Brown looks ready to take over

[catgate]

He has just said :-

He said: "The task ahead of us is to build again this New Labour coalition, to persuade people who voted for us, particularly at our highest point in 2001, that we can answer the challenges ahead.

"We have got to prove, by our actions and our behaviour, and also by the measures and policies we take that we are capable of enjoying the trust of the British people, that people can have confidence in us and that people believe that we can take this country forward."

He has got the blinkers on already. He will not see that they have spent the last eleven years proving just how totally unreliable and full of bovine excrement they really are. It's also odd that he seems to think that if Tony said he could be PM then it must be OK with the rest of the country.

I think the Sherrif of Nottingham was probably more munificent than old lockjaw.

[Watchful]

Is he?

We all assume, because of the media, that he will but it ain't necessarily so

[andsome]

Surely even this crowd are more democratic than to hand it to Smirking Gordon on a plate, or are they?

[Watchful]

They should have a proper vote on it but it's hard to see anyone else who would do a decent job

[andsome]

They should have a proper vote on it but it's hard to see anyone else who would do a decent job

I wouldn't want any of them thanks. Brown has already cost me enough thanks.

[Thos]

They should have a proper vote on it but it's hard to see anyone else who would do a decent job

I wouldn't want any of them thanks. Brown has already cost me enough thanks.

Off you go again. You cannot imagine you would have been better off had the other lot, who had proved their financial incompetance, been in charge. But then, knowing your vivid imagination, I suppose you could.

Thos.

[catgate]

You cannot imagine you would have been better off had the other lot, who had proved their financial incompetance, been in charge.

Thos.

The other lot being who? The Cons are well named and the Liberals are too liberal, with personal favours and other peoples money.There has never been a more opportune time for a new start. Unfortunately it's the people against the establishment, and the people are so stuck in the "either or"dichotomy, in pretty well most things, that the chances of a change to true democracy are virtually zero.

The interesting thing to me is that the constant cry, from all parties, is that "We must change to attract more voters." This must surely prove that they have no principals and policies other than getting re-elected, and once they are 'in' they will devise vote buying strategies so as to stay 'in'.

Still..... as long as we have money they will find ways of spending it foolishly for us.

edit.... finger trouble

[Thos]

You cannot imagine you would have been better off had the other lot, who had proved their financial incompetance, been in charge.

Thos.

The other lot being who?

I was just trying to say, in reply to the comment about Gordon Brown taking a good deal of money, that had it not been Labour 9 years ago, the only other party with any possibility of being elected to government wouldn't have left us any better off. Of course it was the Cons.

As far as the rest of your comments are concerned, I still don't know what alternatives can be seriously advocated, Especially if you are right, catgate, in your view that the corrupt will always rise to the top. Or, alternatively, even when honest people get to govern, they will become corrupt.

Thos.

[catgate]

As far as the rest of your comments are concerned, I still don't know what alternatives can be seriously advocated, Especially if you are right, catgate, in your view that the corrupt will always rise to the top. Or, alternatively, even when honest people get to govern, they will become corrupt.

Thos.

This is why my personal preference would be not to have a top. Democratic government, in my view, means all decisions being made collectively (warts and all). I know there would be some mistakes made before the full realisation of what a responsibility this is was grasped, but long term the there would be better decisions made, for the benefit of the people, rather than for the establishment.

Naturally there would have to be a civil service to administer and operate the will of the people, and provision would have to be made to ensure they were efficient and honest.

[andsome]

They should have a proper vote on it but it's hard to see anyone else who would do a decent job

I wouldn't want any of them thanks. Brown has already cost me enough thanks.

Off you go again. You cannot imagine you would have been better off had the other lot, who had proved their financial incompetance, been in charge. But then, knowing your vivid imagination, I suppose you could.

Thos.

When the Tories came to power there was an awful lot to put right from the previous Labour administration. We had to suffer some heartache for a time of course, but things did get better. Labour inherited a rapidly improving economy. It was improving so well, that Brown declared that for the first two years he would not fundamentally change what had been put into place. The few things that he did do however ended up in costing us all. Tax relief was removed from pension fund earnings, and peps were abolished in favour of less good Isa's.

Why is it that views that are against Labour are treated with a personal attack. YES, I can well imagine being better off under the other lot, we already were. As I have pointed out before on this forum I am NOT a die hard Tory, I am able to see further than the end of my nose, and over the years have voted for all the major parties. I just happen to believe that B'liars lot having inherited an improving economy have started things on the downward spiral again, and in doing so have proved to be EVEN MORE sleazy that the last year or two of the previous administration.

[Thos]

As far as the rest of your comments are concerned, I still don't know what alternatives can be seriously advocated, Especially if you are right, catgate, in your view that the corrupt will always rise to the top. Or, alternatively, even when honest people get to govern, they will become corrupt.

Thos.

This is why my personal preference would be not to have a top. Democratic government, in my view, means all decisions being made collectively (warts and all). I know there would be some mistakes made before the full realisation of what a responsibility this is was grasped, but long term the there would be better decisions made, for the benefit of the people, rather than for the establishment.

Naturally there would have to be a civil service to administer and operate the will of the people, and provision would have to be made to ensure they were efficient and honest.

Isn't this communism?

They should have a proper vote on it but it's hard to see anyone else who would do a decent job

I wouldn't want any of them thanks. Brown has already cost me enough thanks.

