Re: Election 2010 starts here?
Posted: Sun Apr 19, 2009 2:46 pm
Mmmmm, i have quite slim hands,if that helps the equation...
Page 2 of 4
Re: Election 2010 starts here?
Posted: Sun Apr 19, 2009 7:18 pm
You should stay a Labour voter!
Quite right, Colonel
Posted: Sun Apr 19, 2009 7:42 pm
Quite right Colonel,
What we want is a Tory government that is going to:
Rein in the excessive profiteering of the gas and water companies.
Support manufacturing and helps it to get back on its feet after years of Labour neglect.
Create a sense of society again in "broken" Britain.
Strictly regulate the financial sector.
Bring expertise and experience to politics.
Cut out sleaze from political life.
Oh..., but wasn't it the Tories that:
Sold off the utilities to private companies in the first place?
Oversaw the destruction of the coal mining industry and manufacturing industry ("You can't buck the markets" was one of Thatcher's favourite phrases) resulting in the laying waste of swathes of the UK?
Denied that society existed and that it was all about doing whatever was necessary for your own family?
Introduced deregularisation of the finance industry in the first place?
Had Cameron as an advisor when Lamont got into deep, financial doodah? And as for Osborne, what experience has he had?
Had two Tory ex-Cabinet ministers, Archer and Jonathon Aitken sent down for a stretch at her Majesty's pleasure?
And now their plan is to savagely cut back spending, now when did I hear that last.......
Plus ca change, plus la meme chose as we say in sun-soaked Blackpool
Cheers
David
What we want is a Tory government that is going to:
Rein in the excessive profiteering of the gas and water companies.
Support manufacturing and helps it to get back on its feet after years of Labour neglect.
Create a sense of society again in "broken" Britain.
Strictly regulate the financial sector.
Bring expertise and experience to politics.
Cut out sleaze from political life.
Oh..., but wasn't it the Tories that:
Sold off the utilities to private companies in the first place?
Oversaw the destruction of the coal mining industry and manufacturing industry ("You can't buck the markets" was one of Thatcher's favourite phrases) resulting in the laying waste of swathes of the UK?
Denied that society existed and that it was all about doing whatever was necessary for your own family?
Introduced deregularisation of the finance industry in the first place?
Had Cameron as an advisor when Lamont got into deep, financial doodah? And as for Osborne, what experience has he had?
Had two Tory ex-Cabinet ministers, Archer and Jonathon Aitken sent down for a stretch at her Majesty's pleasure?
And now their plan is to savagely cut back spending, now when did I hear that last.......
Plus ca change, plus la meme chose as we say in sun-soaked Blackpool
Cheers
David
Re: BE SEEN HERE
Posted: Mon Apr 20, 2009 5:40 am
Hi Be-Seen-Here,
Your replies are incorrect. My answers are in caps. to make it easy to see.
"Sold off the utilities to private companies in the first place?"
No, they turned them into private (actually public) companies by selling them to the public and financial institutions.
YOUR REPLY AGREES WITH ME MORE OR LESS. THEY SOLD THEM TO FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AND TURNED THEM INTO PRIVATE COMPANIES. UNITED UTILITIES ARE ONE OF THE BIGGEST COMPANIES IN THE FTSE 100. THE BASIC POINT FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND IS THAT A NUMBER OF THESE UTILITY COMPANIES HAVE BEEN SOLD ON FOR VAST PROFITS BECAUSE THE BUYERS REALISE THAT IN MANY WAYS THEY ARE A LICENCE TO PRINT MONEY. AND THE PEOPLE WHO SUFFER FROM THE HUGE INCREASES IN GAS PRICES, FOR EXAMPLE, ARE YOU AND ME. A FORMER TORY PRIME MINISTER HAROLD MACMILLAN LIKENED THATCHER'S SALE OF THE UTILITIES TO "SELLING OFF THE FAMILY SILVER"
"Oversaw the destruction of the coal mining industry and manufacturing industry ("You can't buck the markets" was one of Thatcher's favourite phrases) resulting in the laying waste of swathes of the UK?"
