Don't think I'll be voting for Labour in the next election.
Although Tony Blair as a politician is infinitely better than the puppets generated on the other side of the Atlantic he and his government constantly seem to go against the will of the people who voted for him.He along with America invaded Iraq ,contrevening international law because the UN would not back them.
Now he is altering the gambling laws to bring in bigger casinos to the country saying its a good thing by taking gambling off the streets. Why could he just take gambling off the streets and say no to the casinos.
But the best one is the 24hr drinking law due in next year.It beggars belief when they say its for the good of the people ,the police say they are dreading it and they should know as they are in the front line,town centres will become totally no go areas.
I realise that Blair wants to keep in with America and the drink and gambling laws will generate extra revenue but WHY do they fool the people by continuously LYING

Originally posted by fuddyduddy
Don't think I'll be voting for Labour in the next election.
Although Tony Blair as a politician is infinitely better than the puppets generated on the other side of the Atlantic he and his government constantly seem to go against the will of the people who voted for him.He along with America invaded Iraq ,contrevening international law because the UN would not back them.
Now he is altering the gambling laws to bring in bigger casinos to the country saying its a good thing by taking gambling off the streets. Why could he just take gambling off the streets and say no to the casinos.
But the best one is the 24hr drinking law due in next year.It beggars belief when they say its for the good of the people ,the police say they are dreading it and they should know as they are in the front line,town centres will become totally no go areas.
I realise that Blair wants to keep in with America and the drink and gambling laws will generate extra revenue but WHY do they fool the people by continuously LYING


The simple answer is because he's a politician.

His promises that he makes are broken by his opportunism.

Many politicians do this in order to stay in power.

but does anything really change that much if labour dont win and tories get in?

Tony Blair PM = I'm a tory plan B

Did any of you ever live under Maggie? Do you forget too soon?

andyb

"I either want less corruption, or more chances to participate in it" reflects the present day politician. :mad:

when tony blair gets booted out in the next election, he should change his name to hugh janus. :P

How can anyone contemplate not voting Labour in the next election? Whats the alternative? If you vote conservative then you obviously didn't grow up in this area under a tory government like me. If you vote Lib Dem then you will spend the rest of your life in political correctness hell- you think its bad at the moment then wait til the Lib Dems get in.

Have you thought that under the present system you will simply get more of the same.
Nothing will ever change the old parties will continue to lie to you and you will continue to beleive them,talk about naive wake up and look for an alternative to the same old lies and deceit.
It does not have to be this way but until people cotton on to this fact then you will NEVER get real change only more of the same old bull.
This country is in need of a revolution in order to get rid of all the coruption and lies,nothing else will do.

Originally posted by royjames
This country is in need of a revolution in order to get rid of all the coruption and lies,nothing else will do.

Don't take this heart Roy but I doubt there will ever be a party able to do that, not even the BNP..

Originally posted by royjames
Have you thought that under the present system you will simply get more of the same.
Nothing will ever change the old parties will continue to lie to you and you will continue to beleive them,talk about naive wake up and look for an alternative to the same old lies and deceit.
It does not have to be this way but until people cotton on to this fact then you will NEVER get real change only more of the same old bull.
This country is in need of a revolution in order to get rid of all the coruption and lies,nothing else will do.

You mean something like a neo-conservative christian fundamentalist party ?

Originally posted by Greybeard
You mean something like a neo-conservative christian fundamentalist party ?

Don't we already have that?

Now then nez 75 surely we have progressed from the old days of, even if the candidates a monkey but its wearing a red rosette then vote for it.If you don't agree with a parties policies as I was saying then your only weapon is your vote.
Gosh what next ,perhaps the American way of choosing a leader ,notice over the years the requirements to qualify----good looking----full head of hair----gleaming smile---intellect an assett but not necessary as a full script will be provided.!!!

The trouble is that most people dont take much interest in elections until there is one taking place,the people of this country are more interested in coronation street than politics.
Until the system is changed so that EVERY vote counts then you will simply get the same old bull*hit.
I know that I and others in here are political animals but we are the minority and I dont see this changing in our lifetime.
I really think that the main parties are corupt and dont give a toss what happens as long as they are still in their cosy little world.
I will keep doing my best to change things but in all honestly I dont hold out that much hope.
Someone once said that the people get the goverment they deserve and I agree.

