|
Post by randomvioce on Feb 23, 2010 23:54:08 GMT
I spoke of power and the people, meaning just that. Power without responsibility? Then it is not ‘power’, not in the sense that you mean at least. What you are talking about is the mindless, the bigots, the idiotic coming up with ideas on the back of fag packets and trying to implement them. That is going to end in chaos. Don’t get me wrong, that can happen now, but at least we only have about forty of fifty idiots within the party machine and we have intelligent people who can thwart them. It is not perfect of course, but the areas where the entire system melts down and causes disastrous polices to get implemented, but that has normally been few and far between in recent years. The power of recall of an MP or a Parliament - 5% of the constituency signing a petition triggering a plebiscite The power of referenda - subject to 5% of the constituency signing a petition. Yes, well those are the stupidest ideas so far. Given that almost every constituency has opponents to the sitting MP, we will have by elections every week. I live in a staunch Labour seat, but I am sure we could get 5% to sign a petition every week, month of year, or what ever the time limit was. Our Government would be changing every two weeks! That would mean no-one would ever want to make the unpopular decision. Sometimes power means taking unpopular decision for the long term good. I assume you have never read ‘lord of the flies’. I suppose the analogy that springs to mind is how we think allowing children’s meals to be popular votes. No doubt ‘dinner’ would be roly polly and custard with a side dish of oven chips. Best to allow mum to decide. You cannot have 5% of the population triggering a referendum, because the Country would be in a referendum mode. We would be having votes to abolish or strengthen the NHS/Army/police/Royal family/the BBC/Banks/Manchester United/abortion/the religion of Jedi/the Church of England/football on the telly/darts/Tesco/ASDA, you name it, there will be at least two referenda on the subject at any given time. Not only that, we will have conflicting outcomes. We will potentially votes to ban abortion against votes to ban State support for single mothers. We will have votes to cut taxes, but votes to increase border controls, we will have votes to overturn NICE’s decision on a certain cancer drug and votes to cap spending on the NHS. We will have votes to ban unemployment and votes to curtail inflation. Of course, we what we really will have is three newspaper proprietors deciding what our laws will be because they will spend the most money on every agenda. You really think laws designed by Murdoch, Sullivan and Rothermere is better than we have now?
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Feb 24, 2010 0:08:41 GMT
You cannot blame PPP and PFI on anybody else, although Major did try a stab at it. I haven't attempted to either, I agree the full damage of these outrages will not be felt until Brown (and perhaps Cameron) is out of power. I am talking abou the difficulties were are seeing now. The deregulated banks, the oversubscribed housing market, the high personal debt levels, mass long term unemployment the long term sick. The decline in the manufacturing base, the failing infrasturcture, the creaking state of our public services etc. The regressive tax burden. None of these things are down to Brown.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2010 6:57:05 GMT
The oversubscribed housing market is due to too few houses for the current population, surely? If it is true that Labour encouraged immigration, then they must take the blame.
The rest I agree with; all these pre-date Nulab. The sick we shall of course always have with us....
