Continuing debate
399926
-----------------------------------------------------
Giving children a vote gave a big boost to the Yes count, people were quick to point out.
You can't blame the children for voting insouciantly. It's their nature. That's why they shouldn't have the vote. God knows adults are quite crazed enough.
'God protect us!' as an Algerian military spook once said to me with a cynical leer as Algerian voters put their slips into the bin - sorry, the ballot boxes that were then going to be binned so that the correct result of overwhelming victory for the regime could be announced.
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 20 Sep 14 at 20:49
|
True about children when I was sixteen I didn't think about a pension.At that age you feel free not tied down yet to a system.
That all changes when you have a family job and responsibilities.
|
>> True about children when I was sixteen I didn't think about a pension.At that age
>> you feel free not tied down yet to a system.
>>
>> That all changes when you have a family job and responsibilities.
Which is of course exactly the argument mustered in the late sixties by those opposed to reducing the voting age from 21 to 18.
|
>> Which is of course exactly the argument mustered in the late sixties by those opposed to reducing the voting age from 21 to 18.
Not the only argument against giving children the vote, but quite sensible as far as it goes. Of course reducing the voting age to 18 was a gross error, the thin end of the wedge. Even 21 is hopelessly immature in many cases in the rich countries.
I'd favour 30 as a one-size-fits-all voting age. But the tendency is in the other direction and pretty soon small folk in pushchairs will be stripping their parents of all authority, by democratic means.
Votes for neonates, now! It's got a bit of a ring to it.
|
Neonates I had to look that one up A.C.>:)
Maybe we are all children at hart pretending to be grown up.Go to a sport event and the behaviour of people can be child like.Anyway the Scots have to come to terms what has happened and they will.
|
>> Which is of course exactly the argument mustered in the late sixties by those opposed
>> to reducing the voting age from 21 to 18.
And a perfectly valid argument, I think 18 is too young.
|
I wish there was some practical way of ensuring that any voter, regardless of age, could be required to demonstrate that they had at least a working understanding of what they were actually voting for.
It's quite sobering if you gently quiz people about their understanding of what their chosen political party actually stands for.
|
>> I wish there was some practical way of ensuring that any voter, regardless of age,
>> could be required to demonstrate that they had at least a working understanding of what
>> they were actually voting for.
There is, and it used to be the case - a property qualification.
Freeholders, and I think leaseholders of more than a certain rent per annum.
There were also the university seats.
|
|
Not sure property ownership gives you an understanding of politics anymore, than say owning a car?
|
|
Nor am I, I was thinking more along the lines of a randomly printed three question multiple choice quiz at top of each ballot paper. Very simple straightforward questions anyone who had at least watched the news or read a newspaper could easily answer. Extract statements from manifestos would be fine for example. As in which Party states "X" is their policy on "Y" ? Tick box A,B or C.
|
I think there is a different issue with the West Lothian question - I am seeing and hearing a lot of traditional Labour voters in Scotland saying they are finished with them - even ones who voted No are disgusted with the way they got into bed with the Tories on this.
If the general election was next week, I don't think Labour would be able to rely on huge MP representation from Scotland. Could it be the "No's" would be willing to vote for SNP in a General Election knowing that full independence is now off the agenda forever?
Hypothetically you could maybe see the SNP having a big say in any coalition come next year?
|
>> Hypothetically you could maybe see the SNP having a big say in any coalition come
>> next year?
Similar scenario on a smaller scale in 1974. Whether from conversion or 'none of the above syndrome' Scotland elected an unprecedented number of Nationalists.
They then voted with the Tories in the 1979 no confidence motion putting devolution off the agenda for a generation and visitong Mrs T upon the Scottish nation.
|
It seems then that the Scots lurch randomly about, left to right and back, up, down and sideways, just like other electorates and for similarly piffling, confused 'reasons'.
Labour seems to have been rejected in Scotland because it is associated with Westminster. There's been a lot of social change too north and south of the border. But are the middle-class regionalist Scotnats going to make those old shipyard workers and their children happy? Have the Jocks gone upmarket? Personally I don't think so. They and the northern/Midlands industrial English have much in common and are tribally and socially contiguous.