No Scargill managed that all by himself and it's a fact..."you can't buck the markets" Manufacturing has contracted faster over the last 10 years than during Thatchers time.
NO. SCARGILL MERELY PREDICTED THE DEMISE OF THE COAL INDUSTRY BECAUSE IT WAS STRONG AND UNIONISED AND PLAYED A PART IN THE DEMISE OF THE HEATH GOVERNMENT. THE TORY PARTY CRUSHED THE COAL MINING INDUSTRY IN RETALIATION. GOOGLE THE HEATH GOVERNMENT FOR MORE INFO ABOUT THE CAUSES OF THE 3 DAY WEEK SINCE YOU APPEAR TO BE QUITE KEEN ON GOOGLE. SCARGILL HANDLED THE STRIKE BADLY BUT IN TERMS OF HIS ESTIMATE OF WHAT WAS ABOUT TO HAPPEN TO THE COAL INDUSTRY HIS MAIN GUILT WAS IN TOTALLY UNDERESTIMATING THE DEVASTATION THAT WOULD BE CAUSED.
"Denied that society existed and that it was all about doing whatever was necessary for your own family?"
Society does exist but I'd put my family first before paying your benefits every single time
YOU DISAGREE WITH THATCHER AND AGREE WITH ME. IN A WOMEN'S OWN INTERVIEW IN 1987 SHE STATED THAT SOCIETY DID NOT EXIST.
"Had Cameron as an advisor when Lamont got into deep, financial doodah?"
Interesting take on history, Lamont never wanted to go into the ERM neither did Thatcher, John Major and the Labour party did !! Thatcher couldn't fall out with Major after having just had Lawson resign so in we went.
THE IMPORTANT POINT FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND IS THAT THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY DECIDED TO GO INTO THE ERM IN OCTOBER 1990. THE FINANCIAL DISASTERS THAT OCCURRED IN SEPTEMBER LED TO INTEREST RATES GOING TO 15% - SLIGHTLY HIGHER THAN THOSE UNDER THE RECENT LABOUR GOV!!! CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG BUT WASN'T JOHN MAJOR, THE PRIME MINISTER AT THE TIME AND NORMAN LAMONT, THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, CONSERVATIVES? YOU MISS THE WHOLE POINT I AM MAKING - CONSERVATIVE FINANCIAL INCOMPETENCE. I NOTE YOU MAKE NO REFERENCE TO MY POINT ABOUT OSBORNE HAVING VERY LIMITED EXPERIENCE.
And if you want to battle over sleaze and corruption then this Labour governent make the Tories look like angels.
Mandelson and the Hindujas
Ron Browning on Clapham common
John Prescott knobbing his secretary
Mandelson and his dodgy mortgage
Tony Blair being questioned under caution by the police
Bernie Eccleston
Cash for peerages
AGREED THAT SLEAZE IS NOT JUST A TORY TRAIT. HOWEVER GIVEN THAT ARCHER GOT FOUR YEARS FOR PERJURY, AND AITKEN 18 MONTHS - ARCHER AN EX-DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF THE TORIES AND AITKEN AN EX-CABINET MINISTER, ANY SENSIBLE PERSON WOULD OBVIOUSLY DISPUTE YOUR STATEMENT THAT THIS GOV. MAKES THE TORIES LOOK LIKE ANGELS.
THIS IS MY LAST EMAIL ON THIS THREAD, I DON'T WANT TO GET INVOLVED IN ONE OF THOSE TEDIOUS ENDLESS BLOG THREADS. YOU HAVE YOUR VIEWS. I HAVE MINE.
HAVE A NICE DAY.
Re: Election 2010 starts here?