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Feb 24, 2010 8:29:20 GMT
I spoke of power and the people, meaning just that. Power without responsibility? Then it is not ‘power’, not in the sense that you mean at least. What you are talking about is the mindless, the bigots, the idiotic coming up with ideas on the back of fag packets and trying to implement them. That is going to end in chaos. Don’t get me wrong, that can happen now, but at least we only have about forty of fifty idiots within the party machine and we have intelligent people who can thwart them. It is not perfect of course, but the areas where the entire system melts down and causes disastrous polices to get implemented, but that has normally been few and far between in recent years. The power of referenda - subject to 5% of the constituency signing a petition. Yes, well those are the stupidest ideas so far. Given that almost every constituency has opponents to the sitting MP, we will have by elections every week. I live in a staunch Labour seat, but I am sure we could get 5% to sign a petition every week, month of year, or what ever the time limit was. Our Government would be changing every two weeks! That would mean no-one would ever want to make the unpopular decision. Sometimes power means taking unpopular decision for the long term good. I assume you have never read ‘lord of the flies’. I suppose the analogy that springs to mind is how we think allowing children’s meals to be popular votes. No doubt ‘dinner’ would be roly polly and custard with a side dish of oven chips. Best to allow mum to decide. You cannot have 5% of the population triggering a referendum, because the Country would be in a referendum mode. We would be having votes to abolish or strengthen the NHS/Army/police/Royal family/the BBC/Banks/Manchester United/abortion/the religion of Jedi/the Church of England/football on the telly/darts/Tesco/ASDA, you name it, there will be at least two referenda on the subject at any given time. Not only that, we will have conflicting outcomes. We will potentially votes to ban abortion against votes to ban State support for single mothers. We will have votes to cut taxes, but votes to increase border controls, we will have votes to overturn NICE’s decision on a certain cancer drug and votes to cap spending on the NHS. We will have votes to ban unemployment and votes to curtail inflation. Of course, we what we really will have is three newspaper proprietors deciding what our laws will be because they will spend the most money on every agenda. You really think laws designed by Murdoch, Sullivan and Rothermere is better than we have now? RV I did say 'try to think outside that tired old paradigm' for a reason. The points I referred to are but a small part of the bigger picture. How many times have you seen me say 'we need a new system'? Do you comprehend what that means? It means an end of what we have now, its creaking and in your parlance it 'is not fit for purpose'. Switzerland, Italy Germany, USA etc etc all far more democratic, they have these rights, give me a really good reason why we should not have them too, and try not to fall back on the tired cliches like 'power without responsibility'. "What you are talking about is the mindless, the bigots, the idiotic coming up with ideas on the back of fag packets and trying to implement them." Have you any idea how ridiculous this line of argument is? I suggest you do some reading, start with 'democracy' - you learn something new every day.
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Feb 24, 2010 12:30:03 GMT
The oversubscribed housing market is due to too few houses for the current population, surely? If it is true that Labour encouraged immigration, then they must take the blame. Two points. First of all the housing stock was sold off, not by Labour, but by the Tories. That means that people with low incomes need to buy houses and that has pushed up the price and forced people to take out bigger mortgages. This has fuelled the high levels of debt that we see now and has led to the current economic meltdown and of course the spectre of being thrown out onto the streets has halted any recovery. Second, despite the Tory rags lies and twisting the truth, Labour have NOT encouraged immigration. The Tory scum and the halfwits that support them are trying to make out that they have, but the prime motive for immigration has been economic. Not Government. Its not like Brown drove buses to Paris to pick up French people and transported 300,000 French people, did he?
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Feb 24, 2010 13:35:52 GMT
The oversubscribed housing market is due to too few houses for the current population, surely? If it is true that Labour encouraged immigration, then they must take the blame. Two points. First of all the housing stock was sold off, not by Labour, but by the Tories. That means that people with low incomes need to buy houses and that has pushed up the price and forced people to take out bigger mortgages. This has fuelled the high levels of debt that we see now and has led to the current economic meltdown and of course the spectre of being thrown out onto the streets has halted any recovery. Second, despite the Tory rags lies and twisting the truth, Labour have NOT encouraged immigration. The Tory scum and the halfwits that support them are trying to make out that they have, but the prime motive for immigration has been economic. Not Government. Its not like Brown drove buses to Paris to pick up French people and transported 300,000 French people, did he? [Labour have NOT encouraged immigration.] Yet more Neocon Labour denials... There was indeed a Labour conspiracy to change the nature of our society by mass immigration...... 9th February 2010 The release of the previously unseen document suggests that Labour’s migration policy over the past decade has been aimed not just at meeting the country’s economic needs, but also the Government’s social objectives. The Government has always denied that social engineering played a part in its migration policy. However, the paper, which was written in 2000 at a time when immigration began to increase dramatically, said controls were contrary to its policy objectives and could lead to social exclusion. The italicised text below was contained in the original draft of the document drawn up in 2000 for a discussion on immigration policy - but deleted from the version published over a year later. The document was not published in its original format over fears of an adverse public reaction. Instead it was released as a research document on the economic benefits of migration. 1) The emerging consensus, in both the UK and the rest of the EU, is that we need a new analytical framework for thinking about migration policy if we are to maximise the contribution of migration to the Government's economic and social objectives. 2) Indeed, over the medium to longer term, migration pressures will intensify in Europe as a result of demographic changes. But this should not be viewed as a negative - to the extent that migration is driven by market forces, it is likely to be economically beneficial. On the other hand, trying to halt of reverse market-driven migration will be very difficult (perhaps impossible) and economically damaging.3) Chapter 4, focusing on the Government's aim to regulate migration to the UK in the interests of social stability and economic growth, argues that it is clearly correct that the Government has both economic and social objectives for migration policy. 4) The more general social impact of migration is very difficult to assess. Benefits include a widening of consumer choice and significant cultural contributions. These in turn feed into wider economic benefits.5) In practice, entry controls can contribute to social exclusion, and there are a number of areas where policy could further enhance migrants' economic and social contribution in line with the Government's overall objectives. 6) It is clear that migration policy has both social and economic impacts and should be designed to contribute to the government's overall objectives on both counts. The current position is a considerable advance on the previously existing situation, when the aim of immigration policy was, or appeared to be, to reduce primary immigration to the 'irreducible minimum' - an objective with no economic or social justification.Interesting reading, eh.
