Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2010 11:18:23 GMT 1
thanks nick. as someone who was very critical of the last government, do u have anything to say about the new one, i dont recall u suggesting all politicians should work together during the previous administration. odd that. i also have children and indeed grand children, but i personally would feel a lot happier and confident with a Labour government in power, than this bunch of political hoars.
|
|
|
Post by Victoria on May 26, 2010 11:46:37 GMT 1
I think this whole thread sums up the saying: Don't vote or else the government might get in.
Nothing will change until spoiled ballots start winning seats. People who think the current coalition is going to achieve anything are deluded. The fact two individuals from the opposite sides of the political spectrum have crawled into bed with eachother proves these people will do anything for power.
If after this charade you think these people have the countrys interests at heart think again. Same sh*t different day.
Arguing over who is better, is like arguing over whose fart smells the nicest.
|
|
|
Post by monkee on May 26, 2010 11:56:16 GMT 1
I think this whole thread sums up the saying: Don't vote or else the government might get in. Nothing will change until spoiled ballots start winning seats. People who think the current coalition is going to achieve anything are deluded. The fact two individuals from the opposite sides of the political spectrum have crawled into bed with eachother proves these people will do anything for power. If after this charade you think these people have the countrys interests at heart think again. Same sh*t different day. Arguing over who is better, is like arguing over whose fart smells the nicest. well put, but i wonder how many constituancies would be "won" by people who dont vote. I would imagine its a fair few, but they do nothing about that apart from getting them to lie to us directly on live TV. we get the government we deserve, greedy, self centred and ignorant.
|
|
|
Post by Victoria on May 26, 2010 12:24:06 GMT 1
I think this whole thread sums up the saying: Don't vote or else the government might get in. Nothing will change until spoiled ballots start winning seats. People who think the current coalition is going to achieve anything are deluded. The fact two individuals from the opposite sides of the political spectrum have crawled into bed with eachother proves these people will do anything for power. If after this charade you think these people have the countrys interests at heart think again. Same sh*t different day. Arguing over who is better, is like arguing over whose fart smells the nicest. well put, but i wonder how many constituancies would be "won" by people who dont vote. I would imagine its a fair few, but they do nothing about that apart from getting them to lie to us directly on live TV. we get the government we deserve, greedy, self centred and ignorant. You're exactly right, I think it would a majority government too. I am a firm believer in the system we have because it is possible to do that. If you harnessed 10% of the effort this thread requires and spent it on trying to change EVERYTHING it would be time better spent. Instead we'r exactly where they want us. Fighting amongst ourselves.
|
|
|
Post by nicko on May 26, 2010 12:44:50 GMT 1
thanks nick. as someone who was very critical of the last government, do u have anything to say about the new one, i dont recall u suggesting all politicians should work together during the previous administration. odd that. i also have children and indeed grand children, but i personally would feel a lot happier and confident with a Labour government in power, than this bunch of political hoars. I've already said on here that I'm prepared to give the new Government a chance. I've already said I'm not happy with voting Lib Dem and ending up in a coalition with the Tories, but there you go. What am I to do about it, march on London? I was very critical of the Labour Government over Iraq and the 3rd (or is it 4th?) Afgan war. I will be critical of the current Governments continued supported of the corrupt Karzai regime. I also questioned their claims on the NHS, which I remember you agreed with, and education. It's not odd that I didn't mention politicians working together pre-election, Labour had a clear mandate to rule. It was obvious we were going to have a hung parliament and therefore an opportunity to do something different, and different it has been. Anyway, I've been a strong supporter of electoral/parliamentary reform since the horror years of Thatcher and it's potential outcomes. What we are seeing today is real politic and good old fashioned pragmatism. Some body had to lose out and it was Labour this time, who knows next time. To be honest this thread does you no favours, it shows a lack of class and you're being no better than the people who goaded you over the past few years. Nothing personal just my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by monkee on May 26, 2010 12:56:27 GMT 1
well put, but i wonder how many constituancies would be "won" by people who dont vote. I would imagine its a fair few, but they do nothing about that apart from getting them to lie to us directly on live TV. we get the government we deserve, greedy, self centred and ignorant. You're exactly right, I think it would a majority government too. I am a firm believer in the system we have because it is possible to do that. If you harnessed 10% of the effort this thread requires and spent it on trying to change EVERYTHING it would be time better spent. Instead we'r exactly where they want us. Fighting amongst ourselves. yep, divide and rule, thats our system
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on May 26, 2010 13:36:45 GMT 1
Reading through some of the contributions on this thread it appears, much as it does when you now watch the news or read a newspaper, that the sub-prime crisis, credit crunch, recession, bank bailout and government support for the motor industry never happened.
