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: England does not love coalitions... | |
Author: Ed Harris (London) | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 00:51:56 11/13/04 Sat In reply to: Trixta (UK) 's message, "Armchair prediction" on 18:54:03 11/12/04 Fri 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! [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous 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 ] |