Posted: Mon Apr 20, 2009 7:46 am
I will, kind of..... My local ward Labour Mp is brill. Does loads for his constituents,and will always have my vote.. Thing is, he isnt a minister, and the rot is at the top.... locally, there are loads great labour Mps.... but they havent the POWER TO MAKE CHANGE ,like this sorry lot have had endless years , money and time too... I cant kid myself anymore that the party i used to love has the ability /cares (enough), about the old... education.. immigration.. The EU.. er, is a long list so will just say etc... long gone are the days when labour was the party for the underpriveliged, AND ACTUALLY CARED ... locally, some mps are great- nationally, they really not fit to Govern..... Sorry to rant on , and believe me, ive cut this down!! just that they really not up to the job..... John smith dying was THE WORST thing ever to happen to Labour, and im afraid ,parliament and the uk... Mandelson has done VERY nicely out of it tho,if that helps?
Re: Just to clarify
Posted: Mon Apr 20, 2009 2:42 pm
Hi,
Sorry but the points you make are completely wrong again
"And as for experience Osbourne would have as much as Brown did coming in as Chancellor and certainly much more business experience than Brown who'd never run anything other than a bath"
First to clarify the topic of experience.
Re. Osborne, have a butchers at this link
http://www.tom-watson.co.uk/george-osborne/
In short, entered politics in 1994. Did not become an MP until 2001. Apart from a very brief spell as a journalist, no business experience whatsoever. No experience whatsoever of government.
Then have a look at this link re. Gordon Brown.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6743875.stm
In short, became an MP in 1984. Considerable political experience in Shadow Cabinet and Government.
To summarise, Gordon Brown, as you would expect for someone who is 20 years older than Osborne has considerably more political experience, particularly in running departments in government. Secondly there is absolutely nothing in their biographies to support your statement "and certainly much more business experience than Brown who'd never run anything other than a bath". THIS IS JUST WRONG. OSBORNE HAS VIRTUALLY ZERO BUSINESS EXPERIENCE.
Secondly, re. the ERM fiasco. You are still missing the point. Either on purpose or through confusion. You state...
"Your point was a pop at Cameron actually, linking him to Lamont and incorrectly implying that Lamont was responsible for the ERM disaster when in fact Lamont and Cameron were probably the two who would be most against it.
Have a look at this link
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/date ... 519013.stm
The decision was made in 1990 to join the ERM. It was a Conservative government. Britain was forced to leave the ERM in 1992. It was a Conservative government who presided over the fiasco. Lamont was Chancellor at the time. What he thought in private was irrelevant. There is a concept of collective responsibility in Cabinet government. If he had been so much against the ERM he should have resigned rather than presided over the fiasco.
As one political commentator reported of the events that day
"September 16th 1992 was the defining moment in eighteen years of economic failure.
As hapless Chancellor Norman Lamont emerged into the media spotlight of Downing Street to raise interest rates for the third time on the same day, he was flanked by his Special Advisor in the Treasury: one David Cameron (before he became a PR consultant).
I wonder what special advice Mr Cameron gave his boss on what was to become known as Black Wednesday. Was Cameron responsible for Lamont's infamous soundbite of the day...remember the one:
?It?s been a difficult day??
Well, what else can you say when you?ve mucked it up so badly that you have to hike interest rates by a record five per cent in just a few hours.
In short whether Lamont believed in the ERM or not was irrelevant, HE WAS THE GUY IN THE JOB AND CAMERON WAS HIS ADVISOR. NO POINT SAYING AS YOU DO THAT THESE GUYS WERE AGAINST THE ERM WHEN IN FACT THEY HAD ACCEPTED THE POSITIONS WHICH WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR OVERSEEING IT!
People are entitled to vote for who they want to, but you and others would be helped by a better understanding of political history before making that decision.
CHeers
David
Sorry but the points you make are completely wrong again
"And as for experience Osbourne would have as much as Brown did coming in as Chancellor and certainly much more business experience than Brown who'd never run anything other than a bath"
First to clarify the topic of experience.
