Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, [8], 9, 10 ] |
| Subject: Hoon latest... | |
Author: Dave (UK) | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 13:07:53 11/11/04 Thu In reply to: Paddy (Scotland) 's message, "Blair and the Regiments" on 14:06:49 11/10/04 Wed A cracking story... http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=1302512004 [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| [> Subject: Next British General Election | |
|
Author: David (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 09:38:54 11/12/04 Fri An Australian bookmaker is offering the following odds for the next British election: Labour - $1.12 Conservative - $5.50 Liberal Democrat - $51.00 In other words there is only about a 10% chance of Blair being defeated at the next election. It looks like we can expect another 5 years of Britain's interests being continually sold out to Washington and Brussels. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: Never trust the opinion polls... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 10:05:59 11/12/04 Fri I am not quite so pessimistic. I would say that opinion polls have been thoroughly discredited, especially after the US election Most people I talk to have nothing but contempt for Tony Blair, even those who voted for him at the last election. He got into power by pulling off a massive confidence trick against middle-Britain. Labour’s share of the vote has not changed that much since their opposition days, so they benefited by many Conservative voters staying at home. I hope these voters will return to the fold for our country’s sake. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: but... | |
|
Author: Nick (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:30:10 11/12/04 Fri Most people spent the 1980s saying how much they hated Margaret Thatcher, but they still voted for her in 3 elections. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: Only the socialists said that... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:11:56 11/12/04 Fri [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: If... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (London) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:45:01 11/12/04 Fri If most people who voted for Blair at the last election were those who held him in contempt, why should those who hold him in contempt not vote for him next time? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: Well, they only hold him in contempt now. | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 00:12:14 11/13/04 Sat I suspect that it has taken them a considerably longer period of time to find out what he is all about, than we have. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: That was because | |
|
Author: Roberdin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:06:34 11/12/04 Fri A lot of people voted for Margaret Thatcher because she too ka lot of necessary steps; although I believe that she took privataisation too far. She also won us a war (or was in charge when we did). [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: General Election | |
|
Author: Ben.M(UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:12:25 11/12/04 Fri I'm not an expert but I reckon the Tories have a good chance to get in..but..Labour are more likely. :( [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: As my mum says... sometimes its good to vote for the other party – even if you disagree with them – just so that your party doesn't feel invulnerable | |
|
Author: Roberdin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:08:48 11/12/04 Fri [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: Armchair prediction | |
|
Author: Trixta (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:54:03 11/12/04 Fri Unfortunately I think Blair will win the next election, though not by as much as he'd like. This will obviously make Labour nervous and I reckon Gordon Brown's attraction will increase. The Tories are largely discredited and with Howard as leader they stand no chance - a lot of people distrust him on sight and his many attempts to create a nice tough guy image are frankly creepy. The LibDems, remember them, are likely to continue increasing their share of the vote at the next election and could possibly achieve the opposition. Charlie K is a nice inoffensive man who mught not appear PM material but he is liked and trusted more than the other two. With Menzies Campbell and Lembik Otik behind him I think he could provide a decent opposition but, even as a LD voter, I worry they could not provide effective leadership. This is less to do with their policies (abolition of council tax, anti-war, pro-libertarian) and more to do with the fact they are the LDs - people still have trouble viewing them as anything other than a fringe party. Blair's spin machine is too slick to lose the 2005 election, but I think that the reduction in their majority, especially with his alienation of the Scottish voters, will hurt them badly. Oh, for a hung parliament! That would shake things up a bit. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: England does not love coalitions... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (London) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 00:51:56 11/13/04 Sat No! No hung parliaments! Argh! In Europe they have them all the time, which means that the party which holds the balance of power - usually the party for which fewest people voted - has the most influence over government decisions. In Italy they have had more than 50 governments since the war because all of their administrations have been minorities with the support of small parties, which just fall apart. That's why they're now all voting for Berlusconi, in spite of his manifest corruption, megalomania and idiocy... they know that a bad government which can govern is better than any government which can not. As for your comments on the Lib Dems, I could not disagree more. Charlie Kennedy is not a nice inoffensive chap... he is a Euro-federalist, a peacenik, an opportunist of the worst sort, and a hypocrite. I was talking to a chap in Fort William a few months back, who's an old chum of Charlie's, though a Tory. He went to meet Charlie at the airstrip up there, and they were chatting, and then some camera-men turned up and asked him the purpose of his trip to the Highlands, and Charlie replied, "Och, I've come to see to my croft and plough in my potatoes." The man is about as much of a crofter as Michael Portillo. The Hon Lembit Opik MP, on the other hand, is an absolute dude. But as I said to him last time we met, I would vote for him in spite of his party because he is the sort of man whom I would like to represent me; but, were his party to be in government, I couldn't, because they'd introduce proportional representation so I'd have to vote for the party, not the man, and then the party would assign me a man according to party seniority. No, give me the Tories. To paraphrase William Cowper, "Oh Conservatives, with all thy faults I love thee still." Still, my five-yearly grand is on Labour to win with a majority between 80 and 100. So, if I am lumbered with a government which makes me want to tear my hair out, at least I'll have some profit to compensate me! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: Airstrip? | |
|
Author: Trixta (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:35:48 11/13/04 Sat My partner, a Fort Williamite, would like to know where the airstrip is. Enlighten us - I've been there several times myself and have yet to encounter it. My point about Charlie is that he is perceived as a nice inoffensive chap - certainly in comparison to the crusading Blair and vampirical Howard. Euro-federalist: and Blair isn't? Even Howard is trying to walk a tricky line between his own europhiles and the largely anti-european British public (all in the name of defending his party against UKIP). I'd rather have a peacenik than either a warmonger like Blair or Howard's schizophrenic stance on war. At least we know where the LibDems stand on war - the same place they've always stood. Opportunism & hypocrisy are the very lifeblood of politics, certainly in the modern world. Show me a politician of whom this cannot be said. Given the strength of party whips can you really say that we ever vote for a person over a party? Sure, in our hearts we may do so but in practice we all vote for party representatives and, as such, for the party. Ideally, of course, this should not be the case - but in reality we are voting for someone chosen by the party, put forward by the party who's primarily allegiance is to that party - at least if they want to keep their job. Maybe you should push Lembik to start the Opik Party - hell, you may even win my vote. My point was that a hung parliament would shake up the house - I don't propose the hung parliament as a long-term solution, merely as a short sharp shock that would, hopefully, cause enough MPs to stop and think that maybe they should take a closer look at just how disconnected from the public their parties actually are. It was a hung parliament that got the Lab-Lib coalition working (albeit badly) up here and won a few concessions from the Labour party - now if only we hadn't had Jim Wallace, the world's most ineffective man, as party leader a bit more could have been made of the situation. Imagine, if you will, what a Lab-Con coalition in England might accomplish (Lab-Con is a lot more likely than Lab-Lib or Con-Lib as the two are a lot closer, ideologically, than either might care to admit). [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Air strip at Stornoway, not FW! | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (London) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:14:57 11/13/04 Sat As for your question about politicians free from opportunism and hypocrisy, I think that the only example in the world is George W. Bush... and still no-one likes him! By your token, sincerity in the expression of an opinion is more important than the morality of that opinion: in which case you should be a die-hard Bush supporter, since, whether or not you find his views objectionable, he REALLY means them and doesn't simply change his mind when he encounters opposition. And, your very valid point about the Tories and New Labour notwithstanding, I think it impossible that there could be a Conservative-Labour coalition, simply because of the psychological mountain which MPs from both sides would have to climb... or, rather, climb down. It's like Arsenal and Tottenham Hotspur - they're not serious rivals anymore, but still hate each other because old habits die hard. The same could be said about Scots and English nationalists. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: NEWS FLASH - There are TWO Tony Blairs | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:32:07 11/13/04 Sat Here is a scoop that I have just stumbled upon, prepare to be astounded. I don't know if any of you watched the joint news conference between Bush and Blair, but it appears that the Tony Blair that attended Washington was not our Prime Minister! President Bush was asked if the Prime Minister in his attendance was, in fact, his poodle, he responded with the honest words: “He's a strong, capable man. I admire him a lot. You know why? When he tells you something, he means it. You spend much time with politics, you'll know there's some people around this part of the -- this kind of line of work where they tell you something, they don't mean it. When he says something, he means it. He's a big thinker. He's got a clear vision. And when times get tough, he doesn't wilt. When they -- when the criticism starts to come his way -- I suspect that might be happening on occasion -- he stands what he believes in. That's the kind of person I like to deal with. He is a -- I'm a lucky person, a lucky President, to be holding office at the same time this man holds the Prime Ministership. These are troubled times. It's a tough world. What this world needs is steady, rock-solid leaders who stand on principle. And that's what the Prime Minister means to me.“ [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Hm. | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (London) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:04:28 11/13/04 Sat I used to think that Blair was a political chameleon, bending with the slightest breeze of public opinion whilst working behind the scenes in a sinister manner on his true, secret agenda. But Dubya seems to have more of a point these days. Over Iraq, Mr Blair has stuck up for his policy in the face of furious opposition, just as Thatcher did before him, in the unshaking belief that he is right, no matter what anybody says. Since Mr Bush only sees TB with his foreign policy hat on, I can quite understand how he came to his rather odd conclusion about Mr Blair's sincerity. We, of course, who see him at home and know what he's like with domestic policy, know better... [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I think not | |
|
Author: Trixta (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:16:37 11/14/04 Sun Did I say I admire sincerity in a politican? If I did I sure as hell didn't mean it! (he-he) The only politicans who stick to their guns are the madmen - Bush, Hitler, Cromwell, Thatcher. Politics itself is about hypocrisy - do as they (the politicians) say, not as they do. As for sincerity, well, okay, Bush is sincere (in a sense) but so's the nutter in ward 3 claiming to be Napoleon. Sincerity in meaning does not equate to a good thing. Hitler was sincere in thinking that the Jews were the root of all evil, doesn't make him right. Bush is sincere in thinking that the Islamic world represents the greatest threat to the 'free world' - surely the biggest threats are the continual erosion of liberties that actually define what it means to be free. Bush sincerely, possibly, believes that every US citizen has the right to cheap petrol at the cost of x00,000 muslim lives and several thousand US ones at the same time (not accounting for environmental damage). This does not make him right, only committed (or should that be committable?). Every politician is exactly that, a politician - a person whose very essence is to appear to be all things to all voters. I'd trust any of them as far as I could throw them - a theory I'd actually like to test, preferably off the top of Ben Nevis. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: My point entirely! | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (London) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:50:28 11/14/04 Sun I don't know about Maggie, but generally you have taken my point: sincerity isn't always everything. Would you prefer Tony Blair or Adolf Hitler? Tony, of course, in spite of the fact that he is as slippery as a well-oiled eel and Adolf was deadly sincere. This reminds me of a famous survey which was recently undertaken in France to investigate what qualities voters looked for in politicians, and what sort of politicians would be elected if these criteria were allowed to determine the shape of the political nation. The participants were given brief descriptions of three politicians and asked for whom they would vote. The first was a short-tempered man, born into fabulous wealth and privilege. At university he is said to have smoked opium, and in his later life he drank half a bottle of whisky every night, stayed up until the early hours and was rarely awake before Mid-day. The second was a habitual womaniser, also from an old, moneyed family. He used a sarcastic and flippant sense of humour to evade awkward questions. He often withheld information from his government and his chiefs-of-staff to the benefit of his own strategy and to prove himself right, and took the attitude that a political leader’s job was to direct the nation rather than serve it. The third was from humble origins. He entered politics after fighting for his country in the Great War. He got up early every day, took his job seriously, and was very earnest in his opinions. He seldom drank, had been a vegetarian, was unmarried, and throughout his life aspired to be an artist. The participants of the survey overwhelmingly responded in favour of the third candidate. The other two received hardly a single vote. In the feedback from the poll, the pollsters revealed that the descriptions were of real people. The first was Sir Winston Churchill. The second was Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The third was Adolf Hitler. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: Lib Dems are worthless! | |