Fascinating stuff which I regard as the daily ration of the human comedy.
|
|
AC I don't think its so much the Scots are lurching about, its more that the Labour party are.
|
>> I don't think its so much the Scots are lurching about, its more that the Labour party are.
No doubt, but partly in the effort to keep up with the Scots (and the English, Cornish, Welsh, Irish, Yorkshiremen, Geordies, Lancastrians and so on). Who'd be Ed Miliband? Not me.
|
>> Not sure property ownership gives you an understanding of politics anymore
A person who owned any real property could read and write or at least sign their name. Property also tended to make its owners conservative in their politics, and 'respectable' in appearance. For what it was worth.
These things simply update themselves over time. There's a difference of interests between a 'bourgeois' who owns something and a proletarian worker who just sells his labour in, needless to say, a buyer's market. Craftsmen, the most interesting category originally, were eliminated by capitalists and the proletarian workers who operated their machines. Now there are hardly any. A few toolmakers. Some new technology people.
|
>> >> Not sure property ownership gives you an understanding of politics anymore
>>
>> A person who owned any real property could read and write or at least sign
>> their name. Property also tended to make its owners conservative in their politics, and 'respectable'
>> in appearance. For what it was worth.
>>
I teased Zero a bit about the workers making the money, not the wealthy owners of capital and he told me to get back to the satanic mills. I would, but the boss likes the climate in southern softie-land:)
Howsomever.
As AC says, labour is a buyer's market. Left to its own devices, capitalism only allows unskilled labour a hand to mouth existence. The US is the richest proper country in the world yet has a large proportion of poor people, with its less trammelled version of the market.
Government's job apart from keeping order and defence of the realm etc is to ensure that the worker is fairly treated, through the provision of universal services and tax differentials. It is wrong to think of this redistribution, including transfer of social funding from the SE to the regions, including Scotland, as a "subsidy". It is their just desert.
To effect that quite reasonable redistribution of the wealth generated, but not effectively shared out, by a market economy requires that government represents the worker - the were no Labour governments before all adult men got the vote (when Labour meant labour).
Children have parents, they shouldn't need the vote. Maybe parents should be able to exercise a proxy vote for them? That might make people think a bit longer term and less selfishly.
|
|
Yesterday I was discussing the referendum with my Son in law who owns an oil related company in Aberdeen. He probably knows more about economics than I ever will. As we know the Yes voting regions of Scotland were basically the heavily benefit dependent areas. Both he and I believe a basic understanding of economics drove the No vote. Personal money management and property ownership are a part of this understanding.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Sun 21 Sep 14 at 08:12
|
I can see why education might help, but not property ownership. People with something to lose are as apt to vote selfishly as people with something to gain.
The independence debate though has in many ways been about completely artificial, all if and buts and maybes.
The good thing about the result that the aggrieved should reflect on is that there was never a right answer and a wrong answer. Both can be the right answer if they just get on with it afterwards.
|
>> all iffs buts and maybes >>
And you can't base your personal financial planning on that, if you have a plan beyond your next benefit payout.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Sun 21 Sep 14 at 08:45
|
Government's job apart from keeping order and defence of the realm etc is to ensure that the worker is fairly treated, through the provision of universal services and tax differentials. It is wrong to think of this redistribution, including transfer of social funding from the SE to the regions, including Scotland, as a "subsidy". It is their just desert.
Which is why working tax credits are a silly idea. They are just a labour subsidy to capitalists and encourage capitalists to reduce wages as the state will provide. (and people wonder why there is no wage growth!)
Economic incoherence and plain stupid.
|
>> Government's job apart from keeping order and defence of the realm etc is to ensure
>> that the worker is fairly treated, through the provision of universal services and tax differentials.
>> It is wrong to think of this redistribution, including transfer of social funding from the
>> SE to the regions, including Scotland, as a "subsidy". It is their just desert.
>>
>> Which is why working tax credits are a silly idea. They are just a labour
>> subsidy to capitalists and encourage capitalists to reduce wages as the state will provide. (and
>> people wonder why there is no wage growth!)
>>
>> Economic incoherence and plain stupid.
