michele Posted January 26, 2007 Posted January 26, 2007 Whilst sitting outside the hospital in the last few day's having fresh air I have met a bloke . Lovely man just had an operation. He sit's there and has a fag & we chat about anything. Last night he said after a ramble over the immigration what's wrong with the country and the fact that he had refused to work with an imigrant worker not because he was predudice but because as he say's he went to college for 5 years to learn to be a corgi reg plumber . He then went on to say if that man watches him he could blow someone up no training and why the bloody hell should he get the same wage as him. Now I have to say I do agree, wether it is an immigrant or a british person Go To Schhol young man learn yourself then earn yourself. The reason i write this is I am not so ofay with politics as we parted he said well the day Gordon Brown get's into the hot seat I will leave the country for France at least they stick together . What is it that Gordon Brown is supposing to do to this country and why are people so hot under the collar ...Please can any one anyway give me some understanding either side of the debate so that I can grasp what is happening....Or if you can't all be bothered then don't worry realise it may be a tall story. *-) :$
Guest starspirit Posted January 26, 2007 Posted January 26, 2007 In my view Grasping Gordon is a power mad megalomaniac with delusions of grandeur. He wants to put the entire world to rights, and to be clearly seen by all doing it, just to prove what a jolly decent chap he is. Nothing wrong with that I hear you say and maybe the world is well overdue for righting? But not with my taxes please and especially whilst other nations sit back and prosper by using their own taxes to strengthen their own country first all the while laughing at us for being so niaive. Having got our own country right (yeah I know some hope whilst the PC brigade are in power) we would then be strong enough, secure enough, healthy enough and wealthy enough to help all the other deserving good causes. That should stir up some good natured debate I reckon?
michele Posted January 26, 2007 Author Posted January 26, 2007 I do hope so because I would like to understand it . I do listen to the news but I have to keep asking my husband .
Brian Kirby Posted January 26, 2007 Posted January 26, 2007 Good question Michele, lets have some fun!It isn't really Gordon that's the root of the problem, it's our political system. Blair has been a disaster (too many headings to list off, starts with the dome and ends with Iraq), and needs to go - tomorrow would be fine by me!Brown appears to be an even bigger control freak than Blair. Blair seems happy enough to leave everyone to do what he wanted and just interferes when they don't. Brown seems likeley not to let them do anything at all, until he is absolutely certain it will be what he wants. Either way we are paying for a cabinet full of cyphers that have no proper authority as ministers and are not run properly as the board of directors of GB Plc.The Conservatives under Thatcher were just the same. She wielded all the power, instead of wielding power through the cabinet, in just the same way Blair does and Brown, presumably, will. Don't forget Blair, in this respect, is a Thatcher fan. Can't say about Brown, but he seems to have drunk from the same cup!The problem, however, was highlighted by Quentin Hogg in a radio lecture entitled "The Elective Dictatorship" some years back. Basically, he argued, the proper power in our system is supposed to lie with parliament, meaning the MPs. However, via the whips, any government with a majority, even a quite slender one, wields more or less unchallenged power for it's five, or less, years. Hence parliament is sidelined and you get the "elective dictatorship". Thatcher basically dispensed with the cabinet, and took the power to herself with her brand of "conviction politics". She was able to do so because she had very large majorities for most of her terms, and so could easily replace any cabinet dissenters. In effect, if you weren't with her, you were first humiliated by being branded a wet, and if that didn't fix your attitude, you were sacked. Not unknown before her of course, just she had the majority, the ruthlessness, and the blind faith in her own judgement, to do so!Blair has just absorbed her methods, has the same messianic self belief, and has not only a large majority, but a near totally non-functional opposition. He has had the floor to himself, has done what he wanted, and now we can all see the result. If the cabinet had been properly selected and managed, and if the opposition had provided proper intellectual opposition instead of cynical posturing (when it could extract its head from its derriere) we should be much better off. However, that phase of our political system seems to have passed and we currently don't have a system that works. I think that is serious and needs to be changed, but short of widespread rioting, I don't see the ambitious and flawed politicians who currently have their eye on the main chance submitting to the necessary controls.What we now have, simply stated, is the elective dictator. Listening to Faulkner this morning, trying to explain how a letter intended to change sentencing behaviour by judges, actually wasn't intended to change sentencing behaviour at all, just confirmed what a looking glass world we have now entered.Were in deep doo-doo Chuck, and I can't see the way out! Here endeth etc.
michele Posted January 26, 2007 Author Posted January 26, 2007 I am sort of getting it thanks to you both. I also listened to the news this morning re the peadophile and the jail . the judge having to take on what the home Sec had said about the jails being full . Me I know nothing but I do think we are in a big mess & these people do not seem to live in the real world. Why do we vote these people in ? I don't think that they will win the next election . In ignorance again sorry ) I have often wondered why we as a country never try the party in the middle Not labour Not Conservative .SDP or something. Now there may be another silly question ? Still I'm trying to learn and not be ignorant. Just out of interest who was the prime minister in 1913 LLyod George ? I think I have it wrong the internet is playing up ...