Off you go again. You cannot imagine you would have been better off had the other lot, who had proved their financial incompetance, been in charge. But then, knowing your vivid imagination, I suppose you could.

Thos.

Why is it that views that are against Labour are treated with a personal attack.

No personal attack intended except in the sense that I respect your views but don't agree with them.

I do think it fair to say though that you rarely miss an opening to introduce a political slant in posts and, whilst they are not always followed up, sometimes I feel a need to introduce a different slant. Making comments like "I am able to see further than the end of my nose" carries a clear, and probably intended, inference that anyone who doesn't hold your views cannot see further than the end of their nose. Attacks don't get any more personal than that.

As long as we respect everyone's views and the right to make them we can maintain a reasonable standard of debate.

Thos.

[andsome]

I referred to the 'off you go again and vivid imagination 'references. No offence taken I assure you.

[Gandalph]

I blame the Government!

[catgate]

This is why my personal preference would be not to have a top. Democratic government, in my view, means all decisions being made collectively (warts and all). I know there would be some mistakes made before the full realisation of what a responsibility this is was grasped, but long term the there would be better decisions made, for the benefit of the people, rather than for the establishment.

Naturally there would have to be a civil service to administer and operate the will of the people, and provision would have to be made to ensure they were efficient and honest.

Isn't this communism?

I am not sure. It may be, but all the communisms that I have ever seen have been dictatorship communisms. Has there ever been a truly communist state. I know that there was some sort of similar thing in Roman Rome, but that went the way of all things.

[r4may]

At present there is not much to choose between any of the current parties as none of them inspire any confidence on the correct way to run the 'United Kingdom' that will preserve what was good and replace the bad with something better that will be to the advantage of the people of this once great country.

At present those at the 'Top of the pile' all have their snouts in the trough.

As for Brown becoming Leader, I was under the impression that the Leader was determined by a Vote at the Party conference. If so there is he has no guarantee as he is seen as someone who never listens and has cost most people a lot of their hard earned cash.

[andsome]

As for Brown becoming Leader, I was under the impression that the Leader was determined by a Vote at the Party conference. If so there is he has no guarantee as he is seen as someone who never listens and has cost most people a lot of their hard earned cash.

My points exactly, especially the hard earned cash part.

[catgate]

This is why my personal preference would be not to have a top. Democratic government, in my view, means all decisions being made collectively (warts and all). I know there would be some mistakes made before the full realisation of what a responsibility this is was grasped, but long term the there would be better decisions made, for the benefit of the people, rather than for the establishment.

Naturally there would have to be a civil service to administer and operate the will of the people, and provision would have to be made to ensure they were efficient and honest.

Isn't this communism?

I am not sure. It may be, but all the communisms that I have ever seen have been dictatorship communisms. Has there ever been a truly communist state. I know that there was some sort of similar thing in Roman Rome, but that went the way of all things.

I do not know what I was thinking about when I wrote the above. It is certainly not communism.

The classic, textbook communism is onwership of everything by the state, and that is just a non starter.

That takes away incentive and leads to apathy.

Edit :- in certain cases ownership can take over from onwership.

[Watchful]

Quote: "That takes away incentive and leads to apathy."

Rather like our country at the moment. Only 36% turned out for last week's local elections

[catgate]

Quote: "That takes away incentive and leads to apathy."

Rather like our country at the moment. Only 36% turned out for last week's local elections

I was one of the other 64%. However my excuse is that we did not have an election in our area.

That leads to the question "Do the percentages being quote apply to %age of total countrywide electorate or purely %age of those eligable through having an election in their area?".

The media, and political party spinners, being what they are, will use the method best suited to their own particular message.

[Thos]

Quote: "That takes away incentive and leads to apathy."

Rather like our country at the moment. Only 36% turned out for last week's local elections

I was one of the other 64%. However my excuse is that we did not have an election in our area.

That leads to the question "Do the percentages being quote apply to %age of total countrywide electorate or purely %age of those eligable through having an election in their area?".

The media, and political party spinners, being what they are, will use the method best suited to their own particular message.

I don't know the answer but I am sure you are right with your opinion. How does that 36% compare with previous local elections, I wonder. They usually have low turnouts.

Thos.

[catgate]

I don't know the answer but I am sure you are right with your opinion. How does that 36% compare with previous local elections, I wonder. They usually have low turnouts.

Thos.

I have just seen the latest PE and in there it says that the percentage who voted labour at the "Labour Drubbing" of last week was 26%, and also the percentage that voted Labour at the last general election was 26%.

Summats up!

[Watchful]

I think the percentage must apply just to that particular area. Our areas varied from around 26% to 49%. Terrible figures Labour lost 4 and Tories gained 4 :( Lib. Dems. made no noticeable impression.

The 36% I mentioned was an average.

[andsome]

The percentage turn out is the percentage of those eligible to vote in a given election. We too did not have an election this year, so we are not included in the figures.

[Thos]

The 36% I mentioned was an average.

I thought we were talking about turnout figures rather than the dismal figures of Labour voters.

Thos.

[catgate]

The 36% I mentioned was an average.

I thought we were talking about turnout figures rather than the dismal figures of Labour voters.

Thos.

The figures I quoted from Private Eye seemed very strange to me. I have no reason to doubt them. PE is usually very matter of fact about such things.

I thought it odd that the same %age votes gave them "victory" at the general election and "defeat" at the local election.