedge? It is you who refuses justify your devotion to the Labour party. I have set out the logic in great detail, we're still waiting for the answer to my question (that is over a week now of you trying to step round it - some might think you were spouing off in the first place without being able to justify your illogical devotion to The Labour party....).


And you have put your opinion. It may be that high taxes can be instituted without decreasing productivity. You have not suggested a regime where this has been the case. I have provided an example of where high tax and the severing of the link between effort and reward by the tax/benefit system has reduced productivity, and Ben has given two examples where reduction of taxes increased productivity so much that tax receipts increased.

Who is working on opinion, who on the basis of established fact?

You are talking garbage about Thatcher's legacy. Britain was going down the toilet in 1979, everyone could see it. There was no way any likely candidate other than Thatcher could have pulled te rocvoery off. You are now enefitig fom the luxury she afforded you.

24th Apr 2005, 20:36
Any reason why should we in England be subjected to a party political broadcast by the Scotish national partyMy thoughts exactly, Mr D.

Even one with a voiceover by a man who loves Scotland so much he lives in Spain...... :E

tony draper
24th Apr 2005, 20:49
Yeh,noticed his speech impediment seems to be getting worsh,unless of course he was told to exagerate it so there would be no doubt as to who it was, I mean,after all, everybody can do his "Hello Mish Moneypenny"
The difference in 76 was it looked like the South East was going to go down the tubes along with the rest of the country for a change, and we could not possibly allow that could we.

24th Apr 2005, 22:54
Nimrod - examine most of the rest of Europe, whose taxes are higher than those of the UK. Then tell me that high taxes in, say, Germany, have damaged productivity.

24th Apr 2005, 23:27
examine most of the rest of Europe, whose taxes are higher than those of the UK. Then tell me that high taxes in, say, Germany, have damaged productivity We could but would not wish to embarrass you.

Current opinion of most EU Countries is that taxation is too high and many Countries are now ruing the day they joined.

25th Apr 2005, 03:59
OK - have it your way.

If you have read my posts so far in this thread, you'll know that I really don't care that much. The fact remains that there is nothing to choose between the two main parties. They both will tell whatever lies they need to in order to get/stay in power.

I don't want the policies of either of them, and I don't want the current political system which encourages the grandstanding, sound-bite, shallow, interfering busybodying they both seem to love.

If you are so worked up that you give a damn about either of them, then you are trapped by the system and can't think "outside the box". Your loss.

25th Apr 2005, 12:32
From Sky News:
UK airports handled 217m passengers last year - a rise of 8% on the previous 12 months.


If you think about the implications of that it makes you realise that any party that promises to improve border controls is talking nonsense. Add in millions of vehicle movements on the ferries, and it can't be done without paralysing normal life.

25th Apr 2005, 13:19
Is there an election coming?

Send Clowns
25th Apr 2005, 13:26


That post by "Nimrod" was actually mine.

I didn't realise he had been logged into my computer, and hadn't noticed the Logged-in User bit. Don't want to pass off my views as his!

25th Apr 2005, 13:31
Yes I had surmised it was you SC.

Anyway, I said 'ideological', not 'illogical'! although that it may be as well ;)

Do keep up sir!

Send Clowns
25th Apr 2005, 13:44

First you have ignored most of the point, by concentrating on productivity. In fact I only mentioned productivity as it related to government spending, not to the economy as a whole. In this caseproductivity drop has meant that much of our extra tax is wasted, regardless of what you think of the Germans ( :confused: ).

Low productivity is by no means the only factor that reduces tax receipts in a high-tax regime, and I never did anything to say that it was, so have you accepted that tax receipts generally go down when tax rates rise, and up when tax rates fall (taken in the long term, and over th normal range of a modern tax system)?

I was talking about changes of tax rates among a single population. It has been shown that careful, targetted reductions in tax rates immediately increase tax revenue. It has further been shown that many broader reductions in tax rates increase the total tax revenue in the longer term. I have given examples, and am still awauiting counter examples that relate to the case I am making, rather than the case you think you can prove wrong, whether I tried to make that case or not.

You are then not comparing like with like. In fact you are the one doing what you said I was doing, using "O-level economics", only comparing the most basic economic factors and ignoring the sociological ones. Germany has slightly higher taxes than Britain, and slightly higher productivity in some areas of the economy. However that is a different country, with a separate economy, a different history and a distict culture and different expectations.

Finally you are compounding error with misinformation (I believe it is misinformation, as I don't think you are thick enough not to notice what you are doing) by concentrating on a single example that fit your professed belief, and ignoring those that don't. There is very low productivity across much of high-tax Europe in any case, so it appears that your comment not only doesn't answer my case, but it also looks like pure propoganda!