It's all down to 'waste' , which, apparently, is exclusive to the public sector.
Of course you can't argue that there is no wasteful spending in the public sector (although, in my experience, the greatest waste in the public sector usually occurs when the private sector gets involved, consultancy fees and private-public IT projects that are meant to save money but end up costing much more money spring to mind).
I also think it's rather optimistic, to put it mildly, to think that these cuts (and they've barely started yet) won't affect any 'meaningful frontline service' as Mark has it.
I think we're heading for a more polarised Britain, the rich will cling on to their power and wealth and have us all fighting among ourselves for the scraps.
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on May 26, 2010 13:41:50 GMT 1
I think this whole thread sums up the saying: Don't vote or else the government might get in. Nothing will change until spoiled ballots start winning seats. People who think the current coalition is going to achieve anything are deluded. The fact two individuals from the opposite sides of the political spectrum have crawled into bed with eachother proves these people will do anything for power. If after this charade you think these people have the countrys interests at heart think again. Same sh*t different day. Arguing over who is better, is like arguing over whose fart smells the nicest. Agree with a lot of this. Funny how the Lib Dems warned against making 6bn cuts this year as a danger to the economic recovery, yet one sniff of the heady aroma of power and they change their minds, almost literally, overnight!
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on May 26, 2010 13:45:57 GMT 1
No doubt that's a heartwarming anecdote to recount in the mining towns and villages of Yorkshire and Kent and Scotland and Nottinghamshire ..... Another way of looking at those events is that your company didn't deserve to survive. It sounds like it was appallingly managed, to have depended so heavily on one customer. British Coal on the other hand, seems to have had your company where it wanted it - able to pay peanuts because you were entirely dependent on it. So much "analysis" of our recent history only trots out the tired old cliches of striking lefties and unions holding the country to ransom. There's some truth in that but it omits at least half the story. The other side of that coin was the atrocious, class ridden, time serving, unimaginative management of so much British business. Of course it's harder to get pics of that on the telly. Still, it's ironic that state interference (by a Conservative government) in the "natural" workings of the market saved your company and finished British Coal. So a mining town in wherever is on a higher moral plain than a rural farming community in South Shropshire Jobs are jobs wherever they are. And this 'appallingly' managed Company has only lost money in ONE financial year since 1978, and invested millions of pounds to progress the Company and the family who own the Company employ upwards of 90 people in a Town with a population of 2000,and as by far & away the largest employer providing a backbone to a community. I didn't bring morality into it so don't misrepresent my views please. I just pointed out the obvious - without making a moral judgment about what could be interpreted as your apparent lack of concern for those that didn't benefit from the miners' strike. I've no reason to doubt your company's success. But if, as you said remember not me, 99% of its business came from one customer and that customer paid peanuts, then the company was being badly managed at the time. That's what I said and I stand by it. I've no idea what the company's done since but it sounds successful and I'm glad that's the case. I would always advise any business not to be too dependent on one customer. In that situation, the business can only continue on its customer's terms. By your own words, your company got lucky. Others didn't.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on May 26, 2010 13:52:25 GMT 1
If you harnessed 10% of the effort this thread requires and spent it on trying to change EVERYTHING it would be time better spent. Instead we'r exactly where they want us. Fighting amongst ourselves. Who are "they" then? And why do they want us here? And where is "here" exactly? The old argument - conspiracy or cock up? Bet on cock up every time, you're much more likely to win. Who's fighting by the way? What's wrong with a healthy democratic debate? Just because we disagree doesn't mean we're fighting.
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on May 26, 2010 13:53:57 GMT 1
I would always advise any business not to be too dependent on one customer. In that situation, the business can only continue on its customer's terms. Like if you have a business which is, er, running a country, and you're too dependent on a financial sector?
