It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.



page: 15
<< 12  13  14   >>

log in


posted on May, 13 2010 @ 06:49 AM
reply to post by kindred

Lab/Lib = L stands for Losers
I'm hoping that this comment indicates that you are very young. Well, to get down in the sand pit with you, Tory/Conservative: T stands for Twat & we all know the C word, eh?

posted on May, 13 2010 @ 07:32 AM
reply to post by kindred

That's funny coming from someone whose a victim of New Labour spin.
Here Mr. Kindred, we have the possibility of a breakthrough in your recovery. The belief that criticism of Tories = listening to New Labour spin is a classic indication of being informed by polarised media &, in your case, its quite obvious which media that is. Had you read & digested my comments thus far, you'd know that, this time, I've been supporting the LibDems, on 2 policies only: electoral reform & growing the economy from the bottom up.
In fact my political philosophy is drawn from as far apart as Anarcho-Syndicalism to Libertarian Anarchism, plucking ideas from the entire spectrum between. This is because I read books on politics, philosophy, economics & history, so I dont need any spin to tell me what any particular policy entails. I can place it in context myself, judge how misrepresented it is & make educated guesses on how it will pan out, relative to similar policies &/or circumstances of the past.
It has to be said that these kinds of books can be pretty boring, unless you're reading them as research for an academic paper, but I still find them worthwhile tho I'm not researching anything currently. The trick is to have a good novel on the go at the same time.
As far as the Tories are concerned, I'm 42, I know what their, call it what you like, monetarist, quasi-Thatcherite, neo-con, or just simply "proven failed", philosophy leads to, I lived through it. Even if I hadn't since read all about what happened & alternative ideas that may have been better, I could still rely on my memory of exactly what did happen.
I was deeply cynical about New Labour from the start, but hopeful they would do some good. Despite my loathing for some of what they did, particularly the wars, I can see that investment in the NHS & education was vital & we are way better for it than in '97.

posted on May, 13 2010 @ 09:30 AM
reply to post by MR BOB

We have been stiched up. again we will have an unelected Leader.
You should have seen it coming.
He will not be chosen by the voters, but by the politicans.
Yet another person who doesn't undertand the constitution of their own country. It really makes me sad.
To be clear MR BOB: you are not a citizen, you are a subject of HM The Queen. You do not vote for a Prime Minister, you vote for a Member of Parliament. The PM is chosen by the queen as the person who can form a government with the most support in the House of Commons.
If you dislike these facts, then campaign to change them. Would you like to directly elect a PM? That would need a massive change in our electoral system, including a radical change in the constitutional position of the monarch.
Hmmm, who with any chance of forming a govt in the forseeable future could give us such a radical reform? Oh, I know, the word conservative means "promoting new ideas" doesn't it? Yes, conservatives for change! I mean really, how anyone could keep a straight face confronted by such an oxymoron amazes & depresses me.

posted on May, 14 2010 @ 01:41 AM
reply to post by Bunken Drum

Were you up early or very late Bunken? One minute there was old news on this thread then your posts appeared! ;-)

You are of course absolutely right in your post that I reference and you make clear the point that many people do not 'get' our current voting system. As you indicate, people (perhaps unknowingly) only vote for a prospective MP and it is by majority party affiliation or inter-party agreement that a government is may be formed with some expectation of long-term success at promoting their own agenda.

The '2 party' system is something of a misnomer and our recent election has been a perfect example of this, although only by national infiltration at a constituency seat level can a party make a break through to hold real power in a government.

I think that the recent election result has been the best thing for democracy in decades, at least in a notional sense.

'Bring it on' I say. BTW, I'm exactly the same age and experienced the Thatcher years the same - I was one of the 3 million! I saw the poll tax riots - I still call the council tax the 'poll' tax because it is so natural to do so - and the devastation of the Thatcher crusade against the mining industry.

That said, I also sat entranced before the TV as the SAS stormed the Iranian Embassy and saw the Falklands war unfold before the nation's eyes.

The Thatcher years were rough on the country in many respects, but to compare that era with the final denouement of the 'nineties & noughties' is to compare two different things. The economy was a different beast entirely and the beginning of the social changes that enabled the end that we see now is a different thing.

All of our major 'infrastructure' entities, such as the NHS, are radically different from 20+ years ago but that does not mean that they are more successful in the context of how they 'should' or 'could' be right now and this is where the issues firmly remain at the start of this new era of political leadership.

