At bloody last

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by Matt Clark, May 10, 2007.

  1. quentinc

    quentinc New Member

    Jan 3, 2005
    Annapolis, MD
    Of the three big parties, Labour falls in the center. I don't know enough about Brown though to say if he's more conservative, although he's still from Labour.
     
  2. Matt Clark

    Matt Clark Member

    Dec 19, 1999
    Liverpool
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    No. Old Labour was. Blair's ghastly "Noo Labah!" project decided that the only way to woo the British electorate was to set up camp smack bang in the middle of ToryWorld.

    No, he's generally held to be more left-leaning.
     
  3. MtMike

    MtMike Member+

    Nov 18, 1999
    the 417
    Club:
    Sporting Kansas City
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I stand corrected, then.
     
  4. Colm

    Colm Member

    Aug 17, 2004
    UK
    Club:
    Tottenham Hotspur FC
    Nat'l Team:
    --other--
    Old Labour was the left wing party.

    But in this day in age they are in the centre these days.
     
  5. MtMike

    MtMike Member+

    Nov 18, 1999
    the 417
    Club:
    Sporting Kansas City
    Nat'l Team:
    United States

    Gotcha
     
  6. Matt Clark

    Matt Clark Member

    Dec 19, 1999
    Liverpool
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    The Economist has an uncharacteristically hamfisted appraisal of his tenure in their current edition. They do, however, manage one passage in which they capture precisely what I was talking about earlier in this thread.

    That, in a nutshell, is Blair's failure.
     
  7. leg_breaker

    leg_breaker Member

    Dec 23, 2005
    I think Brown's going to be even worse. Taxes will get even higher, public services even worse.
     
  8. Colm

    Colm Member

    Aug 17, 2004
    UK
    Club:
    Tottenham Hotspur FC
    Nat'l Team:
    --other--
    Agreed. Brown won't be a good prime minister, dark days loom ahead.
     
  9. nicephoras

    nicephoras A very stable genius

    Fucklechester Rangers
    Jul 22, 2001
    Eastern Seaboard of Yo! Semite
    How interesting, the Economist agreed with my assessment that Blair will be seen in a more complementary light 50 years from now than he is now. How odd you call it hamfisted, Matt. ;)
     
  10. Dead Penguin

    Dead Penguin New Member

    Aug 12, 2006
    UK
    I doubt that he will be any different from Blair, because he and the Treasury have driven domestic policy over the last decade anyway. In terms of Foreign policy he doesn't have much leeway seeing as he has to deal with Blair's legacy first. It was quite amusing to hear him drone on about how he would move away from 'spin' when it was he who used to reannounce the spending increases dozens of times, each time as though it were new money.
     
  11. Samarkand

    Samarkand Member+

    May 28, 2001
    Pulling out of Iraq (and I'm not saying he's going to do it) is the most dramatic and possibly the only way he can ensure that he won't be seen as Blair-lite or Blair II.

    Also, were he to do that, I suspect Labour would defeat the Tories in the next election.
     
  12. Matt Clark

    Matt Clark Member

    Dec 19, 1999
    Liverpool
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Heh.

    Actually, however, it's hamfisted for rather more substantial reasons than that the headline doesn't agree with me. Like the whole passage on "fusty" 1997 Britain. Presumably there's someone in the Economist's London offices who is still dazzled by Blair's brief dabble with that whole "Cool Britannia" horseshit. Who knows, maybe they even still occasionally stick that D:REAM tune on and have a little dance around the photocopier.

    Like I said ... hamfisted.
     
  13. Naughtius Maximus

    Jul 10, 2001
    Shropshire
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    Blair's been a reasonable prime minister. A bit out of touch with ordinary people sometimes but that's only to be expected from someone of his background.

    The economies been remarkably good and the public services, whilst they've cost a great of money, have been improved markedly. Unfortunately most people's 'experience' (sic), of them is via the newspapers who have always hated the labour party with a vengeance. I think Brown will be OK but his skills on the TV aren't as good so he might struggle.