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Feb 24, 2010 13:48:26 GMT
How many times have you seen me say 'we need a new system'? Do you comprehend what that means? I understand what it means, but what is this 'new system'. One that laws are written merely by decree? Are you sure that is the kind of 'new system' we need? Are you sure you want us saddled with unworkable laws, just because some well funded interest group has managed to conjure up a list of names and a huge campaign? Are you sure you want a system where the stupid can force idiotic laws on the rest of us by sheer numbers? Are you sure you want to remove experts in the field from shaping the laws that Govern us? Is it possible that writing laws is more complicated than a 'yes' or 'no' on a thirty word question? Switzerland, Italy Germany, USA etc etc all far more democratic, But are they though? Is there any evidence that these systems are more democratic? In America the clear will of the people was for health care reform, which has been scuppered, not by reasoned debate, but by lies, spin, half truths from a well funded lobby group. Is that more democratic than our system? What is 'democratic' about making up scare stories? and try not to fall back on the tired cliches like 'power without responsibility'. That kind of makes my point though. We see people on this board every day coming out with statements like 'that should be banned', 'that shouldn't be allowed' etc. When questioned however, they normally have no idea of the issues or how such a law could be implemented. It is one think to vote on 'Abortion should be illegal', it is quite another to draft and implement such a law. "What you are talking about is the mindless, the bigots, the idiotic coming up with ideas on the back of fag packets and trying to implement them." Have you any idea how ridiculous this line of argument is? Is it? How many votes do you see in tabloid newspapers with idiotic questions and glib results. The Daily Mail once ran a story about processed meat being linked to bowel cancer. Studies showing the link and recomending a daily intake. This story had sources and named the relevant parties invovled. On the same page the poll was 'does meat cause cancer'. With a majority of people voting 'no'. Had these people spotted a flaw in the data or perhaps noticed a trend that the peer review group missed. Or perhaps the Daily Mail reader just didn't want to face up to what the science was telling them? So these same people would hardly likely to vote for measures to combat this, given they have no clue of the issues. Who is more likely to generate the best strategy for combating bowel cancer? The top three hundred oncology researchers, or two thousand daily mail readers? According to your method the mere number of votes cast should hold sway, but I am not convinced.