For me, this election has produced a result that has the same whiff of 'change' as when Blair first came to power. I for one feel uplifted by the result, this is something to really build upon and I have that good feeling about the future of the UK that is not tangible but simply an aspect of Zeitgeist.

Times are going to be rough, no doubt, we're headed in the right direction in stormy seas rather than floundering near to the rocks. I think its gonna be good!

posted on May, 14 2010 @ 08:28 AM
reply to post by Bunken Drum

Take a deep breathe, New Labour lost the election and I voted for the Tories, so what are you on about.

You're the one who resorts to insults, so it's obvious who hangs about in sand pits. New Labour are no more, get over it. Sorry but it will be a cold day in hell before I descend to the same level as those who would defend New Labour after everything they have done to our country.

You should also learn to read. I'm no Tory. I simply voted for them as this country is in desperate need of a change of government, so I voted for the lesser of the three evils.
Now we have that change and thank god.

The NHS was a joke under New Labour. My dad was involved in an accident at work not so long ago. He had to wait 8 weeks for the test results just to see whether he had any broken bones in his leg which had swollen up.

[edit on 14-5-2010 by kindred]

posted on May, 15 2010 @ 12:14 PM
reply to post by SugarCube

Were you up early or very late Bunken? One minute there was old news on this thread then your posts appeared!
My life is chaos right now. We had to lay off our admins so now I cant just do the night shifts. I'm a bit too bollocksed to think right now but I'll just say this: things aren't so different to the early 90s.
High unemployment. Massive dependance on the financial sector. Unsustainable national debt. A prevalence of opinion that the only way forward is to appease the markets.
Well look what happend. Underinvestment throughout the 80-90s created social meltdown. The govt were unable to pay for the policing that could have kept a lid on the consequent crime wave, but if they'd tried we would have seen even further civil unrest. Despite EU money into our regions that were decimated by Thatcher's anti-union stance, we have still not rebuilt any significant manufacturing base.
In the meantime, we have had to-ing & fro-ing on those publicly owned companies that were privatised, so tax-payers money has been used to keep the railways, the post office & electricity generation (massively into nuclear clean-ups).
Now I'm not suggesting that renationalisation is the answer, but surely anyone can see that the provision of public services, ie the actual good that those services provide to our society, are the profit.
It is not necessary for some individuals to make money from providing essential public services, because the provision benefits all of us.
I'm barking in the wind, I know. Hey ho, I expect to live long enough to see people accept that the free market cannot exist & that a command economy disincentivises productivity, but that neither philosophies can be implemented alone, nor discarded.
Some things are too important for the markets to affect, but counter to prevalent thinking, provide the basis for healthy competition. Some things are junk: let the market provide.

posted on May, 15 2010 @ 01:50 PM
reply to post by Bunken Drum

Howdy Bunken. I don't entirely agree with you, but, reading between the lines of your last response I think that we are at least singing the chorus from the same same sheet... (I think...)

I thoroughly believe in nationalisation of the 'national infrastructure', but with the economic guidelines to ensure that they run efficiently as opposed to debacles of the 1970's. It is a nonsense to suggest that a nationalised 'industry' cannot run without massive over-staffing and chronic wasted expenditure.

I would regard the 'national infrastructure' as including the provision of utilities such as water, electricity and gas, the transport infrastructure including roads and national rail and basic health care.

Front-line services could be provided by private companies but with much stricter guidelines on pricing and service level agreements. Ultimately, these are services which should provide a cohesive function to the UK. To some extent e already have this but the bias is toward the private sector - I would like to see balanced a bit more.

There are some other services which you might expect to be available to all in an advanced society and I would expand the 'list' further to include other areas, recognising that the free market economy is not necessarily based on providing the 'best solution' but the most 'marketable' solution - this is not always in the consumers' best interest.

posted on May, 21 2010 @ 06:21 AM
A vision of the future under Cameron, the man of the people and who will listen to the people!

Cameron has forced through changes to the Conservative 1922 committee.

This wasan exclusively backbench Conservative MP's committee which had significant influence.

Cameron has pushed aside over 80 years of tradition to force through a vote that both heand his ministers are included thus guaranteeing his overall control of The Conservative Party.

Even Thatcher didn't have such arrogance.