Re. Osborne, have a butchers at this link
http://www.tom-watson.co.uk/george-osborne/
In short, entered politics in 1994. Did not become an MP until 2001. Apart from a very brief spell as a journalist, no business experience whatsoever. No experience whatsoever of government.
Then have a look at this link re. Gordon Brown.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6743875.stm
In short, became an MP in 1984. Considerable political experience in Shadow Cabinet and Government.
To summarise, Gordon Brown, as you would expect for someone who is 20 years older than Osborne has considerably more political experience, particularly in running departments in government. Secondly there is absolutely nothing in their biographies to support your statement "and certainly much more business experience than Brown who'd never run anything other than a bath". THIS IS JUST WRONG. OSBORNE HAS VIRTUALLY ZERO BUSINESS EXPERIENCE.
Secondly, re. the ERM fiasco. You are still missing the point. Either on purpose or through confusion. You state...
"Your point was a pop at Cameron actually, linking him to Lamont and incorrectly implying that Lamont was responsible for the ERM disaster when in fact Lamont and Cameron were probably the two who would be most against it.
Have a look at this link
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/date ... 519013.stm
The decision was made in 1990 to join the ERM. It was a Conservative government. Britain was forced to leave the ERM in 1992. It was a Conservative government who presided over the fiasco. Lamont was Chancellor at the time. What he thought in private was irrelevant. There is a concept of collective responsibility in Cabinet government. If he had been so much against the ERM he should have resigned rather than presided over the fiasco.
As one political commentator reported of the events that day
"September 16th 1992 was the defining moment in eighteen years of economic failure.
As hapless Chancellor Norman Lamont emerged into the media spotlight of Downing Street to raise interest rates for the third time on the same day, he was flanked by his Special Advisor in the Treasury: one David Cameron (before he became a PR consultant).
I wonder what special advice Mr Cameron gave his boss on what was to become known as Black Wednesday. Was Cameron responsible for Lamont's infamous soundbite of the day...remember the one:
?It?s been a difficult day??
Well, what else can you say when you?ve mucked it up so badly that you have to hike interest rates by a record five per cent in just a few hours.
In short whether Lamont believed in the ERM or not was irrelevant, HE WAS THE GUY IN THE JOB AND CAMERON WAS HIS ADVISOR. NO POINT SAYING AS YOU DO THAT THESE GUYS WERE AGAINST THE ERM WHEN IN FACT THEY HAD ACCEPTED THE POSITIONS WHICH WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR OVERSEEING IT!
People are entitled to vote for who they want to, but you and others would be helped by a better understanding of political history before making that decision.
CHeers
David
Re: Just to clarify
Posted: Mon Apr 20, 2009 4:08 pm
Okay, I give up. You are either get it or you dont. You dont.
Lamont was the Chancellor on Black Wednesday. Obviously he was "in deep political doodah" when he had to stand outside Downing Street and explain why the interest rate had to be put up 3 times in a day. If being Chancellor of the Exchequer when interest rates had to go up 3 times in a day is not a definition of being in deep political doodah, I dont know what is.
That was his job, he was Chancellor. Cameron was his political advisor.
I repeat. Whether he was the architect of ERM entry which he wasnt is IRRELEVANT. He was the guy who had accepted the role as Chancellor of being responsible for the nation's finances and membership of the ERM was a key part of it. He was in shit street.
Sorry, but I can't explain it any more simply.
Lamont was the Chancellor on Black Wednesday. Obviously he was "in deep political doodah" when he had to stand outside Downing Street and explain why the interest rate had to be put up 3 times in a day. If being Chancellor of the Exchequer when interest rates had to go up 3 times in a day is not a definition of being in deep political doodah, I dont know what is.
That was his job, he was Chancellor. Cameron was his political advisor.
I repeat. Whether he was the architect of ERM entry which he wasnt is IRRELEVANT. He was the guy who had accepted the role as Chancellor of being responsible for the nation's finances and membership of the ERM was a key part of it. He was in shit street.
Sorry, but I can't explain it any more simply.