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Feb 24, 2010 13:52:31 GMT
Yes, but nowhere does it say Labour encouraged migration. In fact it suggests that immigration is driven by 'market forces'. Which is what I said.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Feb 24, 2010 14:18:49 GMT
How many times have you seen me say 'we need a new system'? Do you comprehend what that means? I understand what it means, but what is this 'new system'. One that laws are written merely by decree? Are you sure that is the kind of 'new system' we need? Are you sure you want us saddled with unworkable laws, just because some well funded interest group has managed to conjure up a list of names and a huge campaign? Are you sure you want a system where the stupid can force idiotic laws on the rest of us by sheer numbers? Are you sure you want to remove experts in the field from shaping the laws that Govern us? Is it possible that writing laws is more complicated than a 'yes' or 'no' on a thirty word question? But are they though? Is there any evidence that these systems are more democratic? In America the clear will of the people was for health care reform, which has been scuppered, not by reasoned debate, but by lies, spin, half truths from a well funded lobby group. Is that more democratic than our system? What is 'democratic' about making up scare stories? That kind of makes my point though. We see people on this board every day coming out with statements like 'that should be banned', 'that shouldn't be allowed' etc. When questioned however, they normally have no idea of the issues or how such a law could be implemented. It is one think to vote on 'Abortion should be illegal', it is quite another to draft and implement such a law. "What you are talking about is the mindless, the bigots, the idiotic coming up with ideas on the back of fag packets and trying to implement them." Have you any idea how ridiculous this line of argument is? Is it? How many votes do you see in tabloid newspapers with idiotic questions and glib results. The Daily Mail once ran a story about processed meat being linked to bowel cancer. Studies showing the link and recomending a daily intake. This story had sources and named the relevant parties invovled. On the same page the poll was 'does meat cause cancer'. With a majority of people voting 'no'. Had these people spotted a flaw in the data or perhaps noticed a trend that the peer review group missed. Or perhaps the Daily Mail reader just didn't want to face up to what the science was telling them? So these same people would hardly likely to vote for measures to combat this, given they have no clue of the issues. Who is more likely to generate the best strategy for combating bowel cancer? The top three hundred oncology researchers, or two thousand daily mail readers? According to your method the mere number of votes cast should hold sway, but I am not convinced. A constitutional settlement has to be worked out, one that is relevant to today, not the 17th century. You come across as a Stalinist, a very undemocratic person. Maybe you've been hanging out with the Labour party too long. If a proposal is that idiotic, as you put it, it won't get the support it needs to go forward to a plebiscite. Then again it has to be voted on, that is called democracy, something you appear to eschew. Experts? Who are these experts? Are you referring to the unelected chamber? Another shining example of democracy, not. How many countries have a government elected by just 22%, you're having a laugh aren't you when you ask "Is there any evidence that these systems are more democratic?" Think about it! Your party is the party of spin, RV, you tell me what is 'democratic' about making up scare stories? Your party does it all the time. Wanna buy some swine flu vaccine?, look out there's a terrorist under the stair! I doubt very much people would petition and vote to ban abortion, don't you? You seem to be the very essence of an anti-democrat. People should only be allowed a choice if RV thinks they should be allowed one. Over to you Tovarich Stalin.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Feb 24, 2010 14:20:40 GMT
Yes, but nowhere does it say Labour encouraged migration. In fact it suggests that immigration is driven by 'market forces'. Which is what I said. Jeez. Border controls, or rather the complete lack of them. Do you believe everything they tell you at Millbank Tower?
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Feb 24, 2010 14:35:18 GMT
Border controls, or rather the complete lack of them. Do you believe everything they tell you at Millbank Tower? This is driven by market forces, fretty. It is industry that wishes unregulated border controls.
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Feb 24, 2010 14:48:42 GMT
If a proposal is that idiotic, as you put it, it won't get the support it needs to go forward to a plebiscite. Won't it? Have you any evidence for that? Experts? Who are these experts? Are you referring to the unelected chamber? Another shining example of democracy, not. Depends on who what we are dealing with, doesn't it? If we are talking about medical or legal issues for example we can get them in and see what they have to add, nothing to do with the house of lords. How many countries have a government elected by just 22%. So what? If people don't vote that is not an issue. We cannot force people to vote, can we? Your party is the party of spin, RV, . I have never voted Labour in my life, so you are wrong about that. I doubt very much people would petition and vote to ban abortion, don't you? Are you sure about that? I bet you could get 5% of the population to sign up for that and get it to a vote. Then what? Lets say you get a 55% vote to ban it. Who draws up the Bill, and how? Do we have aline by line vote? Do we merely vote on amendments? Do we draw up the bill first then vote on it after the bill is finished? How long do we need to wait before we can vote to have the law repealed?