Guest starspirit Posted January 26, 2007 Posted January 26, 2007 Absolutely agreed Brian - well said - you do have a way with words even though it does sometimes take a while to read your postings! There must surely somewhere be someone who likes Grasping Gordon and who wants him as a dictator? Someone? Anyone? Come on then out of the closet and be known to all.
michele Posted January 26, 2007 Author Posted January 26, 2007 So am I right in my views why are we spending so much money on foreign subjects and everything that goes with it , Ie, free health not putting in the pot Free Doctors free interperating service for any language and in london that means about 208 in any given region. Why not spend some money on Jails ? amongst other things....On the childrens ward we have one thermometre? can it really of come to this also on the ward a raffle for toy's presents to win so that the ward can buy another thermometre? God the worlds gone mad. Forgot No Beds suitable for the children especially with Disabilities ? i bet if I played the race card there would be . That sounds terrible I ,m not racist just had enough when other things start to suffer . I think thats what the majority of people feel . Which brings me back to why do we vote these idiots in???? (^)
Guest starspirit Posted January 26, 2007 Posted January 26, 2007 Someone has to pay for Tony's war and the EU expansion Michele and it looks like it's you and me and the rest of us UK taxpayers. Trouble is that it is only when we need help that we find that help ain't there and the majority of us don't need help at any one time so the majority of us don't know what a cock up the government are making. Free prescriptions for all in Wales from April but no proven effective treatment for Alzheimers sufferers although fertility treatment is available for free.
RoyH Posted January 26, 2007 Posted January 26, 2007 What has Gordon Brown done? Wrecked our pensions. Sold all our gold reserves when the price was at the bottom of the market He said he wouldn't put up income tax and he hasn't but anybody who was fooled by this has now found out that he has put up just about every other tax and has invented a few more to boot. He has trapped us ordinary blokes in inheritance tax by not increasing the threshold at the same rate as house prices. Sold off the Ministry of Defence research arm, Qinetiq which has been mired in profiteering and fat cattery since. Probably just about to sell off the Tote to the racehorse industry on the cheap. Anybody got any more?
Guest peter Posted January 26, 2007 Posted January 26, 2007 I agree with all the negative things said about Brown and Blair. I thought Blair looked like a smarmy git when he got into power and I still do. I wouldn't trust Brown as far as I could throw him, with his false smile and condescending look. And he wants to give all our money away to the undeveloped world who have been sitting on their fat ar*es for years and scrounging on the rest of the world, whilst their governments have spent the aid on weapons to kill each other. None of them are any good, they have all let in hundreds of thousands of people into this country who hate us and would cause us all harm given the opportunity. Whilst at the same time getting all the benefits we have slaved to pay for. We are complete idiots. Don't get me started, I hate the lot of them, they are all money grubbing ar*se licking self deluded pillocks.
twooks Posted January 26, 2007 Posted January 26, 2007 Well put Brian - as usual - would just dispute on one thing, I have a feeling that Iraq is not the last of Blair's legacy: we still don't know what's going to happen [if anything] in London in 2012, at what price. And we still have to unravel the knee jerk legislation that he's forced throughanyone else for France!!
olley Posted January 26, 2007 Posted January 26, 2007 Hi I think you have to ask yourself why anybody would want to be a politician? to help others or to help themselves? Being a cynic I believe 99% are their to help themselves. So when they do I am not surprised or disappointed. Would France be any different? seeing as how I believe politicians are the same the world over (cue dubbua) I don't think so. Don't worry it's always worse than you think it is. :-D Olley
Miami Posted January 26, 2007 Posted January 26, 2007 I don't know how many governments France has had since the war but it is a lot more than us. I am not sure the grass is any greener and as someone else said, you still have to keep cutting it.Can't stand the thought of Brown as PM. He will be much worse than Blair and he is bad enough. Isn't strange that you can never find anyone who voted for them????