OK, well I don't have an "ideological" devotion to the Conservatives. I have an "ideological" devotion to supporting people. I want people to be encouraged to lead real lives that help them to be fulfilled, contented, confidant people, whatever that means to them, as long as it means they take responsibility for themselves whenever they are able to. I don't want people to be manipulated for some politician's feast of power, of desire for control.

That is why I hate socialism, a political creed that aims to deepen people's dependency, and to control their lives. That is why I like Howard's core theme of trusting people, and why I despise Blair's open manipulation of the media and of government authority, his open betrayal of the constitution to try and make people do what he wants them to do, and to make them dependent first on the state and, through that dependence on the state that is supported by Labour, dependent on the Labour party itself.

This is an arrogant, self-serving way of governing people. Labour patronises those over whom it has control, despises those that are independent of it, regardless of their class and wealth, unless it can take them into its lies, into the depth of their deceit and use them to further "the cause", and flatters lazy "intellectuals" who wouldn't recognise a fulfilled person if they tripped over him. Their whole being is the great lie of socialism: they exist not to help the masses to realise their potential, for that would be the end of the need for the labour movement; they exist to keep those masses in dependency, to sustain the labour movement and their power over people.

Labour hated Thatcher so much because she was such a threat. She was not a threat because she harmed the poor and the working classes, that would have helped Labour no end. She was a threat because she helped them. Do you know why the polls got the 1992 election so wrong, in that tragedy for the Tories (if Labour had won, they would have suffered for Black Wednesday instead, their policy shows it was inevitable, and trust slipped so much that they would have been third in the polls)? The head of Mori told a most telling truth. By 1992 the information from the 1991 census was not yet available for pollsters. When it was checked it showed that the middle classes had grown more in the ten years from 1981 than in any othre decade. Thatcher had taken people, and given the opportunity to advance themselves, and people had taken that opportunity. She had trusted them, let them take responsibility for themselves, and allowed them advancement, social mobility, if they wished to take it. They did.

Still waiting for that corruption ... or for you to admit it doesn't exist.

25th Apr 2005, 15:08
Then tell me that high taxes in, say, Germany, have damaged productivity. No, the reason for that were very high wages: 6-7% increase annually was normal under the pressure of the mighty Gewerkschaften (Unions), short, inflexible working hours and the Myth of the German Productivity. Probably Germany has now the most socialist labour laws in the EU.

She was not a threat because she harmed the poor and the working classes, that would have helped Labour no end. She was a threat because she helped them Didn't she wanted to introduce the Poll Tax and wasn't that the reason for her downfall brought upon by the peasants (aka poor people)? :hmm:I disagree. Reagan and Thatcher proved that taxes had reached a point beyond which higher taxes sapped both productivity and government revenue. Reaganomics have already been repudiated long time ago as a hoax and an ecomomic blather. Even it's inventor has dissociated himself from it.

Nil nos tremefacit
25th Apr 2005, 15:17
I have been away from pprune for a little while as I'm busy doing other things. Having read previous political threads I have always been of the opinion that ultimately the only solution is to stand up and be counted. I have been on my District Council and I sit on my Town Council, having been re-elected for a second term.

The news is that Nil nos tremefacit is standing for Parliament. :confused:

Yep, those of you who live in the Witney Constituency will have my name on your ballot paper!!!

I have read the thread and agree with some bits and disagree with others as you might expect, but the only way I am going to put my views into a public forum is to stand myself.

So, there we have it, ppruner stands for MP.

If you want to see how much weight I've put on since I left the RAF and my wife died look at www.votewesson.co.uk (http://www.votewesson.co.uk)

You don't have to agree with me, but I've put my money where my mouth is.:ok:

Send Clowns
25th Apr 2005, 15:17
That is the myth, isn't it. Reality is that there was great demand to replace rates as a way of funding local government. This was presented as an alternative, as quite a popular policy at the election, and actually in the form introduced, with assistance for those that needed it was not a bad one, although local authorities used it to hide increases. The howling socialists managed to destroy it, as much to damage Thatcher as anything. We ended up with a de facto rating system back, and even higher bills!

25th Apr 2005, 16:07
...although local authorities used it to hide increases. And that was exactly the problem. Thatcher should have put limits on the taxation and should have lowered the taxes instead of letting the local councils (Labor and Tory) decide. Like Reagan, it's all political free-market yada yada and no contents.

Send Clowns
25th Apr 2005, 16:58
Local taxation does rather rely on people actually taking notice of when their council is wasting their money, and voting them out. Most don't seem to, and vote on national politics or the political leanings of their parents more than local issues.

Curious Pax
25th Apr 2005, 17:24
I don't think that there will ever be a consensus as to the best means of local taxation, because all the options can be rubbished in terms that are real to people. For example, the poll tax was despised because it was too easy to demonstrate that a family of 4 in 1 house (all over 18) might be paying 4 times as much per household as the single person next door, when both just wanted street lighting and their bins emptying. Same argument was used the other way round of course to justify the removal of the rates in favour of the poll tax.