I agree that it's really difficult as Duncan-Donuts has found out, and the workhouse was a response to the problem that handouts just enabled employers to keep wages down. Better to put money into healthcare, education, infrastructure than into cash benefits.
I think the idea of working tax credits was part of the measures to make it such that it is always better to be in work than claiming benefits. It can only work with a minimum wage, at least the employer has to pay that. And the containment of zero hours contracts, which misused are just a way round the minimum wage.
And of course the market kicks back - squeeze the balloon in one place and it will just bulge out somewhere else.
Not easy at all. Far easier in fact to let the market get on with it and just accept that there will always be a lot of people systematically kept poor. But not very fair or civilised.
All this incidentally is just one of the reasons I have to despise Cameron whose political cronies and relatives take morally crooked measures to avoid tax, which Cameron ignores while having a go at Jimmy Carr.
|
>> Not sure property ownership gives you an understanding of politics anymore, than say owning a
>> car?
>>
Yes, it's a rough and ready yardstick. But it at least ensures by and large that only people with a personal stake in the country get a vote.
|
|
It does, but looking wider would we want any turnout % falling any further?
|
|
We visited my ancient father yesterday, a life-long, left-winger and malcontent who blames everything on somebody else; I was reminded of his similarity to Alex Salmond. As small children, he would delight in fomenting an argument between me and my sister; the argument would develop into a fight with much biting, pinching and pulling of hair. Poor mother would desperately try to separate us and finally, burst into tears …………….. at which point my father would retire to his allotment.
|
|
Salmond seems to have turned into a bitter, bad loser rather rapidly.
|
Who can blame him? It would appear many voters may have been swayed by "Vows" that seem to be getting dismantled very quickly!
And re previous posts about people on benefits, do you not think that they may also have been voting on what would be the best decision that in their opinion may help them to get off benefits?
If they have been on benefits for a period of time and can't find a suitable job anywhere then it is understandable that you might think a different vote may help?
Not everyone was voting based on how they would benefit personally, many voters voted on what they thought would be better for Scotland overall and as a society.
|
For the record, I am pleased it was a "No" vote but the hook wriggling which follows could only be outdone by an English house buying transaction.
Even the legal system here allows people to make promises they don't have to keep so it's only to be expected.
|
>> Who can blame him? It would appear many voters may have been swayed by "Vows"
>> that seem to be getting dismantled very quickly!
I don't see anyone saying its not going to happen. Except Sammon.
>> And re previous posts about people on benefits, do you not think that they may
>> also have been voting on what would be the best decision that in their opinion
>> may help them to get off benefits?
No.
>> If they have been on benefits for a period of time and can't find a
>> suitable job anywhere then it is understandable that you might think a different vote may
>> help?
Those on long term benefits will stay on benefits, they are unemployable. Anyway as sammon kept telling us, Scotland has the lowest unemployment rate in the whole of the UK,
>> Not everyone was voting based on how they would benefit personally, many voters voted on
>> what they thought would be better for Scotland overall and as a society.
personal benefit and better for society is one and the same thing at the end of the day.
|
>> Who can blame him? It would appear many voters may have been swayed by "Vows"
>> that seem to be getting dismantled very quickly!
I suspect many postal No votes were made long before any worthless political promises about vows. Salmonds mythical land of plenty without any hint of how to pay for it was his downfall. Once he couldn't explain his economical fantasy he had blown it.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Sun 21 Sep 14 at 21:33
|
Answering the West Lothian question is part and parcel of Scottish devolution. Only a fantastist could imagine that you might get one without the other. (Or, indeed, Tony Blair, who ignored it last time.)
Why should SNP MPs be entitled to vote on matters affecting English domestic policy? They don't even have a manifesto position on such things.
|
>> Once he couldn't explain his economical fantasy he had blown it.
I suspect his plan was to be a complete bar steward toward rUK in the event of independence. He's a very clever man, i think few contest that. He's many things but not daft.
Couple that with the fact he has an interesting moral code. The Chicago golf debacle jumps to mind but there have been other events over the years. Some have been resolved just shy of the courtroom which in itself is very telling i think.
He's not afraid to be brutally unfair to his opponents, e.g. the Sky / BBC stunt at the last general election.
I think his plan could have been along the lines of using rUK as a safety net for the first few years, partly by retaining the pound. rUK would largely be in the same boat in terms of interest rate requirements for the first year or two and there would be little other risk to Salmond / Scotland of retaining the pound initially.
Scotland gets a safety net, at least initially and rUK gets to hold the whole thing in the air, they've no real choice otherwise. Seriously unfair to rUK.
Couple that with the possibility that lending wouldn't be the thumbscrew Westminster thinks it would. I suspect he wouldn't have borrowed money in conventional ways - i believe big money (which is all American controlled) could be influenced to lend to Scotland only at inflated rates in return for other favours in rUK.
However, (warning - unsubstantiated drivel follows) if iScotland borrowed by selling off a couple of undeveloped oil fields to an oil company whilst dangling (but not yet selling) something like the Clair field (it's desirable because it's easy money - even if oil prices go down, it's so cheap to extract from the Clair field that assuming you bought well, you'd likely still make a killing). An oil company like BP could borrow much more cheaply than iScotland could.
I read a suggestion Russia would lend cheaply (lend what exactly?!) and while I believe it's likely they'd make various offers (they've been losing their grip on Europe through their traditional route of gas / energy dependency so it makes sense they'd want to be in play here) i don't think Salmond would want to sell out to Russia and become a 2nd Netherlands any time soon.
The piece de resistance would be at the point of ceding Clair, whipping the rug out from under everyone by nationalising whatever oil company he sold to initially (sounds crazy but the Russians did similar recently!). The second wringing of the sponge would begin.
All a bit risky though, did you know that in the last couple of years, thanks to fracking, USA has become a net *exporter* of oil. There's always China. Salmond clearly likes the Chinese.
|
>>The piece de resistance
There is no way that he could do any of the above without destroying Scotland's integrity, with the implications for its future financial position that this would have brought.
Once you start nationalising private businesses, that is the moment that private businesses will no longer invest.
|
The SNP are already distancing themselves from Salmond, he has become a liability.
tinyurl.com/pt873vj
Last edited by: Old Navy on Mon 22 Sep 14 at 18:58
|
You've made a lot of points and assumptions skoda.
I think who are wrong about the Netherlands reliance on Russia for energy.
Gas inport is 6% from Russia if I am wrong ok but check the figures.
|
>> You've made a lot of points and assumptions skoda.
>>
>> I think who are wrong about the Netherlands reliance on Russia for energy.
>>
>> Gas inport is 6% from Russia if I am wrong ok but check the figures.
>>
>>
uk.reuters.com/article/2014/04/02/netherlands-gas-russia-idUKL5N0MU2TQ20140402
|
I must be reading a different articles in Dutch.According to these reports only 5% of Russian gas is used by Dutch households.
The majority of gas inports go through Rotterdam on its way to Germany and the rest of the world.
In any case the Russian economy depends on energy exports it would collapse without it.
This reuter article states that the gas found in Groningen is not suitable.Whoever they spoke to must have had a drink,>:)
|
|
Bart Visser is crafty he is playing politics with energy like they all do.
|
>> the Netherlands reliance on Russia for energy
Sorry Dutchie, crossed wires. They're not reliant on Russia for energy, but Europe is.
The Holland dependence on Russia is a financial one.
|
>> The SNP are already distancing themselves from Salmond, he has become a liability.
>>
He certainly has been coming over as increasingly unbalanced. There's a mad glint in his eye I think.
|
I sat next to Alex Salmond on the London to Edinburgh BA shuttle flight late one Friday night many many years ago. We have close family connections to a couple of erstwhile Scottish MPs both from different parties and at least one of them was/is very well known so we had a little something in common to speak about if obviously from a different opinion/mind set.
Salmond, like most people who can get themselves elected was in private anyway, a personable sort, happy to chat and made some interesting points. I could see how he'd be "good in a room".
Didn't persuade me to switch from my natural political inclinations but you could certainly see how he might convince some. I guess they all have that skill to a greater or lesser degree.
Oratory is it?
|
>> Oratory is it?