    Business has been booming in a way rarely, (if ever), seen in this country but, unfortunately, when people have had it so good for so long they tend to think that's the way it's always been.

    Actually, it's quite strange. If you talk to most people now they often say things are tough.. everyone is having a hard time and the economic conditions are very bad. Then you ask them about how THEY'RE doing and, all a sudden it's a different story. 'OH! I'M doing alright... I'M having 2 foreign holidays a year... I'VE just bought a new car and a new flat screen TV'. It's like there's this massive disconnect between reality and what people THINK is happening.

    The same with crime. The unwashed hoards are, apparently, at the gate... until you ask people about their experience of crime.. then it's a different story, certainly in comparison to the way it was under Thatcher and Major.

    My parents are in their 70's, (my dad's 80 this year), and they talk to many OAP's and they all pretty much agree they've never BEEN so well off. More than a few of them rely not on occupational pensions but solely on the state pensions provision. I mean, it's not enough because... well, it's never enough, is it. But they still say they're doing OK. People forget the numbers of OAP's that used to have the choice between eating and switching the heating on. Whilst I wouldn't say those things never happen now the incidents are a lot less, as much as anything because they can all get home insulation free which didn't happen before.

    Regarding the issue of spin... it's always struck me that the labour party can't win. In the 70's and 80's we had the years of amateurism in getting our point across and the meeja never let us forget it. Under Blair they couldn't complain about that so, what do they come up with? We're TOO professional!!! Like I say, we can't win. TBH I don't take that criticism very seriously because it only comes from people that despise us and everything we believe in anyway, so... fvkc 'em!

    If, god forbid, the tories ever win another general election THEN we'll see what the alternative is like. Trust me... it won't be pretty.

    Frankly, I sometimes wish it would happen. I mean, I'M OK!!!! :) Let's just see some of these people bleating about the labour party and how they do under them. I could do with a good laugh :D

    The big problem, obviously, has been Iraq. I agreed with it at the time, (and not just because Blair said he was going to do it anyway), but I did rather fondly imagine they had some clue as to what they were going to do when they got there.

    I think that's done for Blair's legacy tbh. Still, I'd have preferred someone like Robin Cook myself to Blair so I'm not too bothered either way. He comes out as a bit of an arsehole in the short term but one who's done quite well for the country overall.

    What's gonna happen next?... now THAT'LL be interesting! :)
     
  14. Matt Clark

    Matt Clark Member

    Dec 19, 1999
    Liverpool
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Oh well that's OK then - take it you're voting for our friend from Eton next time out then? ;)

    As is always mentioned when this debate takes place during American presidential elections, the health (or otherwise) of an economy is very difficult to tie down against the actions of just one administration - even one that's been in power for 10 years. The economy was in a good shape in 1997 and benefitted from continued global health for some years subsequently. In their first term, New Labour did basically nothing that was at odds with the policies of their predecessors. In the second term they then splurged the proceeds of that economic bonhomie on massive public spending programmes and begun to raise taxes left right and centre. Their third terms has so far been characterised by increasingly sluggish growth, rising interest rates and volatile money supply issues.

    Oh please. Like "most people" have only experienced buses and trains through the newspapers. Or hospitals, or neighbourhood policing, or bin collections, or care homes, or park maintenance, or any of the myriad range of things that surround us daily and which are paid for by our taxes. One of the most loathsome aspects of the "Noo Labah!" phenomenon is the way in which its supporters seek to pretend that anyone critical of actual delivery and performance (or lack thereof, more precisely), is just part of a grand and inherantly conservative media-driven conspiracy to denigrate the the Labour party. Like saying "my local hospital is a shithole" is somehow an insult to the hobnailed, grimy-cuffed authenticity of New Labour's sincere desire to help make the world a better place.

    Again, you're building straw men. Just because the picture painted of crime in the Daily Mail is hysterical nonsense doesn't mean crime isn't a real concern. My mate was mugged just a week ago and I've been burgled twice in the past 10 years (yes, yes, I live in Liverpool, haha - per capita crime in Manchester and London is higher and rising faster).