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Feb 24, 2010 15:14:30 GMT
If a proposal is that idiotic, as you put it, it won't get the support it needs to go forward to a plebiscite. Won't it? Have you any evidence for that? Depends on who what we are dealing with, doesn't it? If we are talking about medical or legal issues for example we can get them in and see what they have to add, nothing to do with the house of lords. So what? If people don't vote that is not an issue. We cannot force people to vote, can we? I have never voted Labour in my life, so you are wrong about that. I doubt very much people would petition and vote to ban abortion, don't you? Are you sure about that? I bet you could get 5% of the population to sign up for that and get it to a vote. Then what? Lets say you get a 55% vote to ban it. Who draws up the Bill, and how? Do we have aline by line vote? Do we merely vote on amendments? Do we draw up the bill first then vote on it after the bill is finished? How long do we need to wait before we can vote to have the law repealed? Democracy is about the will of the people, Tovarich. If they vote for something, even if you or I disapprove of it, it is nonetheless the will of the people. Why do you suppose a government would no longer seek scientific advice, when it is obvious that it is needed? Bit of a red herring, that one. 22% is no mandate, and yes people can be obliged to vote. That would not be my preferred choice, but quite a number of countries do that. < 50% is just not enough, Tovarich. You have never voted Labour in your life? You sure are an excellent cheerleader for Brown et al. [Are you sure about that? I bet you could get 5% of the population to sign up for that and get it to a vote. Then what? Lets say you get a 55% vote to ban it. Who draws up the Bill, and how? Do we have aline by line vote? Do we merely vote on amendments? Do we draw up the bill first then vote on it after the bill is finished? How long do we need to wait before we can vote to have the law repealed?] For some guidance I suggest you read say, the Italian or Swiss constitutions.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Feb 24, 2010 15:15:18 GMT
Border controls, or rather the complete lack of them. Do you believe everything they tell you at Millbank Tower? This is driven by market forces, fretty. It is industry that wishes unregulated border controls. What utter rot. Its, er, government policy.
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Feb 24, 2010 15:20:53 GMT
What utter rot. Its, er, government policy. Government policy that big business requires. When the CBI says jump, the Government says 'how high?'.
|
|
|
Post by Ben Lomond on Feb 24, 2010 15:22:35 GMT
to be honest though i would rather vote con and change the leadership to ..david davis or hague And people wonder why I describe the Tories as scum? The Tory voters have bleated endlessly about about the 'unelected' nature of Gordon Brown, claiming that some kind of constitutional crisis has occured. They have been going on and on about this since Brown became Prime Minister. They have made all sorts of stupid claims and DEMANDED an election. However, now that they feel that they can gain power, they can remove an elected prime minister and replace him with a Party hack! All of a sudden their objections will be dropped? Nothing more than political dung beetles, saying one thing to gain power and then dropping it when the win. TYPICAL TORY. You really are an ignorant little tosser, Random. I rather resent being called scum; but I can console myself with the thought that your posting says more about you than it does the Tory voter. And what it says isn't very pleasant. Childish in the extreme, and nasty with it.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Feb 24, 2010 15:27:14 GMT
What utter rot. Its, er, government policy. Government policy that big business requires. When the CBI says jump, the Government says 'how high?'. Ignorant rubbish. You are Lord Rumba. I don't want the prize.
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Feb 24, 2010 15:43:10 GMT
Democracy is about the will of the people, Tovarich. If they vote for something, even if you or I disapprove of it, it is nonetheless the will of the people. If they vote for something that is totally unworkable and glib, then that isn't democracy, that is chaos. Why do you suppose a government would no longer seek scientific advice, when it is obvious that it is needed? Bit of a red herring, that one. Not so. If you are saying that a popular vote in a referendum is enough to to force the Government to drop plans then the science defacto, becomes irrelevant. You sure are an excellent cheerleader for Brown et al. Nope, but I can see when peeople are blaming him for things that are not really within his control.
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Feb 24, 2010 15:47:29 GMT
I rather resent being called scum; Then don't like scum, Neddy; It ain't rocket science. I rather resent being called scum; but I can console myself with the thought that your posting says more about you than it does the Tory voter. What would you say about people who decry Gordon Brown becomming Prime Minister outwith an election then advocate that Cameron should be replaced as leader after the next election?
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Feb 24, 2010 15:47:50 GMT
Democracy is about the will of the people, Tovarich. If they vote for something, even if you or I disapprove of it, it is nonetheless the will of the people. If they vote for something that is totally unworkable and glib, then that isn't democracy, that is chaos. Not so. If you are saying that a popular vote in a referendum is enough to to force the Government to drop plans then the science defacto, becomes irrelevant. You sure are an excellent cheerleader for Brown et al. Nope, but I can see when peeople are blaming him for things that are not really within his control. Carry on clutching at straws, Tovarich. You really have no understanding at all on this. Ben is 100% correct in his analysis.
|
|