Seems to vary from one to another. Some orate, some radiate personal conviction, some are moral, some are fun... Personal 'magnetism' - sex appeal which works on everyone - plays a big part quite often. Huge IQ, filing cabinet memory... rat-like cunning... Some or all of these qualities help to make a successful politico. Not for everyone Humph.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Mon 22 Sep 14 at 21:43
|
The view from the Telegraph readers bunker is one thing.
In reality the concern remains that the Better Together vows unduly influenced the vote. If the vows aren't upheld then the referendum has been corrupted and the outcome is similarly twisted.
Changing the rules after a vote isn't democratic in my book.
|
>> The view from the Telegraph readers bunker is one thing.
>>
>> In reality the concern remains that the Better Together vows unduly influenced the vote. If
>> the vows aren't upheld then the referendum has been corrupted and the outcome is similarly
>> twisted.
>>
>> Changing the rules after a vote isn't democratic in my book.
you mean lying to voters during a campaign is not allowed? Blimey thats hundreds of years of undemocratic history down the pan then.
|
>> Umm ok.
Ed Miliband's still doing all right in my book. Showing bottle. Ed Balls looks all right too, even if he did elbow a hack in a football game drawing blood. They do face a bit of an intellectual challenge, but they will probably scuffle through.
Don't like that handsome blond one though, Tristram Hunt. No one should imagine that only female politicians are chosen partly for their looks.
|
>> Ed Miliband's still doing all right in my book. Showing bottle. Ed Balls looks all
>> right too,
Really !!!!!!!!!!!
|
>>
>> >> Ed Miliband's still doing all right in my book. Showing bottle. Ed Balls looks
>> all
>> >> right too,
>>
>> Really !!!!!!!!!!!
It's a hackneyed theme but sadly indisputable that none of them would recognise fiscal probity if it hit them in the face.
The Conservatives pioneered PFI as a means of fiddling the accounts, and Labour took it beyond the limit, treating it as a money tree.
Labour is now saying it can deal with the deficit, , and make us all better off without borrowing to spend, so we know exactly how it plans to do that, and it won't be by taxing the rich - the mansion tax income will be lost in the roundings.
Milliband will have absolutely no room to manoeuvre, having set an expectation that we can be made better off in the short term without damaging the restoration of the public finances. That is not possible. We have seen no reduction in the debt so far, so the Tories haven't demonstrated any higher qualification either.
After years of low inflation an assumption has taken root that it can continue. It can't. Savers are going to pay heavily for this at some point regardless of which set of hypocrites is in power.
Sadly it's as with the press, we get the politicians we vote for. What use is democracy when nobody honest can get elected?
I'm not usually so gloomy this early in the day!
|
Sadly it's as with the press, we get the politicians we vote for. What use is democracy when nobody honest can get elected?
It's simple:
The NHS is unaffordable.
The state pension scheme is too generous.
If people don't work and have never worked all their lives (except for illness- genuine) then they should be eligible for no benefits, and no NHS.
That will win no elections.
There are lots of people who believe the state owes them a comfortable lifestyle. They are mainly Labour voters.
And no OAP will vote for a cut in pensions.
This reminds me of the 1970s politics: no party wins an overall big majority until things went mammaries up and the IMF was called in.
|
>> If people don't work and have never worked all their lives (except for illness- genuine) then they should be eligible for no benefits, and no NHS.
That's a poorly formed argument. Partly because the sum in question amounts to chump change.
To give one example, at just under £5bn paid annually in unemployment benefits, it would take almost 4 lifetimes to repay the national debt. Assuming interest was frozen (and at £50bn / year it's most definitely not!!).
Primarily though, it's poorly formed because it doesn't consider what happens when basic welfare is not provided for.
|
>> This reminds me of the 1970s politics: no party wins an overall big majority until
>> things went mammaries up and the IMF was called in.
Co incidence is not causation. The Tory majority in 79 was around 35. A good working majority but not big in the landslide sense of 83 or 97.
|
>> If people don't work and have never worked all their lives (except for illness- genuine)
>> then they should be eligible for no benefits, and no NHS.
We're part way there already as claimants are being sanctioned for alleged non compliance. Genuine illness is no excuse unless Atos recognise it. They have a poor record for doing so and are a disgrace when it comes to mental health.
