|
Post by fretslider on Mar 19, 2010 20:03:10 GMT
I'm sure it is not necessary to go through all of Labour's not inconsiderable record of corruption. I'm sure it is not necessary to go through all of the Tories not inconsiderable record of corruption. And now, unless by a quirk of feckless fate Labour get back in, it may well be the turn of the Tories to get their grubby mits on the levers of power; the one party state may change hue from time to time, but the name of the game remains the same.
So we will probably be getting Lord Ashcroft over Lord Paul. Its neat really, isn't it; they are totally interchangeable. And what's more, it really is all about them. Come the election the parties will be reminding us why we need them. You name it and they will save you from it. But as Cicero wisely questioned, qui bono? Who really benefits at election time?
You know who does.
|
|
|
Post by Ben Lomond on Mar 20, 2010 13:17:45 GMT
It's a bit of a catch 22 situation really. As you rightly say, the two main parties are either side of the same coin. Whichever gets in, it will be more of the same. Pain for those who work, and take responsibility for themselves and their families, who will be required to pay more...and more.
It really is time for one of the smaller parties to see what they could offer. But that is where the catch 22 comes in. A lot of people (me included) would like to see us withdraw from the United States of Europe, and logically we should all be voting for UKIP. But as most of those who fall into this category are able to think for themselves, they are more likely to be conservative than labour. And we also know that a sizeable vote for UKIP will probably let bloody Labour back in. So we will probably go back to supporting one of the big two, and the cynical cycle will start all over again.
Plus ca change.......
|
|