Cameron will continue in his weasly ways by trying to maintain his 'man of the people' public personna whilst privately continuing to be the autocrat that he is.

posted on May, 21 2010 @ 06:28 AM
The true tragedy is that this is the last nail in the coffin of PR.

Neither of the big two parties was willing to negotiate on it. The political future of the UK is Red / Blue / Red / Blue forever and ever, where Red and Blue are increasingly similar and moving to the Right.

It's interesting that the Lib-dems said Labour appeared to want to sabotage any hope of talks right from the start.

The UK might get the AV vote system, but I doubt it will have any real impact. At the end of the day, two parties are easier to control than many.

posted on May, 21 2010 @ 06:30 AM

Originally posted by Freeborn
Cameron has forced through changes to the Conservative 1922 committee.

Thanks for pointing that out. I didn't know. So the Tories like Labour have become increasingly dictatorial.

Originally posted by SugarCube
I thoroughly believe in nationalisation of the 'national infrastructure', but with the economic guidelines to ensure that they run efficiently as opposed to debacles of the 1970's. It is a nonsense to suggest that a nationalised 'industry' cannot run without massive over-staffing and chronic wasted expenditure.

I agree with you, but sadly I believe this is a debate we needed to have 30 years ago. The IMF enforced privatization of national resources in the 3rd world in the 80's, and have since turned the same policy toward the West (cue Thatcher & Blair).

At the end of the day, to me at least, it appears to be a conspiracy. The rich own both parties (only two are allowed), and they centralizing wealth and sucking it away from the middle classes. They are returning us to the slavery days of the Victorian years and rolling back the pre / post WW2 democratic reforms of the enlightened Socialists and Christians of the upper-classes. Motive: Insatiable greed.

[edit on 21-5-2010 by rizla]

posted on May, 21 2010 @ 06:40 AM
reply to post by Freeborn

Hi Freeborn, I'm not entirely unhappy with the concept of an autocrat as long as the right decisions are being made, hell, my perfect government is a benign dictatorship that solely ensures that society functions to the benefit of the population and national interests and refrains from ideological espousal. You could probably guess that I'd put myself in charge ;-)

Of course, the concept of government has to radically change in order for this to work, but I make this point purely to illustrate that I'm not entirely against the concept of autocracy.

Personally, I don't give a crap how the PM runs the government as long as the national interests are served for the benefit of society and individual freedoms and responsibilities (rather than the NuLabour concept of 'freedom through supervision').

The political landscape has changed significantly over the last 30 years and we must expect the parties and their core ideologies to change too as reflection of modern society. Also, the style of leadership of the country has been radically amended especially as a result of the last 13 years of rule and so there are certain parameters that must change even in terms of the way a new government intends to 'do business'.

Nothing I've heard from the coalition so far is unexpected or against the pragmatic needs of the country although, granted, there is always room for debate in terms of economic policy. Notwithstanding this judgement, it is clear that when you have a mountain of bills to pay, you have to make budget cuts somewhere.

Although I'm usually a stickler for tradition, it has to take into account the reality of the world in which that tradition survives. Is autocracy such a bad thing if it gets the results we need?

Many people accepted the NuLabour autocracy in the belief that it could change Britain for the better - and it did for a while. The fact that it all went pear-shaped is not a reflection of the change that *was* needed in the first place.

I think that we're in a safer position right now since the LibDem aspect acts as an ideological equaliser and helps to maintain considered thought rather than just dogmatic reaction.

posted on May, 21 2010 @ 06:45 AM

Originally posted by SugarCube
reply to post by Freeborn

Hi Freeborn, I'm not entirely unhappy with the concept of an autocrat as long as the right decisions are being made, hell, my perfect government is a benign dictatorship that solely ensures that society functions to the benefit of the population and national interests and refrains from ideological espousal. You could probably guess that I'd put myself in charge ;-)

I just read Remains of the Day by Ishiguro which touches on this. Many of the upper-classes flirted with the concept of enlightened-dictatorship during the malaise of the 20s / 30s and the apparent rejuvenation of Italy and Germany...

posted on May, 21 2010 @ 07:44 AM
reply to post by rizla

Quite so Rizla! Ultimately this manifested as fascism, however, the ideological aspects of this political process were based on pseudo science (i.e. racism) and irrational definitions of society (e.g. citizenship) when we looked at previous incarnations.