I'm ashamed of living in a society where people die with no food in their homes or rely on charitable food banks.
|
>> It's a hackneyed theme but sadly indisputable that none of them would recognise fiscal probity
>> if it hit them in the face.
If you were minded to be fair to the Tories, you'd acknowledge that they are in a coalition and therefore somewhat tied to what they can or cannot achieve.
Historically they have strived to balance the books .. and then Labour get back in and spend the lot.
|
>> >> Umm ok.
>>
>> Ed Miliband's still doing all right in my book.
>>
Have you had a total memory failure, AC ? :)
|
|
I often have them. But what do you think I've forgotten this time?
|
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29310512
>>
>> Umm ok.
>>
Fair enough, it took them more than that to screw it up last time!
|
>> you mean lying to voters during a campaign is not allowed? Blimey thats hundreds of years of undemocratic history down the pan then.
YEEEEE haw haw haw haw haw, cough, heh heh...
|
>> you mean lying to voters during a campaign is not allowed? Blimey thats hundreds of
>> years of undemocratic history down the pan then.
>>
How do you tell if a politician is lying?
Watch their lips to see if they are moving...
|
>>
>> In reality the concern remains that the Better Together vows unduly influenced the vote. If
>> the vows aren't upheld then the referendum has been corrupted and the outcome is similarly
>> twisted.
>>
"vows" !
Were Salmond's unrealistic promises and bribes "vows" too? Is this to be a new word in the British political lexicography?
Out go old tainted manifestos, In come new, believable "vows" :)
|
>> The view from the Telegraph readers bunker is one thing.
..and from a Telegraph reader's perspective, do you not think a Guardian reader lives in a bunker?
>> In reality the concern remains that the Better Together vows unduly influenced the vote. If
>> the vows aren't upheld then the referendum has been corrupted and the outcome is similarly
>> twisted.
...and if Salmond had won and had failed to achieve the vast majority of what he promised, because he physically couldn't, it was beyond his power...would that come under the 'twisted' mantle?
>>
>> Changing the rules after a vote isn't democratic in my book.
Agreed. However it isn't just the preserve of one team.
|
>> The view from the Telegraph readers bunker is one thing.
>>
>> In reality the concern remains that the Better Together vows unduly influenced the vote. If
>> the vows aren't upheld then the referendum has been corrupted and the outcome is similarly
>> twisted.
>>
>> Changing the rules after a vote isn't democratic in my book.
The nature of politics is to meet lies with lies. Honesty rarely wins an election.
|
snipquote
>> The nature of politics is to meet lies with lies. Honesty rarely wins an election.
You are not allowed to call anyone in the commons (or lords) a liar during a house sitting. Thats because its a given
I do wish you wouldn't keep quoting entire posts when replying to them!
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 23 Sep 14 at 10:13
|
You are not allowed to call anyone in the commons (or lords) a liar during a house sitting.
Hence the rather strange language used,
Said:
The honourable member for East Cheam is sadly mistaken...
And means:
The git is a lying twit
|
>> Said:
>> The honourable member for East Cheam is sadly mistaken...
>>
>> And means: The git is a lying twit
>>
By coincidence I was in the commons chamber yesterday and this topic was covered including when Cameron had to apologise for using wrong words
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 23 Sep 14 at 10:14
|
>> By coincidence I was in the commons chamber yesterday and this topic was covered including
>> when Cameron had to apologise for using wrong words
Are these tours still narrated by one of the Parliamentary messengers?
I had such a tour a few years ago as part of a day at Palace of Westminster for Civil Servants organised by the Industry and Parliament Trust.
The guy who showed us the Commons had a gift for that sort of thing with any number of asides and wry observations. Not least of which concerned the Member reserving his seat behind the Leader of the Opposition (then M Howard) so his constituents would see him on telly at PMQs.
|
>> Are these tours still narrated by one of the Parliamentary messengers?
>>
No indication of that. Our guide was a retired civil servant, a very witty Scots guy.
He commented that another guide with a party " shadowing ours" was an ex police officer who did his time in the Palace of Westminster so knew lots of insider tales ( and where the skeletons were)
.