    Good on 'em, but then this is the generation that will also tell you that back in the day you didn't see a banana for decades and if you went out you could leave the front of your house off and no one would nick anything, things were good back then, not like today, no one's got any respect, that's the problem.

    And then they doze off.

    I don't care what people who think the Second World War was "not very nice" think about subsistence living, the state pension is a disgrace. And that's before our next Prime Minister committed pension robbery on a scale that would have made even Robert Maxwell blush.

    Is that really the point? I don't think so - just because Labour are now the ultimate whores of spin BUT the most electable party in the land doesn't make being the ultimate whore of spin any less distasteful, or any less of a waste of your mandate.

    Spin has always existed and it was always going to get this daft, that's a function of media and media channels, not any one political party. Noo Labah! were just the shiniest laxative pellet that loosened society's bowels sufficiently for this dreadful process to become as all-pervasive as it now is.
     
  15. Naughtius Maximus

    Jul 10, 2001
    Shropshire
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    So, er... can we count on your vote next time? :D
     
  16. Naughtius Maximus

    Jul 10, 2001
    Shropshire
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    Surpringly enough, no
    Well, obviously, as time goes on the effect of any economic benefit from the previous administration is diminished.
    Really?

    I think you mean in comparison to the utter shambles it was before 1997 don't you.
    Presumably that's why the rest of europe and the US has enjoyed the steady economic prosperity we have.. or not!
    That must be why we're all so poor and why house prices have plummeted like a stone. Ah... wait!
    Hmm... s'funny! I seem to remember the tories sold them off before we got in. HEY! What do I know!
    My dad's at the hospital and doctors at least 3 times a month. He says it's great... far better than it's ever been actually, and that INCLUDES the fact that we're having to find ever greater amounts for the latest treatments that rise, and will continue to rise.
    Actually quite good around here.
    Again, privatised some time ago. Those pesky tories again... always getting in the way of a good political argument, eh!
    Bloody old people keeping living longer... awkward old bastards. Hey! with the new 'much worse'(TM) health service with labour they'll probably die off soon... that'll solve the problem.
    Er.... OK! :confused:
    Obviously you haven't been watching the 'usual suspects' that have been wheeled out by the papers/BBC/ITV to examine 'in a fair and balanced'(TM.. again), way, the legacy of Blair. They range all the way from his most harsh critics to... er... well, his most harsh critics, actually.
    Jesus, the hoards are IN the door.
    I'm glad you said that... it saved me the trouble :D
    Let me know when it gets to Telford. I'll try and remember to be worried.
    Er... no, actually.

    My dad tells me about violence in south east London before the war. In those days whole busloads of blokes would come down from the east end and they'd have pitched battles with knives, bicycle chains, lumps of wood and so on.

    There were whole areas of the east end and south east london where the police wouldn't go unless there were about 40 of them. They particularly disliked going into the areas where there were flats because they were quite likely to have something like a bath or coal scuttle thrown down on them.
    Are you talking about the basic pension or the MIG. Both are too low, as I said, but they, (and the other benefits), are still a lot better than they were under the previous lot.
    Except I doubt Robert Maxwell intended that investment in industry would benefit as a result and that the money so raised would be spent on health, education and welfare.

    Frankly, all this crap about the dividend tax credits matter and shadowy figures in the civil service who 'warned him' are just that... crap! Everyone involved knew what it was about and, frankly, employers scrapping of the final salary pension schemes have made far, far more impact than this is likely to have.
    Well, I suppose anyone who supports old father time himself, Menzies Campbell, as prime minister can feel justifiably horrified at the idea that someone not apparently suffering from the effects of rigor mortis is too attractive and not liable to be a decent cove in office but I think you're carrying this whole, 'whistling from the wings' thing a bit too far mate.

    Having said that...