If you're into that sort of thing, I can thoroughly recommend Robert Paxton's Anatomy of Fascism which explores the wider aspects of this political notion rather than just concentrating on the sensationalist realisation such as National Socialism.

posted on May, 21 2010 @ 07:47 AM
reply to post by kindred

9 weeks wait?

Consider this....

Average survival time for bowel cancer is 15 months.

Waiting time for the test results in Quebec? 2 years.

posted on May, 21 2010 @ 07:51 AM
The new joint government program introduced yesterday was just a load of hog wash that was not worth the paper it was written on.... So basically all of those so called reforms are just shunted into a commission that will in turn be lost in buerocracy....

How bloody stupid do they think we are?????

Edit because my R is playing up

[edit on 21-5-2010 by Yissachar1]

posted on May, 21 2010 @ 10:47 AM
reply to post by SugarCube

Benign dictatorship?
Fine if you agree with everything the 'benign dictator' does, but what happens when you don't?
What happens when his vision of what is good for the people varies from the people's vision?
Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc spring to mind immediately.

Of course Labour continued the process of eroding our civil liberties.
But they were just carrying on where The Conservatives left off.
There is nothing to suggest that Cameron will be any different.

The freedoms and liberties we rightfully claimed after the two World Wars are slowly be eroded and soon we wil be worse off than where we started.

But the worst of it is that through maniplation it is being done openly and at times with our own consensus and even request.

You say 'The Coalition' has yet to do anything 'against the pragmatic needs of the country'.
How about the transferal of economic powers in 20 key areas which George Osbourne has just signed over to Brussels?

We don't need autocracy, we need true representation in Westminster free from party politics and idealogies where MP's stand for election on their own personal convictions, where MP's put their constituents interests first and are subject to the power of recall.

You praise LibDem input, it disgusts me that a man has compromised his party's values and ethics just to get a chance of putting his nose further into the trough.

As Yissichar1 rightly points out, they have cast aside all the more difficult issues by handing them over to 'commisions' who will spend ages deliberating over minutiae in the name of 'Transparency'.
Complete and utter bollocks if you ask me.

[edit on 21/5/10 by Freeborn]

posted on May, 21 2010 @ 11:19 AM
reply to post by Freeborn

Well, whether by 'benign dictatorship' or 'democratic government' the results are the same if you don't agree with the direction governance takes. I have been fuming for the last 8 or so years at the slew of injustices visited upon our domain but I couldn't do much about it until the last general election.

You're right about the freedoms and liberties being eroded but at least there have been some indications that this is going to be dealt with. How quickly? Well, it will probably take as long to get those freedoms back as it did to lose them in the first place. There is also the issue of privacy being invaded by private enterprise, Google being at the forefront of the vanguard!

Can true representation ever occur in a society beyond a few hundred people? Where does the role of local and national government meet? Where are the boundaries. As an example, a major bookmaker wanted to have a betting shop in a major location in our small town, 4 or 5 doors down from another betting shop of a competitor. The local authority rightly said that one was enough on such a major frontage and denied the permission but the bookmaker appealed and the 'government' responded to an appeal and said - no problem. Our local views of town life were ignored for the benefit of a national bookmaker. Is that fair?

There has to be a balance between autocratic rule and 'commission/committee/MP voting' and inevitably some things are going to go wrong, but where should the line be drawn. If the Cons just went ahead with things then the LibDems would react - this whole thing has to be a process of compromise like any partnership. We have to face those facts every day when we go to work.

Sure Nick Clegg has compromised, but if he hadn't have done so the LibDems would be arguing for change from the sidelines for the next 30 or 40 years. Surely this has opened the door for them to get some real changes implemented?

I'm confused that on the one hand you argue for representation in Westminster free from party politics and ideologies but then indicate that you feel that Nick Clegg has compromised his party's values and ethics. Surely such things are part and parcel of ideology?

Regardless of what we would have wished for in a 'perfect' election (perfection being subjective of course), I do think that we have the best of the possibilities combinations of what could have happened.

A watered down mixture of ConLibDem has to be better than NuLabour, even if it isn't perfect and even if it goes against our perception of what should have been achieved at the last election.

I see your frustration but just remember, things could have been a lot worse!

[edit on 21-5-2010 by SugarCube]

top topics

<< 12  13  14   >>

log in