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on May 26, 2010 14:00:23 GMT 1
I would always advise any business not to be too dependent on one customer. In that situation, the business can only continue on its customer's terms. Like if you have a business which is, er, running a country, and you're too dependent on a financial sector? That's a very astute observation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2010 16:31:57 GMT 1
[ To be honest this thread does you no favours, it shows a lack of class and you're being no better than the people who goaded you over the past few years. Nothing personal just my opinion. thanks, but your opinion would be worth so much more if you had been a tad more vocal against those who had goaded me over the past few years, rather than being one of them.
|
|
|
Post by Victoria on May 27, 2010 0:55:51 GMT 1
Who are "they" then? And why do they want us here? And where is "here" exactly? The old argument - conspiracy or cock up? Bet on cock up every time, you're much more likely to win. Who's fighting by the way? What's wrong with a healthy democratic debate? Just because we disagree doesn't mean we're fighting. They are the powers that be, the people who don't know or care about you. Here is where we are, sitting on our computers exercising our democratic rights apparently. And they want us here so we're not out there questioning them and their selfish motives, marching in protest to our fading civil liberties and every other inequality in our society. I enjoy a good democratic debate but it seems people are wasting their energy complaining the floor's getting wet and passing the blame when we should be spending it on fixing the hole in the bucket. I haven't mentioned a conspiracy or talked about any shady dealings, it's no secret the government is a group of well educated, power mad ****wits.
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on May 27, 2010 8:10:26 GMT 1
Or the counter argument to Alberta's point of view is that debate gives an airing to alternative viewpoints that contribute to a change in the currency of ideas. I know what it says on Karl Marx's headstone but the arena of ideas is important. There is an immense amount of conditioning that we are subject to throughout our lives which is effective because we don't question it. Mainly we don't question because we are busy earning a living and looking after our children and with the rest of what is called our free-time we want to divert our attention away from these things by pursuing a hobby, for example.
We don't have to understand an issue to have an opinion on it and act upon that opinion in elections or on M/bs like this one. That's democracy. If we did understand the issues would we have the same opinion?
The causes of the present economic crisis is a case in point. We don't understand it and so we reduce it to issues of personality and comparing the marginal differences in the political programmes of mainstream political parties. And yet the information is out there. We don't access it because we don't really have the time to study it, question it and debate it to get an ingrained understanding. What debate does is shares bite size chunks of information that we can handle that may challenge the views that our conditioning leads us normally to grasp for.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2010 8:19:57 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by RBA on May 27, 2010 8:34:55 GMT 1
Or the counter argument to Alberta's point of view is that debate gives an airing to alternative viewpoints that contribute to a change in the currency of ideas. I know what it says on Karl Marx's headstone but the arena of ideas is important. There is an immense amount of conditioning that we are subject to throughout our lives which is effective because we don't question it. Mainly we don't question because we are busy earning a living and looking after our children and with the rest of what is called our free-time we want to divert our attention away from these things by pursuing a hobby, for example. We don't have to understand an issue to have an opinion on it and act upon that opinion in elections or on M/bs like this one. That's democracy. If we did understand the issues would we have the same opinion? The causes of the present economic crisis is a case in point. We don't understand it and so we reduce it to issues of personality and comparing the marginal differences in the political programmes of mainstream political parties. And yet the information is out there. We don't access it because we don't really have the time to study it, question it and debate it to get an ingrained understanding. What debate does is shares bite size chunks of information that we can handle that may challenge the views that our conditioning leads us normally to grasp for. enjoyed the link on a previous post in this thread Sean .So in your view are we in for a long slow painful slump or are we in for hyper inflation like Germany in 1930's? that leads to civil disorder and in that case to world war?
|
|
|
Post by nicko on May 27, 2010 8:43:53 GMT 1
[ To be honest this thread does you no favours, it shows a lack of class and you're being no better than the people who goaded you over the past few years. Nothing personal just my opinion. thanks, but your opinion would be worth so much more if you had been a tad more vocal against those who had goaded me over the past few years, rather than being one of them. I don't think I goaded you, but I certainly challenged you. Sean, once again spot on.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on May 27, 2010 13:36:35 GMT 1
Who are "they" then? And why do they want us here? And where is "here" exactly? The old argument - conspiracy or cock up? Bet on cock up every time, you're much more likely to win. Who's fighting by the way? What's wrong with a healthy democratic debate? Just because we disagree doesn't mean we're fighting. They are the powers that be, the people who don't know or care about you. Here is where we are, sitting on our computers exercising our democratic rights apparently. And they want us here so we're not out there questioning them and their selfish motives, marching in protest to our fading civil liberties and every other inequality in our society. I enjoy a good democratic debate but it seems people are wasting their energy complaining the floor's getting wet and passing the blame when we should be spending it on fixing the hole in the bucket. I haven't mentioned a conspiracy or talked about any shady dealings, it's no secret the government is a group of well educated, power mad ****wits. I just think that's an oversimplified view of the world. If you're assembling iPads for 60 hours and $75 a week in a Chinese factory (like the one with 4 suicides in the last 2 weeks), then we in the West are as much a part of "the powers that be" as the nameless, shapeless figures you're hinting at. Do you or I know about those factory workers? How much do we really care about them? And even they're relatively affluent compared to some. I'm not (thankfully) cynical enough to believe that change only happens when some small, self-serving group decrees that it should. Change happens for all kinds of reasons and sometimes it happens because of the will of the people or the national mood or whatever else you might call it. And debating topics, even on trivial messageboards, contributes to that. You might think that marching in the streets will do more - so go do it then. But don't assume that necessarily makes more difference than someone making a film, writing a book, talking to his MP, producing a blog, writing a letter to the paper, having a conversation etc etc. There's a myriad of ways in which things happen and change occurs and, sometimes, the bucket gets fixed - or we get a new one.
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on May 27, 2010 13:50:12 GMT 1
My most optimistic view is an economic depression of in excess of 10 years - the reduction in aggregate demand under the precautionary and speculative motives: <url>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquidity_preference</url>
The current situation is extremely serious. You may have gathered by now that that Germany's attempt to legislate against short-selling is because German banks hold Euro bonds issued by Greece and other Governments. It does not even require a default. The expectation of default is such that the value of euro bond holdings will fall so low that it will severely damage banks' balance sheets. In America there are tranches of prime loans due for renewal. That will be at higher rates than the original loans (2 years ago). Higher rates, depressed economy, more mortgage defaults from prime borrowers meaning that banks set aside more money for bad debts.
It's like defending a city against overwhelming forces: defensive position after defensive position is fought for and then given up because it cannot be held any longer and what you have left is regrouped to defend an ever smaller area. At some point: months or a few years ahead the towel will all be thrown in. You'll know when this has happened because people will be queuing down the street to withdraw their money from the banks. Make sure you get there before the sharp-elbowed middle classes
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on May 27, 2010 13:56:14 GMT 1
"If you're assembling iPads for 60 hours and $75 a week in a Chinese factory (like the one with 4 suicides in the last 2 weeks), then we in the West are as much a part of "the powers that be" as the nameless, shapeless figures you're hinting at."
In a sentence sums up so much that is wrong. You can live without an iPad, but you don't want to live when your work is not at a pace that you can control is repetitive and long hours.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on May 27, 2010 14:15:47 GMT 1
In America there are tranches of prime loans due for renewal. That will be at higher rates than the original loans (2 years ago). Higher rates, depressed economy, more mortgage defaults from prime borrowers meaning that banks set aside more money for bad debts. This didn't matter so much when asset prices were generally rising because you could always sell at a profit and repay debt (or the bank could). But when asset prices are falling (as with commercial property in the US now, as well as residential) and the OECD is saying (as it just has) that interest rates must increase by the end of 2010, then loan renewals are a potential crisis about to happen.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2010 6:21:29 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by WindsorShrew on May 29, 2010 8:00:42 GMT 1
Agreed Pab if Cameron wants to gain the trust of the public after years of Labour fueled distrust he needs to take direct action.
Further, I hope the constituents are given the chance to deselect the bloke.