I could be wrong, but I have an idea that at the same time as it was being introduced the Tories were trying to reduce the proportion of local government finance raised centrally, which gave the appearance of increased poll tax bills, even if in theory the total amount of public money used was the same. That was some shot in the foot!

Given that there is no perfect solution, I do have a lot of sympathy with the idea of a local income tax, because there is at least a measure of matching the bil with the ability to pay. Unfortunately because much of local government money is spent on social services and education, reasonably well paid childless people will inevitably be funding the less well off, and will feel happier with the poll tax. However the whole idea of tax isn't that you should just cough up as much as is needed to pay for things you agree with - as has been pointed out in the past when people in pullovers have tried to withhold the part of their taxes that they deemed were used for nuclear weapons and the like. If that were the case then we could abandon most public services, and let people sink or swim as appropriate. But even our friends across the Atlantic don't (quite) go that far!

25th Apr 2005, 20:42
XXTSGR and Wedge, you two are quite entitled to the opinions you both adhere to. What is interesting is that while requesting that you not be patronised you however are very free with that very method of airy dismissive adress. How very similar you are to the party line you both follow.
To my mind most of the time though the methods may vary the ultimate goal is very often the same one. It would however seem historicaly that the differenent methods employed sometimes have results that have not succeeded in quite being what was sought.

To perhaps look at another subject. What can be deplored with say education is that the gap between the have's and have nots in Britain is widening.
It's cause we are told is simple. Money.

I have always been led to understand that children from the moment they are born are soaking up information at a huge rate. That they learn massively from observation and example.
What example can be gained by the child of a sixteen year old observing a parent who dropped out of school as a single parent to get a house, and lives on welfare. What stock did they set on education what example will they set. What example can be gained by a child who lives in a culture where discipline is fast becoming a joke. Where schoolteachers cannot teach because they cannot controll classes. If they attempt to ban students these are returned and carry on disruption. Where standards of exams are being lowered. Why should grammer schools which have been centres of social upward mobility through better education have been the target of two succeeding education ministers. If more and more people feel that they should be supported by welfare what example is being set to the younger poorer and more vulnerable members of society that perhaps are not being encouraged more by parents who themselves gained little out of education.
It has been my experience that parents who have sacrificed much finacialy to ensure that their children did get a better education, and did encourage them, did get a better result and their children will probably do better, and in turn probably do the same for their kids. Or have I got it all wrong again. is it just money or could there be other factors that somehow it isn't nice or PC or is insulting to mention. Maybe its just money.

Nil nos tremefacit
25th Apr 2005, 23:38
'grammer schools' ??????;)

26th Apr 2005, 00:00
'Grammar' for school(s)
'Grammer' for writing.

Paterbrat Pardon me reminding you, but you forgot to mention something !. This being the number of Labour Ministers and MPs who send their children to grammar and public schools !

Another piece of Labour hypocracy.

Mind you there is so much, it is difficult to know where to start or indeed when to stop !

Recent Labour lies have been unearthed whereby classroom assistants (those not qualified or authorised to teach) have been counted as 'teachers' ..............to improve the figures somewhat.

26th Apr 2005, 00:23
I don't know about taxation or voting or much more.... what I do know is that my children no longer speak; except for explicits or swear words. Blair's schools are obviously working in London!
Thankyou to Flaps for not deleting the thread, when it so clearly about politcs . However, I spent years believing that communism was the only true way and truly believe that if we all worked together it would achieve what Marx was working towards,which was to de-rail the State.
Everyone should be able to be educated, have health-care and be supportd.Trouble is nobody realy cares

26th Apr 2005, 01:22
It's 'Grammar' as in grammar school.

It's 'Grammar' as in grammatical rules.

And it's 'hypocrisy' also, btw ;)

I don't usually correct spellings, but thought I would in this case as you have incorrectly corrected!

26th Apr 2005, 02:01
SC, thank you for pointing out that Germany is a different country. That had quite escaped my notice. I had assumed that it was exactly the same country as UK, and the fact that there is a different government and language was merely coincidence - like Wales but with lederhosen. :rolleyes:

Now, can you please explain what you mean by... productivity as it related to government spending, not to the economy as a whole. ? :confused:

Send Clowns
26th Apr 2005, 10:08
The same as anyone would mean; the amount of work achieved by a given quantity of government paid workers in a given time. If you haven't been watching the news you might have missed that it has been falling at a rate of a significant fraction of spending increase. Public-sector inflation is even greater in fact, which is the increas in cost of a given amount of work, as the workers (both public-sector and private contractors) are more expensive, due to higher public spending and the law of supply and demand.

The comparrison I was making was across a period of time for a single nation. Comparing Germany to the UK is not equivalent, even were it not missing the point I was making.