|
Author: Paddy (Scotland) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:45:09 11/12/04 Fri Charles K is deeply offensive. He changes his policies from doorstep to doorstep just so as to get more votes by ANY methods. He is also in favour of the E.U. constitution no matter what it says. His party is so frighteningly to the left that if the Lib Dems were in power we would see another flight of capital that could well push this nation into total bankruptcy. The ONLY way to get Blair out is to vote Conservative at the next election. The Lib Dems have no principles, just tactics to get themselves into power. If you do not trust Blair the ONLY way to deal with it is to vote Conservative. If people cannot bring themselves to do this because of their miserable prejudices that make them blind to the obvious they may just as well not bother to vote but that will only give the discredited Labour party 5 more years. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: Yet... | |
|
Author: Roberdin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 22:10:51 11/12/04 Fri Just as the Conservatives were winning my favour, they decide to go back to their 'low tax' policies. This can only mean more privatisation and less public services. *Sighs* Let's hope that the Conservatives win by a very small minority so that they don't have wide sweeping powers. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: Well | |
|
Author: Paddy (Scotland) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 22:33:41 11/12/04 Fri All the evidence actually points to low-taxes being considerably better for the economy as a whole. Anyway, this is not a forum on economics but if you are interested in finding out about the benefits of low taxes in a society I suggest looking at the Adam Smith Institute's website. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Lower Taxes | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:15:56 11/12/04 Fri I don’t know what age you are Roberdin, but I don’t understand your stance on privatisation. Most privatisations have been a great success. BT, British Gas, British Steel (now Corus), British Airways etc. These were all lame duck companies when the Government were running them. Are you a tax-payer? I always find that it’s non-taxpayers that complain about lower taxes. Surely we ought to know by now that lower taxes need not affect the public services. It is financial management that is the key - or mismanagement as the case may be. Labour has created so many non-jobs in the public sector, which is where all the money is going. People who say lower taxes will degrade the public services, by definition, argue that higher taxes will mean better public services. The last seven years have shown beyond any doubt that this is not the case. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Privatatisation... | |
|
Author: Roberdin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:39:41 11/12/04 Fri No, it's not privatisation in general that is a concern; it is privatatisation of industries that by definition work better under a single operator, primarily transport. British Rail was a respectable insitution that delivered, for the most part, trains on time. Since its mismanaged privatisation, train delays have increased by 11%, track upgrades have fallen hopelessly behind schedule, prices have rocketed, connecting trains no longer wait for each other, jobs have been lost, and public funding has increased three-fold. This is a case of Labour's mismanagement; it is clear that these half steps forward and back Labour is taking with the service are merely balancing it on an equilibrium between complete financial liquidation and government control (= government forced to buy it), and profitability and government relaxation of controls. No-one, aside from Richard Brandson, has made much of a profit from the Railways between 1900 and now; and it is clear why - shareholders are not interested in investing large amounts for projects that may take 10, 20, or 30 years. The government however, will be. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Railway Privatisation | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 00:04:33 11/13/04 Sat Yes, the privatisation of the railways has been a bit of a shambles. However, we must realise that passenger numbers have increased vastly since privatisation. If I dare say it, I think the reason it has not been as great a success as all the others, is because it was not a true privatisation. There is still too much Government control and interference in the running of the railways in this country. I reject totally that a good railway system has to be publicly owned. During the heyday of the railways in this country, the famous names of LMS, LNER and Great Western were competing, which resulted in the great speed races of the 30s. This was the golden age of the railway, and was completely based on private enterprise. Japan has a private railway, and is arguably the best in the world. The French railway is public, but only the TGV is world-class. The regional lines are as bad as ours. The Conservatives did make a mess of it. The rushed it through and created the franchise system, which has not helped. Private companies cannot be expected to make huge investments when they are only guaranteed a return for 10 years max. The Conservatives knew that to improve the railways, they needed to introduce competition. However, they failed to realise that the competition was the motor car, and the low price airlines, not other trains in different liveries. Sorry – I’ve gone off-topic again! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: French local lines are much worse than they are in the U.K. | |