Cameron can come out of this on the up or down, do nothing or take decisive action hopefully MPs of all parties would begin to wake up and realise they have to behave.
|
|
|
Post by RBA on May 29, 2010 8:28:10 GMT 1
My most optimistic view is an economic depression of in excess of 10 years - the reduction in aggregate demand under the precautionary and speculative motives: <url>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquidity_preference</url> The current situation is extremely serious. You may have gathered by now that that Germany's attempt to legislate against short-selling is because German banks hold Euro bonds issued by Greece and other Governments. It does not even require a default. The expectation of default is such that the value of euro bond holdings will fall so low that it will severely damage banks' balance sheets. In America there are tranches of prime loans due for renewal. That will be at higher rates than the original loans (2 years ago). Higher rates, depressed economy, more mortgage defaults from prime borrowers meaning that banks set aside more money for bad debts. It's like defending a city against overwhelming forces: defensive position after defensive position is fought for and then given up because it cannot be held any longer and what you have left is regrouped to defend an ever smaller area. At some point: months or a few years ahead the towel will all be thrown in. You'll know when this has happened because people will be queuing down the street to withdraw their money from the banks. Make sure you get there before the sharp-elbowed middle classes Thanks Sean interesting and a bit scary but I follow the logic
|
|
|
Post by nicko on May 29, 2010 17:48:18 GMT 1
Agreed Pab if Cameron wants to gain the trust of the public after years of Labour fueled distrust he needs to take direct action. Further, I hope the constituents are given the chance to deselect the bloke. Cameron can come out of this on the up or down, do nothing or take decisive action hopefully MPs of all parties would begin to wake up and realise they have to behave. Yep, the first real test of the new Government with regard to "sleaze". Shame to as most commentators seem to think he is the best for the job. You have to wonder though how long the Daily Telegraph have known about this. I also wonder what other surprises they have up their sleeve.
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on May 29, 2010 18:16:23 GMT 1
I can't quite get my head around his statement regarding his sexuality.
There are high profile homosexual politicians, including cabinet ministers.
Whether or not he chose to keep both this relationship secret, or even his sexuality secret, has absolutely nothing to do with claiming the expenses.
Why didn't he just claim the money on his constituency home and designate the London one his main residence? From his website "· David does not own a property in London - he rents a home in London so he can be in the capital when Parliament is sitting. He has therefore made no capital gains or profits on property paid for with public money. He has done nothing to avoid any tax liabilities."
It sounds just so squeaky clean, but the money was going to his partner. That money could have been going to his Mum / Dad / Brother / Sister / Wife / Civil Partner / Boyfriend / Girlfriend / Mate and it would still be more than a little fishy.
The bit about "Not treating each other as spouses" seems a bit odd too considering he mortgaged his own home in order to help pay for the property. The property he then claimed expenses on. So they did not share bank accounts, but they did share mortgages?
I think it is a tremendous shame he felt he could not be more open. But the harsh reality is it looks for all the world that the sexuality part of the story is just a smokescreen.
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on May 29, 2010 18:19:49 GMT 1
I should add it would be a tremendous shame to lose such a universally respected politician from government. The bloke talks sense and deserves to be where he is: and you certainly cannot say that about all of them, from this government or the last.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2010 6:26:07 GMT 1
I should add it would be a tremendous shame to lose such a universally respected politician from government. The bloke talks sense and deserves to be where he is: and you certainly cannot say that about all of them, from this government or the last. Indeed he does deserved to be where he is, out of the government for fiddling his expences. news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/10192614.stmCameron says "You are a good and honourable man. I am sure that, throughout, you have been motivated by wanting to protect your privacy rather than anything else" you are a cheat who has been caught fiddling large sums of money out of the tax payer, you are motivated by greed and a desire not to get caught.
|
|
|
Post by nicko on May 30, 2010 7:25:37 GMT 1
I should add it would be a tremendous shame to lose such a universally respected politician from government. The bloke talks sense and deserves to be where he is: and you certainly cannot say that about all of them, from this government or the last. Indeed he does deserved to be where he is, out of the government for fiddling his expences. news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/10192614.stmCameron says "You are a good and honourable man. I am sure that, throughout, you have been motivated by wanting to protect your privacy rather than anything else" you are a cheat who has been caught fiddling large sums of money out of the tax payer, you are motivated by greed and a desire not to get caught. He resigned quickly and payed the money back without hesitation, he knew he did wrong and hasn't tried to bluster and totally deny wrong doing like previous politicians from all parties in the last Parliament. As has been said, the real tragedy here is that the Government has lost a very able minister, who was respected and may have made a difference.
|
|