This country is in need of a revolution in order to get rid of all the coruption and lies,nothing else will do


I'm not that old, but I've seen enough to know that violent regime change always brings further violence, instability and misery.

Having said that, I totally agree with your last post roy!

Originally posted by nez75
How can anyone contemplate not voting Labour in the next election? Whats the alternative? If you vote conservative then you obviously didn't grow up in this area under a tory government like me. If you vote Lib Dem then you will spend the rest of your life in political correctness hell- you think its bad at the moment then wait til the Lib Dems get in.


Reasons for not voting Labour:
- taxation, taxation, taxation
- constant nannying (you can gamble here, but not there.... you can drink 24 hours a day, but not smoke in a café, etc etc)
- borrowing billions to fund their pet black hole projects, such as wasting billions on the NHS, compromising the economic stability in the future
- "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" - gun crime and violent crime up year on year since Labour took control
- "education, education, education" - more red tape and pointless target setting with qualifications becoming less and less valued as a result (e.g. 50% in uni target)
- top up fees
- spiralling house prices and mounting consumer debt
- lack of control of immigration and asylum (as Blunkett says, he has no idea of the numbers)
- signing the EU constitution without consulting the electorate
- the Euro might be on its way.....

Originally posted by andyb
Did any of you ever live under Maggie? Do you forget too soon?

andyb

Sure can, but it was all expected from such a right wing government. Mrs T promised and she delivered. Like her or loathe her, what you saw was what you got. And face facts, it must have been what the electorate wanted or they wouldn't have kept putting her back.

And as they say, after the revolution there is always the problem of what to do with the revolutionaries....

Orwell had a good handle on how things happen...Animal Farm.

Joe

This goverment:

Child Benefit increased
Child Tax Credits introduced
Working Tax Credit guaranteeing a minimum income
Mortgage rates are the lowest since the 1950s
A million children lifted out of absolute poverty.
Childcare funding doubled
Lone parent employment rate is over 50% for the first time
The National Minimum Wage is benefiting 1.5 million people
A higher state pension, winter fuel allowance and the new Pension Credit
Minimum Income Guarantee benefits 2.1 million pensioners
Over 3 million pensioner households with someone aged 75 or over benefit from free TV licences.
Winter Fuel payments help over 11 million pensioners in 8 million households
Free eye tests for all pensioners restored.
Paid maternity leave has been extended to 26 weeks
2 weeks paternity leave introduced
There are 1.5m extra jobs since 1997.
Unemployment is at its lowest rate since 1975.
390,000 young people into work through New Deal.
Long term youth unemployment reduced by three quarters since 1997.

Originally posted by andyb
Did any of you ever live under Maggie? Do you forget too soon?

andyb

Yup, lived under Thatcher and also lived under the series of union-dominated Labour governments of the 1970s. One of my memories is doing homework by candlelight in power cuts. Another is of the bodies not being buried. Another is of the inflation rate hitting double figures. These were not myths but actual events in the 1970s.

And that's why people voted Thatcher in - they wanted a change. They knew what they were going to get, although it's doubtful she'd have managed a second term had it not been for the Falklands War.

One thing that both Blair and Thatcher have exhibited is leadership - many British PMs and Governments have singularly failed in that respect.

Joe

Originally posted by JoePritchard
One thing that both Blair and Thatcher have exhibited is leadership - many British PMs and Governments have singularly failed in that respect.

I'm not sure whether I would agree with you there - Thatcher for all her (many) flaws had vision and leadership - Blair on the other hand comes across (to me at least) as a weak toadying weasel who runs the country on the basis of reacting to tabloid headlines.

A strog leader isn't neccesarily a good thing - it seems you are much more likely to end up with a Hitler, Stalin or Musiliini than (say) a JFK

Originally posted by evildrneil
I'm not sure whether I would agree with you there - Thatcher for all her (many) flaws had vision and leadership - Blair on the other hand comes across (to me at least) as a weak toadying weasel who runs the country on the basis of reacting to tabloid headlines.

