| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Stanley
Local Historian & Old Fart
36804 Posts
|
|
 Posted -
28/04/2011
:
07:37
|
Political comment is a high risk activity on the site these days so I thought I'd try again to give those who are interested in politics a safe haven!
Stanley Challenger Graham
Barlick View
stanley at barnoldswick.freeserve.co.uk
|
|
| Replies |
| Author |
|
|
frankwilk
|
Posted - 30/04/2011 : 09:00
You may have noticed ,in recent days, that I am by no means alone in this view....
Pathetic
Frank Wilkinson Once Navy Always Navy  |
Bradders
|
Posted - 30/04/2011 : 10:22
quote:
frankwilk wrote:
You may have noticed ,in recent days, that I am by no means alone in this view....
Pathetic
But True........
BRADDERS BLUESINGER |
Stanley
Local Historian & Old Fart
36804 Posts
|
|
Posted - 01/05/2011 : 06:32
I suppose it all depends how well your upbringing sticks. I was always taught to defer to ladies and it's served me well.
Stanley Challenger Graham
Barlick View
stanley at barnoldswick.freeserve.co.uk |
Stanley
Local Historian & Old Fart
36804 Posts
|
|
Posted - 02/05/2011 : 05:55
My mind keeps going back to the three young children and their father(?), son of Gadafi, killed in an attack designed to 'take out' as they say, Gadafi. There is a very thin line between legitimate warfare and state terrorism and I can't see exactly where it is.
The AV debate hots up as we approach May 5th and I can't remember a more one sided or deceitful campaign. There is very little positive comment on either side. I shall be voting for AV on the grounds that a system that gives power to a party with one third of the vote must be capable of improvement. Mind you, I recognise that AV is flawed and would much rather be voting for full PR. Meanwhile, this debate masks the other elections taking place on the same day. There could be some interesting results. The parties who do badly will of course trot out the old cliches about mid term council elections in England being no guide to national politics. There is also the question of what will kappen in Wales and Scotland......
Stanley Challenger Graham
Barlick View
stanley at barnoldswick.freeserve.co.uk |
gearce
|
Posted - 03/05/2011 : 05:36
In today's newspaper, in a section titled YOUR SAY and on the subject of the death of Osama bin Laden, one reader writes, in part:
'OBVIOUSLY, the US administration has decided they have no more use for the bin Laden excuse and have taken his long-dead body out of the mortuary.'
whilst another writes:
'THE world is fooled by the USA once again. Come on, I'm sure people are smarter than this. Osama bin Laden is dead? The United States has the body, even?
They have probably had the body for the past 10 years, but never told anyone as an excuse to invade Afghanistan and Iraq and get 20 years worth of free oil. Now the Middle East is waking up and not giving the US free oil any more, there is no need to pretend they are searching for bin Laden.'
Far-fetched or maybe some truth?
LANG MEY YER LUM REEK
There are hundreds of languages in the world, but a smile speaks them all  |
Stanley
Local Historian & Old Fart
36804 Posts
|
|
Posted - 03/05/2011 : 06:38
In my opinion, complete conspiratorial rubbish. The internet is a wonderful thing but it doesn't half bring the little green men out of the woodwork!
Labour are working well in Barlick. Far better leafletting than of late, they are running a very well-received petition on the Silentnight debacle and while I'm not holding my breath for a resurgence of support it's nice to see that the local party is alive and well! There is a note of desperation in the LibDem and Tory literature and campaign. I think they are bracing themselves for what could be some very discouraging results in the May elections UK wide.
It begins to look as though the biggest mistake in the AV campaign has been the patronising suggestion that it was too complicated for the electorate to understand. Not a good idea to get up the noses of potential supporters.
Stanley Challenger Graham
Barlick View
stanley at barnoldswick.freeserve.co.uk |
Big Kev
|
Posted - 03/05/2011 : 08:35
quote:
Stanley wrote:
Kev and Peter, you seem to have missed the woman's point of view. No matter what the semantics many women object to being called 'dear' as the lady herself did,their reason is that they regard it as sexist and demeaning their opinion. That's why the remark caused so much comment. The fact that Cameron used it seems to show that he doesn't recognise the women's point of view and what is worse in the Parliamentary context, the damage it did to the point he was trying to defend.
As he has used a "catchphrase" in a lighthearted context, towards both male and female in the "equal" society we live in; how can it be seen as sexist?
Big Kev
It doesn't matter who you vote for, you always end up with the government. |
Bruff
|
Posted - 03/05/2011 : 10:56
I asked my wife what she thought of Mr Cameron's remark to Angela Eagle. No doubt there are some on here who given my views, think my wife is some dungaree wearing social worker or teacher, but she left school at 16 with no qualifications (and I mean no, she hasn't even a certificate for cleanest hamster cage), started a YTS job, took herself off to London at 17 and a half and became Sales Director for a large company in her 20s, left to run her own business for a decade and then spent years working with big investment funds in the City etc.
She said she would have had his 'b****s for a tobacco pouch', but also noted it was typical of the puerile, condescending attitude all too prevalent in a certain type and she has to deal with it every day. Basically, these sorts never left school and she treats them with the contempt they deserve. Sexism or the rough and tumble of argument really had very little to do with it, in her view. It's simply the 'pathetic response of the inadequate' (her words) and the usual excuse is that it's 'just a joke'.
Not a good trait in a PM, condescension. Which is why:
''.....biggest mistake in the AV campaign has been the patronising suggestion that it was too complicated for the electorate to understand''..
...came so naturally. Of course the plebs can't count up to three. We shouldn't worry your pretty little heads, dears.
Frank seems to think that the Windsor's hold grudges against those perceived to have slighted them. If that's the case, then it would be wholly understandable if some showed them little respect and refused to curtsey or bow. I rather hope they are above all these things as we're in a bit of a pickle if they are at heart somewhat partial and not simply badly advised.
Richard Broughton
|
Stanley
Local Historian & Old Fart
36804 Posts
|
|
Posted - 04/05/2011 : 06:52
Richard, make sure Mrs Bruff knows that there are still some gentlemen left in the world. Exactly my point but she puts it so much better. As for the quality of advice the royal family seem to be getting, couldn't agree more. I still haven't forgotten the reaction when Diana died.
A poll on the3 AV referendum points to a NO vote. No surprise there and if any of you feel bruised on Friday morning if the idea has been thrown out, don't get too depressed. Whilst I shall be voting for AV I regret the fact that we aren't voting on full PR after a long and reasoned debate. There could be one positive aspect to this. Deprived of one of their main ideas, could the modern Liberals have a rethink on their policies and go back to the principles of an era where they earned the title 'Liberal' and become a force against reaction? Worth remembering that it was coalition with the Tories during and after WW1 which blew the old Liberal Party off-course and put them in the political wilderness.
Stanley Challenger Graham
Barlick View
stanley at barnoldswick.freeserve.co.uk |
Callunna
Revolving Grey Blob
3044 Posts
|
|
Posted - 04/05/2011 : 09:51
Had a polite and quite jolly conversation with a clutch of prospective town councillors on my doorstep last night.
I said I was sure they were decent, honest, hardworking folks but that I would rather stick pins in my eyes than vote Tory.
They said surely it was better to vote for the person not the party - and I agree to a certain extent. But if someone chooses to join a party which has a fundamental set of principles that I don't agree with, then that tells me something about the person.
They said they'd tried standing as Independents in the past but it didn't work.
One of the candidates looked absolutely crestfallen and - quite genuinely I believe - said that all he wanted to do was serve the town.
Mind you, I swore I would never again vote LibDem after the shenanigans of Nick Clegg at the General Election.
So what's a gal to do? We've nobody standing for Labour in the Town Council (and NO - I would never stand for election myself - I hate committee meetings) so it's got to be one or t'other.
Hmm.
As for AV - it's not 100% right for this country so I don't want millions of pounds thrown at setting it up which could be spent on more important things. I don't believe it will make a vast difference to the make up of parliament and will be a poor compromise.
When they come up with a better solution I'll consider it, but it's a No from me this time.
=================== www.sheldrickrose.co.ukwww.bernulf.co.ukwww.bernulfsplace.co.uk |
handlamp
|
Posted - 04/05/2011 : 15:46
Whilst AV is certainly far from perfect, it could be a start. Think how many MPs and Councillors are so secure under the present system that they pay little heed to the opinions of their constituents, particularly if they go against the `party line'. At least under AV their seats could possibly be in jeopardy as it should inspire the disinterested to get out and vote.
Ted |
catgate
|
Posted - 04/05/2011 : 16:05
It is all a big game of who can fool who. We got a flyer through the door the other day from a group composed of "Independants".
http://www.theeyip.co.uk/
What is the difference between a "group" of people with the same ideas and a "Party".
Every silver lining has a cloud.
|
frankwilk
|
Posted - 04/05/2011 : 20:33
Richard
Frank seems to think that the Windsor's hold grudges against those perceived to have slighted them
Not the Windsors but the Civil Servants who surround them. More Royal than Royal's
Frank Wilkinson Once Navy Always Navy |
panbiker
|
Posted - 04/05/2011 : 23:42
I think the biggest problem with the electoral system in this country is the pathetic turnout's we get at elections. Low turnout's would be just as detrimental to AV as they are with first past the post. Lets get the turnout up above 90% of the electorate and then see which of the various systems of voting would be best for the country.
Anyone who has read any of my other ramblings on the subject will know that I am in favour of compulsory voting if that is what it takes to get the turn out up at the polls. Stick an abstain box on all ballots to pacify all the folk who can't / won't make a descision but make them go to the polls. You never know after a few rounds they may even get to see the point of it all and maybe even take an interest.
It will be interesting to see the turnout figures tomorrow.
Ian |
Stanley
Local Historian & Old Fart
36804 Posts
|
|
Posted - 05/05/2011 : 05:33
Heather, the only item I disagree with is whether to vote for AV or not. I think you're quite right that it is a flawed system but like Ted I decided to vote yes because at least I will have put a marker down for change.
Ian, you're right of course and while I hate state compulsion, there are places where it has to be used, the Law is, after all, a form of compulsion. So I find I am moving towards your point of view.As for today's turnout, I'll guess at about 35%, pathetic!
However, would compulsion address the basic reasons for the overwhelming apathy we see towards politics? As we see on the site, it bores many people to death and incites others to extreme behaviour. My approach is to try to understand politics and governance. I do it mainly by reading history and looking for evidence of what works and what doesn't. I know that some members regard this as being nostalgic and eccentric but I comfort myself that I am in good company.
I can't say for certain what has damaged understanding of politics and participation in voting but I'm pretty certain that one important element is the massive change we have seen in the career path of MPs. We used to have a leavening of politicians who had risen from the grass roots cutting their teeth in public service, trade unionism and experience of working life. Of late, the preferred path has been via university, academic study of politics and very often, nepotism and preferment.If there is one trait that that disturbs me more than anything else it is the incestuous nature of politics today. Not only family and political connections but uncomfortably close links between the financial world and office.
All this tends to produce distance between the mass of the voters and those seeking office. Add to this lack of education, the competition from other media and pure laziness and you get ignorance and apathy. It may be that this is a facet of modern life and society which we must accept.
One thought does occur to me though. A constant throughout history is the role of protest as a community reaction to shared experience of hard times. We saw this in 1945. Wouldn't it be ironic if the trigger for greater public participation in politics was the failure of our present Members to deal with our situation. Suppose the electorate eventually woke up to the fact that UK PLC is not being managed for the benefit of the shareholders but the management? There is a Middle Way and Harold Macmillan got it right in the 1930s. However, even he wasn't strong enough to resist the pressures of managing a reactionary Tory Party and in the end he lost the battle. Towards the end of his life he recognised where we had gone wrong but of course it was too late. As Enoch Powell once said, all political careers end in failure.
Stanley Challenger Graham
Barlick View
stanley at barnoldswick.freeserve.co.uk |
POLITICS CORNER