    I agree! This is not how I'd prefer it either but, tbh, your points above display a remarkable familiarity with the mantras the meeja have been spouting for the past 10 years so I doubt it's gonna end any time soon. I mean, if an intelligent, well informed fella like YOU believes them... what hope is there for the rest of us?
     
  17. Pigs

    Pigs Member

    Everton FC
    England
    Mar 31, 2001
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Club:
    Everton FC
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    Liverpool's a shithole, that's not Tony Blair's fault. That's because of other things prior to him.

    But the UK on the whole has improved on public services, the economy has grown on every quarter since Blair was in power, employement has been low under him, thousands of new business's have been created, inflation and interest rates remained relatively low, long term unemployement has been cut dramatically, the New Deal scheme has helped over a million get into work. the minimum wage was introduced, Overall people's standard of living has improved.

    There are negative's, but the positives outway them and that's why Blair has won three general elections.


    Blair will be remembered for being a success domestically, that you can't refute. But his foreign policy of going to war into Iraq will be a negative. What will also be remembered is that at that time, even if there was a Conservative leader in power, we would still have gone into Iraq.

    US-UK going into Iraq and Afghanistan was planned prior to September 11th, that's just the way it is. That's just countries protecting their long term futures. Shame.

    Oh, and who can forgot Northern Ireland. Blair wrote himself into the history books for that.

    Gordon Brown will succeed Blair, but Cameron will succeed Brown. Oh, and our new friends are France, a new EU constitution will be signed and sealed. And them ID cards will come in somehow. Just watch.
     
  18. Dead Penguin

    Dead Penguin New Member

    Aug 12, 2006
    UK
    Give over, no party in history has had such an easy ride from the newspapers that Labour received from 1997 through to 2003. At one time 9 out of 10 of Britain's national daily newspapers were supporting them. Even over the last 4 years they are still backed by most of press, the Sun, Mirror, Times, FT, Guardian and Independent are all more or less on their side.

    The economy was in very good shape when Labour inherited it, obviously the ERM was a fiasco, but Labour were as in favour of that decision as anyone, and since 1993 the economy had grown solidly.

    The USA has grown at a quicker rate than the UK over the last ten years, as have several European countries.

    I don't know why everyone thinks that soaring house prices are so wonderful, since when has inflation been regarded as a positive good?
     
  19. leg_breaker

    leg_breaker Member

    Dec 23, 2005
    I haven't seen either of those. If anything, public services seem to be getting worse. I know public transport is for a start. And don't even get me started on bin collections.

    Those same newspapers who wanted him elected in the first place?

    What planet are you living on? Yeah things are brilliant. Especially for those people who can't get a house, never mind two holidays. Or people who can't get full-time jobs as companies turn to east-european agency workers.

    Can I ask, what sort of area do you live in?

    We? Oh right you're a Labour member?
     
  20. Naughtius Maximus

    Jul 10, 2001
    Shropshire
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    That's because you can't remember what it was like before.
    Like I said, privatised by the tories in the case of rail... and then someone else has to come along and pick up the pieces, as usual.
    Unfortunately people don't like paying taxes so the RSG was cut throughout the tory years. We're still suffering the consequences of it now because it's a lot easier to destroy than it is create.
    Tell me you're joking... please! They support the labour party as long as they think they'll carry out non-labour policies. If they thought for one second the tories under the various bald-headed losers they've had would win they'd drop them like a stone.

    Unfortunately the press in this country are more interested in money than principal and they support the side they think will win. Mustn't tick off those readers, y'know.
    Unfortunately rising house prices are one of the indicators of a successful economy. All that money comes from somewhere y'know.
    Presumably that's why there are fewer people going on holiday, (particularly abroad), than there were 10 years ago?

    Ah! wait...
    And yet if we look at the number of people employed in full time jobs we find a different story.
    One where the levels for the majority of crime types have dropped over the past 10 years... like most people. Bearing in mind the types of crime that are more likely to be committed now such as the theft of mobile technologies, that's pretty good.
    Sure am :)
     
  21. Matt Clark

    Matt Clark Member

    Dec 19, 1999
    Liverpool
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Well, anything is relative, but to argue that the economy of 1997 was in a state, as you have and that it was Blair that sorted it out subsequently, is blatantly and demonstrably false.