A strog leader isn't neccesarily a good thing - it seems you are much more likely to end up with a Hitler, Stalin or Musiliini than (say) a JFK

Blair has shown some leadership - I'd hardly say his support of Bush has been driven by the need to get good media coverage!

There are risks with strong leadership, though, I would agree.

Then again, making the trains run on time would win my vote...;)

Joe

No, the cosying up to Bush was because Blair respects power and money, and he loves playing the big international statesman, and he sees being "America's representative to Europe" as the most powerful he is ever likely to get.

There was a big opporunity after September 11th for a European leader to get close to Bush by agreeing to back him up all the way in any war.

If the German or French leaders had done this they would have been kicked out of office.

Originally posted by evildrneil
Blair on the other hand comes across (to me at least) as a weak toadying weasel who runs the country on the basis of reacting to tabloid headlines.(say) a JFK Tabloid headlines and the wishes of any multi-millionaire or multinational business.
"I'm sorry about the tobacco sponsorship, Bernie. I'll see that Formula 1 is exempt"

"Mandy, I'd appreciate you having a word about the citizenship application of the Hinduja Brothers. They are putting a lot of cash into the Dome and you know how much we need that"

"OK Digby. I don't want to upset the CBI, we'll....
a) ........backtrack on greenhouse gas emissions"
b)......... not go with Corporate Manslaughter law (as promised)"
c).......... exercise our veto on workers rights"

"Ah, Mr Drayson. Thanks for the £50k donation...you'll be hearing about the £20m vaccine contract soon"

"Lord Drayson. Thank you so much for the £500k donation. You're just the sort of person we are looking for as a Peer of the Realm"

"Yes, Signor Capone. Of course we'll look at tax breaks for casinos"

"24 hour opening Mr.Smirnoff? Certainly"
etc etc etc :gag:

Treacherous Tone has bought everyone off (with our money) from the opposition parties to the lowly parish councilors!

As did the old Soviet Polit Buro.

Champagne Socialists!

A classless society? :D

Work until you're drop you middle classes, in order to keep us scroungers in a way of life we are now (thanks to you!) enjoying.

Originally posted by Lickszz

Work until you're drop you middle classes, in order to keep us scroungers in a way of life we are now (thanks to you!) enjoying.

Well perhaps if you scroungers got off your ***** and did a day's work perhaps we middle classes could retire earlier.

Originally posted by max
Well perhaps if you scroungers got off your ***** and did a day's work perhaps we middle classes could retire earlier.

Precisley Max, you ought to know better than anyone who the real scroungers are. :)

Originally posted by Lickszz
Precisley Max, you ought to know better than anyone who the real scroungers are. :)

Why, exactly? You're the one who admitted to being a scrounger. ;)

i worked down the coal mine when thatcher was in power it was her and magregor what closed them all then did same to steel industry the tales i ould tell about the 2 strikes now they are opencasting them all to get the coal whats left cheaper option i suppose oil wont last forever whats it to be then nuclear power with all the dangers they will bring

Originally posted by max
Why, exactly? You're the one who admitted to being a scrounger. ;)

How do you figure? I was merely quoting the way Blair and cronies think.

Originally posted by JoePritchard


One thing that both Blair and Thatcher have exhibited is leadership - many British PMs and Governments have singularly failed in that respect.

Joe

One man's strong leadership is another man's tyranny. Neither Thatcher nor Blair are renowned for listening to their political parties in matters of policy, and both at times have been effectively dictators.

Ours is supposed to be a parliamentary democracy, but Thatcher and Blair have proved that if a political party has a significant majority in Parliament then Parliament can be safely ignored by the use of bullying, bribery and blackmail.

Like Thatcher, Blair appears to be grimly determined to maintain his power even though it may well alienate many of his party's supporters at the next election.

Originally posted by t020

- constant nannying (you can gamble here, but not there.... you can drink 24 hours a day, but not smoke in a café, etc etc)



I’m a little bit confused by your post. You make the point that Labour have created a nanny state, but you examples are split 50-50.