chas Posted January 26, 2007 Posted January 26, 2007 A country only gets what it votes for, and by God look what the majority have served us up with, Teflon Tony, Gordon, whose only eye that shows compassion is his false one, and of course, Prescot, I had better stop now before the moderator stops me. What a future for our grandchildren to look forward to, whats the answere, I just dont know, short of a revolution. Enjoy your motorhoming, while you can. chas
olley Posted January 26, 2007 Posted January 26, 2007 Hi perhaps one answer would be if the cabinet was voted in by the rest of the MP's Seeing as how that would eliminate the pm's power that's about as likely as me buying a round. Do you know it almost sounds like I give a damm 8-) better stop now before I do. :-D Olley
Forester Posted January 27, 2007 Posted January 27, 2007 olley - 2007-01-26 9:30 PM Hi I think you have to ask yourself why anybody would want to be a politician? £167,000 per year
dethleff Posted January 27, 2007 Posted January 27, 2007 5 years is far too long for any government to be in office unchecked. I would like to see a referendum held every 2 years, a simple ballot form, "Are you happy with this government" two boxes YES OR NO If the no vote wins, call an election. Some chance considering a government would have to bring it in. Second idea would be every new legislation would have to be passed by Littlejohn. God help my grand children.
net-traveller Posted January 27, 2007 Posted January 27, 2007 sorry folks but i've got to have my tuppence worth. one of the things that surprises me is that nobody wil admit to have voted this, or any, other lot in but it stands to reason that quite a few must have. to get a proper representation of the views of the 'common' people the current system of first past the post does not work. however, the other system, proportional representation, leads to the situation that you see on the continent where it's difficult to see the difference. perhaps it's time to have a system where instead of voting positively, ie an 'X' for a named candidate, we should also have a 'None of the above' box on the ballot paper which could be counted and reported. i suspect that in some cases 'None of the above' would win hands down. this would show the feelings of the electorate and the strength, or otherwise, of the mandate that the elected majority(?) claim to have which allows them to ride rough-shod over us. can't see it happening but ........ ;-)
Guest starspirit Posted January 27, 2007 Posted January 27, 2007 For the first time (and last) I admit to voting for Tony & Cronies in 1997 because I felt then that a change could not possibly be any worse than no change. How wrong I was and now it seems the only realistic alternative, however bad, surely can't really be any worse - or can it? Still at least the BOE now has control of interest rates which counts a darned sight more for recent monetary stability than politicians using it as a weapon ever did. So Gordon did perhaps get one thing right after all, but then again it's the only thing he ever did (that I can recall) that gave away control rather than taking it.
Brian Kirby Posted January 27, 2007 Posted January 27, 2007 net-traveller - 2007-01-27 3:03 PM sorry folks but i've got to have my tuppence worth. one of the things that surprises me is that nobody wil admit to have voted this, or any, other lot in but it stands to reason that quite a few must have. to get a proper representation of the views of the 'common' people the current system of first past the post does not work. however, the other system, proportional representation, leads to the situation that you see on the continent where it's difficult to see the difference. perhaps it's time to have a system where instead of voting positively, ie an 'X' for a named candidate, we should also have a 'None of the above' box on the ballot paper which could be counted and reported. i suspect that in some cases 'None of the above' would win hands down. this would show the feelings of the electorate and the strength, or otherwise, of the mandate that the elected majority(?) claim to have which allows them to ride rough-shod over us. can't see it happening but ........ ;-) Well, if the "none of the aboves" won outright, that just might result in rule by Charles III! Now, there's a thought. I'd find that a bit problemmatic, because after years of saying I thought the royals were better, on the whole, than an elected head of state would be, I think I've gradually turned republican.Its the Tower for me, then!
chas Posted January 27, 2007 Posted January 27, 2007 Can anyone say when the next earliest general election can be called, I dont want to be out the country enjoying myself and miss my vote. Probably be when we are offered some crumbs by the goverment, surely we wont fall for that one again. chas
twooks Posted January 27, 2007 Posted January 27, 2007 French politicians probably aren't any better - the French people just seem to have a better life style and climate.The USA have a better electoral system - even if it did let in Dubya twice BUT - that's all he can do, we should have two strikes and out - that would have curtailed both Thatcher and Teflon.I admit to voting Labour in 1997, [but not since] and don't actually regret it - we needed a change. Usually go for the 'none of the above' option which I think should be counted as part of the declared result. Vive la republique - 'bout time we had a revolution in England.
olley Posted January 27, 2007 Posted January 27, 2007 Twooks wrote "I admit to voting Labour in 1997, [but not since] and don't actually regret it - we needed a change. Usually go for the 'none of the above' option which I think should be counted as part of the declared result" Were you one of those ones cheering in the street as he made his way to No.10? just like the second coming of Christ, I sat and watched it on the telly, amazed at how gullible people can be. Olley
twooks Posted January 27, 2007 Posted January 27, 2007 good god no! just the lesser of the evils on offer, To be honest all this outpouring of emotion frightens me, I distinctly remember being at Hawes CC site on the day of Diana's funeral - and all the over the top run up to it. I felt like I was in a parallel universe and it was scary, like being in the middle of a rampaging mob while wearing the wrong team's colours. Kept expecting to be 'found out' and torn limb for limb.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.