    You’ll find yourself in a small minority if you seriously attempt to argue that Brown didn’t benefit substantially from policies put in place by his predecessors at Number 11 and in the Treasury. Not even Tony Blair would argue it, to be honest.

    Are you saying that global economic indices like output growth and monetary stability haven’t been posting steady upward trends in the period we’re discussing here?

    Strawman, again. And you really do call into question your grasp of basic economics if you use an index like house prices as a measure of general economic health. Let’s lay that aside and look at real factors: what’s your response to the point I make about tax burdens? The OECD published figures to coincide with the latest budget that showed the tax burden in the UK had risen from 39.5 per cent of gross domestic product in 1997 to 42.7 per cent in 2007 – which represents one of the biggest in the western world. Them’s hard figures, which I find it difficult to get any of Noo Labah!’s dwindling band of straight-faced supporters to comment seriously upon.

    Such taxation rises (comprised of some 90 separate increases across all aspects of life, from National Insurance to Air Passenger Duty) is offset by rising wages in some sectors, of course, but there’s no getting around the fact that you are taking home less of your pay now than you have done for more than a generation. And Brown’s little (and meaningless) jiggle of income tax in his most recent budget shows that he knows this – and knows it’s an issue to the ordinary people he needs to keep him in power in 2010.

    I find facetiousness is more often than not an act of defensiveness. You’re being either disingenuous or poorly informed if you fail to acknowledge the massive role the state and its money continues to play in the provision of transport to the nation.

    That’s good news for your Dad. My wife and I, by contrast, had such an appalling experience at the Liverpool Women’s Hospital (reputedly one of the best in the country) during the birth of our first kiddie that we’re going private with our second one.

    But there’s little point in trading personal anecdotes. That said, did you see the recent Panorama? That’s our NHS, that is.

    Hmmm. Except in Liverpool, it’s still the council what does it. A Liberal Democrat Council, I’ll grant you.

    Is there a need for this? You know full well that my point is the standard of care that is often the norm is the issue, not old people’s longevity. I find that quite offensive.

    I don’t know what to say to this, it’s just a generic “they’re horrible to my lot but not to the other lot”. Maybe the criticism of Blair (I was reading The New Statesman’s take on it yesterday) is as universal as it is because … I dunno … because he’s viewed critically by lots and lots of people, right across the political spectrum. Rarely, I suspect, has everyone from Old Labour grump to squeaky-voiced New Tory apparatchik had so much in common.

    Right, so Blair’s claim to fame when it comes to “tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime” is that 1930’s-style slum slogs no longer happen. With the bar set that low, I guess we can proclaim him a successful PM. There were also no outbreaks of Spanish Influenza on his watch, but I’m disinclined to add that to the “plus” column. And before I too descend into wanton facetiousness, I’ll remind you that you even a casual browse through any daily paper will provide evidence of massive crime problems – and their social antecedents - in all of our major cities, all of which are, in their own way, every bit as pressing and as damning to this government as the events your father can recall.

    Now, I reckon you and I would probably agree that the roots of much of today’s lawlessness within sink estates and de-industrialised regional towns are to be found in Thatcher’s callous economic and social policies of the 1980’s, but that’s just one more reason why 1997 was so massively significant to anyone who believes that governments, through their actions and policies, can steer the course of social order on a semi-permanent basis and, as such, have a grave responsibility to actually do measurably effective things within the realm of social inclusiveness. All Blair will be remembered for is the soundbite I quote above, his governments shameless manipulation of statistics and targets to post improvements on paper where noe were discernible in practice, and his preposterous “Respect agenda” from the 2005 election campaign.


    I did a quick google search to find figures which either prove or disprove this claim. I’d be interested to see firm evidence that today’s basic payment of £87.30 a week is “a lot better” than the payments were under the Tories. Once you adjust for inflation, I’d doubt there’s much to sing about about in the Noo Labah! ranks.

    Arf … that’s cute. But let’s face it. Brown raided the pension funds of millions or ordinary people in order to fill a hole in his own budget calculations and he did so in a deliberate, premeditated way that leaves no room for interpretation. He knew what he was doing. As to the resultant “benefits”, that just returns us to the central theme of this debate: the fact that the proceeds of such larcency were squandered on the various failed health and education policies of the current government doesn’t actually make a lot of people feel that much better about the situation. I’d rather my retirement savings were still intact, thanks.

    I don’t support Ming Campbell for Prime Minister. I voted for Chris Huhne and have let my party membership lapse since the leadership election. It's likely that I will vote for my local Labour MP in the next general election, because she has done a good job on local issues. No one represents me at national level. I'm moving this summer, if my new MP is a Tory or a Lib Dem and doing a similarly good job, I'll vote for them.
     
  22. Naughtius Maximus

    Jul 10, 2001
    Shropshire
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    I've reduced the size of some of your points as otherwise this post will grow too much.
    I suppose it's my age here but I tend to look at things over a longer term. What I'm saying is that the economy, (as measured by most of the generally recognised means), has done quite well under labour. Now, of course, everyone can say it was because of this reason and that reason but the point is we've actually done BETTER than most comparable countries. To start comparing us with the eastern european, to say that the treasury or civil service advice, (which, in any event, was the same treasury and civil service the tories had), was the only thing that made any difference, is simply untrue.
    You're missing the point. If the economy isn't doing well, like under the tories in the late 80's and early 90's, house prices suffer. They suffer because there isn't enough money around and people feel uneasy about taking on a long term comitment when they might lose their jobs at any time and not be able to get another one of similar worth.

    My point is these are often the SAME people who say, when you ask them, that everything is going up sh1t-creek and they don't know where their next meal is coming from... to which my response is 'Er.. welll, you've just taken on a 100k mortgage mate - why'd you do that then?'
    I think you've answered your own question there Matt. In the UK we have many roles that are maintained by the state, the main one of which is the NHS but another is transport.

    Now.. what this means is that the tax burden, as given by simplistic measurements such as those you've provided, do not present a true picture of the tax burden because you can't only talk about the tax burden without talking about benefits.
    Well, I'm sorry to hear that. I hope everything's OK now.

    Look, as you say, we can all swap anecdotes. But there's two points to make.

    1. To an increasing extent, the cost of health care provision will rise and rise for the simple truth that more and more services, drugs, etc. are available. It's part of the reason why EVERY government in the western world is struggling to keep a lid on things.

    2. I doubt it's the case with you but, for others benefit, maybe I should mention that this has ALWAYS been the case. There have ALWAYS been medical and administrative cock-ups. It's part of the reason why I often wonder why anyone in their right mind would wish to go into politics because, the truth is, you can NEVER win.

    We're seeing it at the moment with the 'junior doctors' mtas debacle where, apparently, the health minister is supposed to be an expert in IT systems and simply KNOW that the system wasn't going to work properly. What I find so amusing about all this is the level of hysteria when a few middle class people have been screwed around. If it was the benefit system where poor people are involved we wouldn't be hearing half of this.
    Well, OK... sorry. :)

    But don't you understand that, as I said before, it's precisely BECAUSE of the level of care for the elderly in ALL aspects, that they ARE living longer. One thing follows from the other.
    No. I'll tell you why he's viewed critically by many people.

    1. The right doesn't like him because he's disproved the lie, (and it always was a lie), that labour couldn't manage the economy. I've been in business under 4 administrations and I can tell you that I've always done better under the labour party than the tories.

    2. The left wing of the labour party don't like him partly because of his desire to try and appeal to 'middle England' but mostly because of Iraq which, whilst you call it vainglorious was, actually, very brave politically. I mean... it was idiotic in both concept and the way it was carried out... but it was nevertheless politically brave. I know you think differently and I think you're just misjudging the guy on this one. I suppose it depends on whether he'd rather be known as a fool than a bastard. Personally I think he's the former when it comes to Iraq.

    3. The 'intelligentsia' and 'literati', (AKA, opinion formers), can't stand him because they weren't listen to about Iraq. These are people who are used to being listen too and they just can't STAND it that they weren't.
    Oops... too late!
    Those well known bastions of accuracy and truthfulness...
    Unfortunately for this description I can also recall the massive increases in crime that occurred in the 80's and early 90's, i.e. when the same sort of society existed in large measure. What you appear to be forgetting, (at least I hope that's what's happening), is that crime occurs as a result of factors over the course of 20-30 years
    Unfortunately I fear you're right.
    When the tories get in power again with their heartless, (not to mention brainless), policies of bashing the woking class by making 3-4 million people unemployed as they did before in an effort to 'squeeze' inflation, (which they themselves created by inducing business not to invest and pay out in dividends so we end up with too much money chasing too few goods), out of the system.

    At that point people will start to think back to these times and realise there IS, in fact, an alternative. Unfortunately, by then, it will be too late.
    I saw some figures a while ago, (can't find them now unfortunately), which showed the average increase of the pensioners at the bottom 20% was just under 30% in real terms since 1997. That's pretty much what my dad says he's found in his talks with friends of theirs. The people at the bottom have had more given to them. IMO that's the way it should be.
    Which one?... mine, (that it, and the economic stability they provided, created a massive growth in investment), or your's, (that all the money has been wasted and we're all going to hell in a hand-basket)?
    Ah, It's yours.

    Again, like the health service, pension provision is a problem every western government is grappling with. It isn't helped by the fact that most people's grasp of economics is poor, not to say, non-existent. They don't seem to realise that there is no way we can bury goods and services, water them every so often, let them grow and then take them out 30-40 years later. The reality is that every old age generation is kept by the rest of us... soon, (or sooner), to be you, in my case :)
    Well, TBH, I feel pretty much the same. But the reality of modern politics is that things can only be achieved by including a range of ideas in a 'broad church'. I've felt disappointed in the labour party because my belief is that they should have increased direct taxes because they are, bluntly, fairer than indirect ones.

    Unfortunately, as Thatcher and Major proved, (or were able to con people into thinking), that's not what most people think. They seem to think, (in some vague, nebulous way), that they are given, 'choice', wtf that means. The fact that they then have to do those things they had to do anyway and end up paying the same taxes they would have paid anyway, seems to escape them.

    So we're left with a straight choice between the tories, (who will be exactly the same next time as last), and the labour party, (who, under Blair, have been too interested in appealing to the Daily Mail readership), but are better than that.

    That's the choice!

    Now, you can 'opt out' if you want... vote liberal, (pretty much the same thing), OR you can involve yourself to improve what is, at it's heart, the best of a bad bunch.

    I'll send you a labour party joining card in the post ;)
     
  23. Naughtius Maximus

    Jul 10, 2001
    Shropshire
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    Also, just found this...

    http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/news/americas/20070514-US-health-care-bad-ranking.html

    'Multinational Comparisons of Health Systems Data'

    'Britain got the top score in overall ranking among the countries in the study, followed by Germany. New Zealand and Australia tied for third followed by Canada and the United States.'

    I had a quick look through the report and couldn't make a great deal of sense of it tbh. Maybe someone who knows about these things can understand it better.
     
  24. Samarkand

    Samarkand Member+

    May 28, 2001
    Blair on morning TV here in the US today. Asked to define success or victory in Iraq?

    "That's a good question. I can't be sure of the answer of that at the moment. All I know is what the price of defeat is." :eek:

    Why, that positively reeks of Agincourt, of St. Crispin's Day, of Shakespeare of Henry V.

    Yeaaay Tony! What a rallying speech...........
     
  25. English_Gent

    English_Gent New Member

    Jul 29, 2004
    Reading, England
    Any chance of viewing this on line?
     

Share This Page