>> I had such a tour a few years ago as part of a day at Palace of Westminster for Civil Servants organised by the Industry and Parliament Trust.
>>
>> The guy who showed us the Commons had a gift for that sort of thing
>> with any number of asides and wry observations. Not least of which concerned the Member
>> reserving his seat behind the Leader of the Opposition (then M Howard) so his constituents
>> would see him on telly at PMQs.
>>
Any member attending prayers prior to the days session can place a "reserved" ticket at his/her target seat and that is respected. D Skinner included .
Tours are an hour and 45 mins. Our guide was doing three yesterday. One was immediately after ours so 5 pm start . There are only two chances for a quick sit down so a few of our party were wilting.
Airport type security prior to entry so belts off etc.
|
|
I just love the way that financial wizz kid Ed Balls say that he knows how to balance the books & run the economy. Its such a great pity that they didn't know how to do it when they were in government as then they wouldn't have got us into the god awful mess that they did !!!!!!!!!!
|
The majority here is conservative-supporting, but the other side are just as bad: attributing all problems, 'the mess we're in', to past or present government by the party you don't support.
Surely this is childish and naive? The nation and its economy, along with the outside world which contains all the powers that be, blunders on its untidy way independently of any inputs by elected officials. The government is just a helpless passenger, like a robot monkey or Pakistani seven-year-old tied to the saddle of a racing camel. That's how it usually looks to me.
|
The government is just a helpless passenger, like a robot monkey or Pakistani seven-year-old tied to the saddle of a racing camel. That's how it usually looks to me.
Strange how the Australian and Canadian Governments ran surpluses during the good years and survived the 2008 Crash in pretty good shape...
|
>> The government is just a helpless passenger, like a robot monkey or Pakistani seven-year-old tied
>> to the saddle of a racing camel. That's how it usually looks to me.
>>
>> Strange how the Australian and Canadian Governments ran surpluses during the good years and survived
>> the 2008 Crash in pretty good shape...
Australia is selling the country to the Chinese, literally digging it up and selling it to them
|
|
We dug up our oil and sold it, pity the politicians wasted the cash instead of keeping some of it in reserve.
|
.
>>
>> Australia is selling the country to the Chinese, literally digging it up and selling it
>> to them
>>
>>
>>
Who would want to keep Australia? Clever of them to sell it. I believe it's pure iron...
|
|
More like pure rust, great if you like red shoes. :)
|
|
When my late father was a small boy at school in about 1920 he was taught a short rhythmic list of Australia's main products at the time: 'Wool, wheat, gold, meat, butter, copper, lead.'
|
>> snipquote
>> >> The nature of politics is to meet lies with lies. Honesty rarely wins an
>> election.
>>
>> You are not allowed to call anyone in the commons (or lords) a liar during
>> a house sitting. Thats because its a given
>>
>> I do wish you wouldn't keep quoting entire posts when replying to them!
I dont, you are sadly mistaken.
|
Further to the recent indie vote and my previous comments that this spelt disaster for Labour in Scotland (and UK), a survey has been taken to see if there was a general election tomorrow who would you vote for:
The Labour Party in Scotland would face political annihilation if there was a general election tomorrow, according to a poll commissioned by STV.
The Ipsos Mori survey shows Labour would poll 23% of the Scottish vote, leaving them with just four seats in Scotland.
In comparison, support for the SNP has surged to 52%, giving them a projected 54 seats at Westminster. The Liberal Democrats would have one and the Conservative party would be left without any Scottish MPs.
The full breakdown of the poll is SNP 52%, Scottish Labour 23%, Scottish Conservatives 10%, Scottish Liberal Democrats 6%, Scottish Green Party 6%, Ukip 2% and 1% support for others.
The 1026 participants were surveyed between October 22 and 29 as the row broke over leadership of the Scottish Labour party. They were asked how they would vote if there was a general election tomorrow.
At the 2010 general election Labour received 42% of the Scottish vote and the SNP 19.9%.
The figures, which exclude those who do not know how they would vote, would dramatically reduce Labour's 40 Scottish MPs - jeopardising Ed Miliband's chances of becoming the next prime minister.
|
Independence Vote - Vol 7 - Dutchie