I can’t wait for 24hr drinking. I’m not convinced it’s a good idea for super pubs in town, but to be able to stay in my local past 11 or stay for as long as I want and then drop by an off license on the way home, It’ll be cracking.

to put it bluntly they all s**t in the same pot :D

Originally posted by royjames
Have you thought that under the present system you will simply get more of the same.
Nothing will ever change the old parties will continue to lie to you and you will continue to beleive them,talk about naive wake up and look for an alternative to the same old lies and deceit.
It does not have to be this way but until people cotton on to this fact then you will NEVER get real change only more of the same old bull.
This country is in need of a revolution in order to get rid of all the coruption and lies,nothing else will do.


I totally agree with you here, we need more honesty from our politicians and political parties in general.

For example if a political party was to stand for election in Sheffield on the grounds that they were a legitimate, non racist and democratic party. But in reality they were led and supported by a group of individuals who were dedicated to bringing about a violent, nationalist revolution. This would be wrong as they would clearly be setting out to deceive the electorate

Luckily for us however, their are defenders of truth such as yourself. Who would take issue with this, as yet another example of politicians using lies and deceit to get elected.

If I come across a party running such a massive campaign of deception at the next election you’ll be the first person I tell, so that you can denounce it and make them stop.

Originally posted by Disco_Cat
I’m a little bit confused by your post. You make the point that Labour have created a nanny state, but you examples are split 50-50.

I can’t wait for 24hr drinking. I’m not convinced it’s a good idea for super pubs in town, but to be able to stay in my local past 11 or stay for as long as I want and then drop by an off license on the way home, It’ll be cracking.

Conflicting policies.

Originally posted by t020
Conflicting policies.

Don't really see this at all. 24-hour drinking will help curb kicking-out time violence, while the anti-smoking laws should help reduce the burden on the NHS.

As for the gambling - well, I don't really have a problem with relaxing the laws on this issue.

In any case, it doesn't really fit in with your concept of a 'nanny state'.

Originally posted by Greenback
Don't really see this at all. 24-hour drinking will help curb kicking-out time violence, while the anti-smoking laws should help reduce the burden on the NHS.

As for the gambling - well, I don't really have a problem with relaxing the laws on this issue.

In any case, it doesn't really fit in with your concept of a 'nanny state'.

Some aspects do, e.g. smacking children. Parents should choose how they discipline their own children. As for the gambling, the message is that it's fine to spend hundreds, if not thousands, in big Las Vegas style casinos, but not a few quid in a slot machine while waiting for your take away.

Originally posted by t020
Some aspects do, e.g. smacking children. Parents should choose how they discipline their own children. As for the gambling, the message is that it's fine to spend hundreds, if not thousands, in big Las Vegas style casinos, but not a few quid in a slot machine while waiting for your take away.

Where do you draw the line regarding parents physically abusing their children, then? A "free choice" as you suggest gives carte blanche to abusive parents to indulge in using their kids as punch bags. Protecting kids from abuse by law may come under your definition of 'nanny state', but I'd much prefer it this way.

The measures regarding fruit machines in takeaways are there to protect children from shovelling in their dinner money in an unsupervised environment. It may spoil your fun when you're waiting for a ham and pineapple pizza, but people only ever lose on those things anyway ;)

Originally posted by Greenback
Where do you draw the line regarding parents physically abusing their children, then? A "free choice" as you suggest gives carte blanche to abusive parents to indulge in using their kids as punch bags. Protecting kids from abuse by law may come under your definition of 'nanny state', but I'd much prefer it this way.



I don't think we can even begin to compare abusive parents with those who choose to inflict a smack on their child for bad behaviour. In my opinion, young children are too young to listen to reason so must be "trained" into knowing which behaviours are bad and which aren't. If a "telling off" doesn't work then I don't see anything wrong with a smack so long as it isn't hard enough to cause any damage.


Originally posted by Greenback
The measures regarding fruit machines in takeaways are there to protect children from shovelling in their dinner money in an unsupervised environment. It may spoil your fun when you're waiting for a ham and pineapple pizza, but people only ever lose on those things anyway ;)

I personally don't use fruit machines anyway, and I can see your point, but perhaps in reality it is a token gesture to compensate for the proposed super casinos (which the government stand to cash in on from all directions).

Originally posted by t020
If a "telling off" doesn't work then I don't see anything wrong with a smack so long as it isn't hard enough to cause any damage.




so you agree with the government then?