|
Author: Paddy (Scotland) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 09:51:34 11/13/04 Sat [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Taxes | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (London) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 00:37:16 11/13/04 Sat 1) Transportation is not an industry, it is a public service, and 2) in any case, the Labour Party has proved that increased spending on public services does not necessarily make them any better! Every single public service has had more and more money thrown at it under this Government, and every one of them has got worse... except for the military, which has had more and more money taken away from it and still performs at a level of which we can all be proud. Increased taxation and more spending is almost never the answer; indeed, often it just serves to mask the root causes of the inefficiencies in the services, and perpetuates institutional corruption. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Quite so. | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (London) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 12:28:27 11/14/04 Sun I understand that the privately-run bullet trains in Japan are posted "delayed" even if their arrival is LESS than a minute late. Moreover, they have had one accident in forty years. By contrast, we are only refunded if the train is more than an hour late, and virtually every other train is involved in some hideous accident. A Frenchman told me a joke a few months ago... "How do you find a train in Britain? Follow an ambulance." I remember being very cross at the time, but, frankly, given recent events, I'm inclined to consider the 'joke' as sad rather than irritating. After all, we invented the bloody things, and now the French - whose ability to organise public services has a tradition which makes Yugoslavia look civilised - are making fun of our ability to run a train service. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Private/Public ownership of railways | |
|
Author: David (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 05:27:03 11/14/04 Sun If you believe that railways must be publicly owned in order to be efficient, I encourage you to visit the two cities of Sydney and Melbourne. Melbourne's public transport was privitised in the 1990s and is world class. Trains almost always run on time, are safe and are always clean. If train companies fail to meet minimum standards, then they are given heavy fines by the Victorian government and they are able to compete effectively with cars. In contrast, Sydney's publicly owned rail system is a joke. Regulary in Sydney, less than 5% of trains in peak hour run on-time and increasingly there are instances where no trains run on time during peak hour (the definintion for on-time is within 5 minutes!) In October, about 3.5 million people were late to their destination because of our publicly owned rail system. There have also been two large scale train crashes in recent years killing many people. It should also be remembered that both of our countries have political parties which are run by trade unions, this complicates industrial relations disuptes between government owned companies and unions. If unions are not happy with the boss of the railways in Sydney, they simply have the government remove him. There is absolutely no respect for customers in government owned companies and all they do is bow to union pressure, expecially when Labour governments are in power. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Alright, Alright! | |
|
Author: Roberdin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 12:31:52 11/14/04 Sun I just meant that in this case, it was better publically owned. Selling London Underground off isn't going to help things either, as they are a world class service atm. Just renationalise the Railways or release government control, either will suffice for me. No more privatisation is neccessary in the UK. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Um... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (London) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 12:57:37 11/14/04 Sun How can you renationalise the railways AND roll back government control? Seems hard, to me. Get hold of a book called The New Enlightenment by Graham and Clarke. SHould be a cheap copy on www.abebooks.co.uk. I read it when I was at school and it has had a profoud affect on the way in which I see things. Full of sprightly things by Hayek and Adam Smith and all those laissez faire herberts. Highly recommended in the context of this debate about rail nationalisation! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I didn't mean AND, I meant OR | |
|
Author: Roberdin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:44:51 11/14/04 Sun [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Fair enough! | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (London) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:44:49 11/14/04 Sun [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |