In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
Tim Streater wrote:
Remember Brown's "People's Peers", none of whom ever turned up to do
any work?

We can at least be grateful for that..
Bet they still claimed their expenses though
--
AD

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
harry wrote:

They have forgotten that not everybody works for money.

No right thinking Marxist would work for anythng else.

Work is the exchnge of Labour for Money.

If my recollection of the seventies is correct, inactivity and strikes
was the regarded as a fair exchange for money. That's why we no longer
build non-military ships, and ford build all their cars on the
continent.

Though I suppose there are fewer now than previously.

None in the Left.

--
AD

In message , djc
writes
On 08/04/11 13:26, harry wrote:
On Apr 8, 11:06 am, Tim Streater wrote:

Then along comes that nice Mr Wilson, and in the chase after
"trendiness", as aped later by Blair, he decides that he'll make Labour
appear modern and forward thinking (as opposed to those fuddy duddy old
tories) by having politicians become professional and properly paid.

Professionals is now what we've got, and our present-day attitude to
them follows as night follows day.

They have forgotten that not everybody works for money.
Though I suppose there are fewer now than previously.


Which is why none of them ever resign on principle, or even when caught
with their hands in the till. They are now employees with no other source
of income, so they can't afford to rock the boat or walk out of the day job.


And every single MP who stepped down at the last election claimed the
optional £65,000 tax-free 'resettlement' fee. And then there's that
juicy pension that they always increased immediately after every
election.
--
AD

In message
, Man
at B&Q writes
On Apr 8, 11:06*am, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,

*Huge wrote:
On 2011-04-08, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Thu, 7 Apr 2011 23:05:47 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote:

I always knew Bliar was a liar. I'm begining to have a few suspicions
about Cameron.

Only suspicions?

That joke about how you can tell a politician is lying? (His mouth is
moving).

It isn't a joke.

Unfortunately this is an expected trend. Back when, politicians were
self-supporting and more trustworthy. Yes, yes, I know they were toffs
but so what, eh? They had a public service ethic. This was also true on
the Labour side (they weren't toffs

Not a few of them were. grammar school educated and then pulled the
drawbridge closed after themselves.

It was the shutting of grammar schools that slammed the door on social
mobility. Now the only route into politics is the OxBridge 'spad' route.
MBQ

--
AD

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
Tim Streater wrote:

I can't believe that it wasn't quite clear that Blair was a charlatan
even back then.


It was. If you had half a brain.
There's the rub, 50% of the electorate don't have a brain, quite
literally too stupid to be allowed to vote, whether they do or not.
And we get a government that about 20,000 people in marginal
constituencies decided, on the spur-of-the moment, to vote for.
--
AD

Andrew wrote:
In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
Tim Streater wrote:

I can't believe that it wasn't quite clear that Blair was a charlatan
even back then.


It was. If you had half a brain.
There's the rub, 50% of the electorate don't have a brain, quite
literally too stupid to be allowed to vote, whether they do or not.

The joys of a state education designed as a caucus race and
indoctrination engine. And to reject the ability to think dor yourself
as dangerous counter-revolutionary elitism.


And we get a government that about 20,000 people in marginal
constituencies decided, on the spur-of-the moment, to vote for.

and what other alternatives were there?

All you can really say was that the majority of the country didnt want
Broon, or Laber, any more, and indeed, its fairly clear that Laber were
far happier in opposition, given the **** they left behind.

Andrew wrote:
In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
harry wrote:

They have forgotten that not everybody works for money.

No right thinking Marxist would work for anythng else.

Work is the exchnge of Labour for Money.

If my recollection of the seventies is correct, inactivity and strikes
was the regarded as a fair exchange for money.

No, ibnactivity and strikes are the means to get MORE money, for LESS work.

That's why we no longer
build non-military ships, and ford build all their cars on the continent.

Not sure that is totally true.

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Andrew
saying something like:

If my recollection of the seventies is correct, inactivity and strikes
was the regarded as a fair exchange for money. That's why we no longer
build non-military ships, and ford build all their cars on the
continent.

You really are full of ****e.
Now **** off.

On Fri, 08 Apr 2011 13:12:51 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Huge wrote:
On 2011-04-08, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Huge wrote:

On 2011-04-08, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Thu, 7 Apr 2011 23:05:47 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote:

I always knew Bliar was a liar. I'm begining to have a few suspicions
about Cameron.
Only suspicions?
That joke about how you can tell a politician is lying? (His mouth is
moving).

It isn't a joke.
Unfortunately this is an expected trend. Back when, politicians were
self-supporting and more trustworthy. Yes, yes, I know they were toffs
but so what, eh? They had a public service ethic. This was also true on
the Labour side (they weren't toffs but they were still trustworthy and
gentlemen).

Then along comes that nice Mr Wilson, and in the chase after
"trendiness", as aped later by Blair, he decides that he'll make Labour
appear modern and forward thinking (as opposed to those fuddy duddy old
tories) by having politicians become professional and properly paid.

Professionals is now what we've got, and our present-day attitude to
them follows as night follows day.

I beg to differ. Politicians are just the modern day equivalent of robber
barons. They were never "trustworthy gentlemen" - it's just that the
common people were deluded into thinking that.


ARE deluded.
Not Were.

I the olden days, you knew that's what they were. BUT they were also
mindful of not pushing it too far. Don't want trouble at t'mill etc.

Today, they don't have a mill. Politicians have nothing to lose but the
next election. AND if they have stitched up a cosy job on the board of
Subsidy Rapists Incorporated, they don't care if that happens either.

Exactly. It's not what they earn as an MP that attracts them. It's
all the directorships where they get paid a fortune for working 1 day
a year. And when they finish they will get a highly paid job no
matter how incompetent they are.

They should be paid well as MPs but banned from any other form of paid
employment during their term of office. And they should be forced to
get a proper job when they finish.

I am becoming more and more convinced that they are /all/
untrustworthy *******s.

The only glimmer of hope is if we get a better electoral system which
would end safe seats but I doubt that will actually happen.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

Mark wrote:
On Fri, 08 Apr 2011 13:12:51 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Huge wrote:
On 2011-04-08, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Huge wrote:

On 2011-04-08, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Thu, 7 Apr 2011 23:05:47 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote:

I always knew Bliar was a liar. I'm begining to have a few suspicions
about Cameron.
Only suspicions?
That joke about how you can tell a politician is lying? (His mouth is
moving).

It isn't a joke.
Unfortunately this is an expected trend. Back when, politicians were
self-supporting and more trustworthy. Yes, yes, I know they were toffs
but so what, eh? They had a public service ethic. This was also true on
the Labour side (they weren't toffs but they were still trustworthy and
gentlemen).

Then along comes that nice Mr Wilson, and in the chase after
"trendiness", as aped later by Blair, he decides that he'll make Labour
appear modern and forward thinking (as opposed to those fuddy duddy old
tories) by having politicians become professional and properly paid.

Professionals is now what we've got, and our present-day attitude to
them follows as night follows day.
I beg to differ. Politicians are just the modern day equivalent of robber
barons. They were never "trustworthy gentlemen" - it's just that the
common people were deluded into thinking that.


ARE deluded.
Not Were.

I the olden days, you knew that's what they were. BUT they were also
mindful of not pushing it too far. Don't want trouble at t'mill etc.

Today, they don't have a mill. Politicians have nothing to lose but the
next election. AND if they have stitched up a cosy job on the board of
Subsidy Rapists Incorporated, they don't care if that happens either.

Exactly. It's not what they earn as an MP that attracts them. It's
all the directorships where they get paid a fortune for working 1 day
a year. And when they finish they will get a highly paid job no
matter how incompetent they are.

They should be paid well as MPs but banned from any other form of paid
employment during their term of office. And they should be forced to
get a proper job when they finish.

I am becoming more and more convinced that they are /all/
untrustworthy *******s.


I take it you are too young to remember the Vietman war, Watergate, the
Monica Lewinsky, "Wont get fooled again", ...

just as paedophiles naturally gravitate to the Church, Primary Schools
or the Boy Scouts, inveterate bull**** merchants and con artists
naturally gravitate to power politics.



The only glimmer of hope is if we get a better electoral system which
would end safe seats but I doubt that will actually happen.

Dream on. Its all sewn up by the big parties one way or another and they
are all bought years ago,

The first thing to realise is that it is the way it is. Voting is almost
a complete waste of time. However that doesn't mean you are powerless.

In fact, today with governments running out of cash, their power is
considerably diminished. Ditto the banks.

Also big business in the consumer area, and the marketing that goes with
it, have taken a huge hit.

The establishment, in short, is crumbling.

You have to work with the system.

One way is to create new agenda. Start getting hot under the collar
about something that actually IS relevant, create media interest, get
people focussed on it, and then get the arguments across. If that then
becomes an item that can help someone get elected, they will go along
with the bandwagon.

That counters the false agendas that are put in front of people by the
big powerful lobby groups as a distraction.

In my case I have picked power generation. Hammering away at the idiocy
and vested interest of it all, and the total BS that is being spread as
truth. It makes a difference. Its hot on the blogs, its upsetting the
ministry involved, and people are aware of the arguments more than they
were.

Fathers for justice ran a similar campaign: Looked at it rationally,
they had some very good points. Once everyone was aware of the issues,
it would have been political suicide to NOT engage with that agenda, and
make changes.

Contrariwise, look at the mess that came out of the MMR BS... One doctor
comes out with a 'theory' and a whole government policy was nearly
destroyed. And a lot of children's lives with it.

There's a natural order in all this. "Extra rights for pink tailed
rabbits' doesn't really cut it with the population, so silly issues
vanish naturally unless kept alive by big money.

But an issue that really does affect everybody - like children's health,
their electricity bills and so on, or putative 'climate change' is a
lever that can but used to get votes. The advantage of the democratic
process that we have, is that ultimately no matter what else the
politicians may fudge, they cant ignore a large popular movement on a
certain subject. That's all we have to change things with, but in the
most massive of cases it does in fact work.

Another tool the peepul have, is that they have not (yet) removed all
purchasing power and funneled it through the State. That's why socialism
is so fundamentally un-democratic..it seeks to make your purchasing
decisions for you. However if you use what you have to NOT purchase what
you dislike, on ethical, moral or out of pure unfitness for purpose,
then you also bend the power of the corporate profit machines towards
things YOU want, not things THEY decide you ought to want. Likewise
charitable donations. Support organisations whose aims and views
coincide with your own.

Your feeling of helplessness only arises because you have bought into
the socialism model of life: You want the government to change things
for you. Accept that they can't and even if they could, mostly they
wont. I work on the basis that they are manipulable puppets, and my task
is to manipulate them, using their innate cowardice, lack of
intelligence, massive egos and venality as the basic tools.

From that point onwards it is simply an exercise in marketing,
strategic planning, tactical planning and game theory. In short its a
neat intellectual challenge.

If you want to win a game with bent rules, cheat. Just don't get caught.

Don't whinge about the rules. That is ineffective. Use the rules as
they are. The idiocy of the peepul is incalculable. Its used by smart
men to control the game in a 'democratic system' BUT the people can be
swayed by other smart men who have consciences and that's what you have
to do.

Get smart.There's a battle on for the hearts and minds of the nation:
the main protagonists are the big corporations, banks and politicians,
with the media as a semi independent arm, and a large body of smart
people who are not included. To be cynically blunt, the rest of the
population is cannon fodder until they get educated to think for
themselves. There is no sign of that happening yet. And yet they are not
that stupid either. They can be roused by arguments that make sense.

"Help reduce our electricity prices: Smash your neighbours PV panel today!"

;-)

So, stop thinking it terms of rights, oughts, perfect systems. Imagine
that you have been slotted into a video game, at birth. It's rules are
unclear, and most of the help screens don't. To advance in the game, you
have to develop a strategy to test things you can do with the controls
you have been given, and judge their effects and develop a game plan
that either moves you up the levels, or changes the game entirely. It
is rumoured that if you move up the levels, you may have more ability to
change the game. On the other hand it is also suggested that if you move
up the levels, your desire to keep moving up in a system you have now
come to understand, may reduce your desire to change the rules. That is
simply a function of whether your motive of moving up is to change the
system, or protect your own position and score a lot of points.

On 12 Apr 2011 09:47:11 GMT, Huge wrote:

On 2011-04-12, Mark wrote:

I am becoming more and more convinced that they are /all/
untrustworthy *******s.

That took you a while. )

Yes ;-) I used to think there were a few that were OK.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

Huge wrote:
On 2011-04-12, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

The advantage of the democratic
process that we have, is that ultimately no matter what else the
politicians may fudge, they cant ignore a large popular movement on a
certain subject.

And you were doing so well until there. I refer you to the marches against
the Iraq War and the Hunting with Dogs bills. Made exactly no difference.

I think both made a difference, but just in that case, not enough.

Personally I would say that Iraq destroyed Tony Bliars credibility with
a lot of people completely. But with George Bush's minions knowing
exactly what WAS in his 'toothpaste', he was on a sticky wicket..

As far as Hunting With Dogs goes, with a hugely urban vote of people
who have never seen a fox in their lives, nor the vicious and
indiscriminate damage it can and does do, and have no clue about how
difficult it is to shoot a small furry animal safely and cleanly with a
rifle, or poisoning it without endangering other wildlife and condemning
it to an equally vile death, and a totally distorted picture of what
hunting with dogs was, provided courtesy of the loonier animal rights
lobby, there was never any chance to change the governments mind.

If you like,. most people didn't care, and the vast mass of LABOURS
votes came from people who either didn't care, or were firmly convinced
that if there was anything more evil than a toff on a horse with a dog
chasing a fox, it was Margaret Thatcher, the Devil in Female Human Flesh.

As it is, despite annual death threats, hunting with dogs quietly continues.

Mark wrote:
On 12 Apr 2011 09:47:11 GMT, Huge wrote:

On 2011-04-12, Mark wrote:

I am becoming more and more convinced that they are /all/
untrustworthy *******s.
That took you a while. )

Yes ;-) I used to think there were a few that were OK.

There are, but not in cabinet positions, mostly. They are too dangerous.

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember The Natural Philosopher
saying something like:

As it is, despite annual death threats, hunting with dogs quietly continues.

Mostly over here, afaics.

On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 11:07:18 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Mark wrote:
On Fri, 08 Apr 2011 13:12:51 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Huge wrote:
On 2011-04-08, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Huge wrote:

On 2011-04-08, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Thu, 7 Apr 2011 23:05:47 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote:

I always knew Bliar was a liar. I'm begining to have a few suspicions
about Cameron.
Only suspicions?
That joke about how you can tell a politician is lying? (His mouth is
moving).

It isn't a joke.
Unfortunately this is an expected trend. Back when, politicians were
self-supporting and more trustworthy. Yes, yes, I know they were toffs
but so what, eh? They had a public service ethic. This was also true on
the Labour side (they weren't toffs but they were still trustworthy and
gentlemen).

Then along comes that nice Mr Wilson, and in the chase after
"trendiness", as aped later by Blair, he decides that he'll make Labour
appear modern and forward thinking (as opposed to those fuddy duddy old
tories) by having politicians become professional and properly paid.

Professionals is now what we've got, and our present-day attitude to
them follows as night follows day.
I beg to differ. Politicians are just the modern day equivalent of robber
barons. They were never "trustworthy gentlemen" - it's just that the
common people were deluded into thinking that.


ARE deluded.
Not Were.

I the olden days, you knew that's what they were. BUT they were also
mindful of not pushing it too far. Don't want trouble at t'mill etc.

Today, they don't have a mill. Politicians have nothing to lose but the
next election. AND if they have stitched up a cosy job on the board of
Subsidy Rapists Incorporated, they don't care if that happens either.

Exactly. It's not what they earn as an MP that attracts them. It's
all the directorships where they get paid a fortune for working 1 day
a year. And when they finish they will get a highly paid job no
matter how incompetent they are.

They should be paid well as MPs but banned from any other form of paid
employment during their term of office. And they should be forced to
get a proper job when they finish.

I am becoming more and more convinced that they are /all/
untrustworthy *******s.


I take it you are too young to remember the Vietman war, Watergate, the
Monica Lewinsky, "Wont get fooled again", ...

No. Why?

just as paedophiles naturally gravitate to the Church, Primary Schools
or the Boy Scouts, inveterate bull**** merchants and con artists
naturally gravitate to power politics.

The only glimmer of hope is if we get a better electoral system which
would end safe seats but I doubt that will actually happen.

Dream on. Its all sewn up by the big parties one way or another and they
are all bought years ago,

The first thing to realise is that it is the way it is. Voting is almost
a complete waste of time. However that doesn't mean you are powerless.

It is in its current state but I do not accept that it cannot be
improved.

In fact, today with governments running out of cash, their power is
considerably diminished. Ditto the banks.

Banks seem to have plenty of money again.

Also big business in the consumer area, and the marketing that goes with
it, have taken a huge hit.

The establishment, in short, is crumbling.

You have to work with the system.

LOL! This is the system. We need politicians that work for us not
the other way around.

Another tool the peepul have, is that they have not (yet) removed all
purchasing power and funneled it through the State. That's why socialism
is so fundamentally un-democratic..it seeks to make your purchasing
decisions for you. However if you use what you have to NOT purchase what
you dislike, on ethical, moral or out of pure unfitness for purpose,
then you also bend the power of the corporate profit machines towards
things YOU want, not things THEY decide you ought to want. Likewise
charitable donations. Support organisations whose aims and views
coincide with your own.

You're right on one level that it is the cash that really controls
society. However you are wrong that an average individual can have
any significant influence by choosing how to spend their money. They
don't have enough money for this. The consumer chooses what to buy
from a small selection of products that big businesses choose to
offer.

Your feeling of helplessness only arises because you have bought into
the socialism model of life: You want the government to change things
for you.

No. I want governments to do what people want them to do.

Accept that they can't and even if they could, mostly they
wont. I work on the basis that they are manipulable puppets, and my task
is to manipulate them, using their innate cowardice, lack of
intelligence, massive egos and venality as the basic tools.

LOL

From that point onwards it is simply an exercise in marketing,
strategic planning, tactical planning and game theory. In short its a
neat intellectual challenge.

If you want to win a game with bent rules, cheat. Just don't get caught.

Don't whinge about the rules. That is ineffective. Use the rules as
they are. The idiocy of the peepul is incalculable. Its used by smart
men to control the game in a 'democratic system' BUT the people can be
swayed by other smart men who have consciences and that's what you have
to do.

It's money that talks. They're not interested unless it leads to a
large pot of money from them at the end.

So, stop thinking it terms of rights, oughts, perfect systems. Imagine
that you have been slotted into a video game, at birth. It's rules are
unclear, and most of the help screens don't. To advance in the game, you
have to develop a strategy to test things you can do with the controls
you have been given, and judge their effects and develop a game plan
that either moves you up the levels, or changes the game entirely. It
is rumoured that if you move up the levels, you may have more ability to
change the game. On the other hand it is also suggested that if you move
up the levels, your desire to keep moving up in a system you have now
come to understand, may reduce your desire to change the rules. That is
simply a function of whether your motive of moving up is to change the
system, or protect your own position and score a lot of points.

Using your analogy people with lots of money start the "game" at a
high level and can easily rise up. People without are stuck at a low
level with virtually no chance of rising. It's not a level playing
field you know.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

Mark wrote:


Using your analogy people with lots of money start the "game" at a
high level and can easily rise up. People without are stuck at a low
level with virtually no chance of rising. It's not a level playing
field you know.

So what?

Its how you play the game, not where you start, that counts.

Making you feel you cant win, is one of the ploys.

As is making you want to support people who tell you how **** your life
is, and they really care enough to make it better.

If you start from the basic assumption that everyone is lying and
everyone is out for themselves, you will be less disappointed.

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Mark wrote:

On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 11:07:18 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Your feeling of helplessness only arises because you have bought into
the socialism model of life: You want the government to change things
for you.
No. I want governments to do what people want them to do.

And what is that? I want the Govt to give me 50 million quid, a mansion
with a 1000 acre estate and coterie of servants, and a no-fly zone above
it. And yet, strangely, they don't. Should I therefore vote for the
other lot - or someone that'd promise to fulfil my wants?

exactly.

You could probably get that mansion if you were prepared to sacrifice a
lot of things for it.

I recall the case of a lowly public sector worker - Postman or something
- who owned a new rolls royce. "Anyone can do it, but I don't have a
wife, kids, or own my own house. I don't drink, smoke, or eat out. I
don't take foreign holidays. Every penny I earn goes into that car"

The tragedy of the Left, is that he would not be ALLOWED to own that car.

On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 09:31:22 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Mark wrote:


Using your analogy people with lots of money start the "game" at a
high level and can easily rise up. People without are stuck at a low
level with virtually no chance of rising. It's not a level playing
field you know.

So what?

Its how you play the game, not where you start, that counts.

But it isn't. It's how much money and who you know that counts.

Making you feel you cant win, is one of the ploys.

As is making you want to support people who tell you how **** your life
is, and they really care enough to make it better.

If you start from the basic assumption that everyone is lying and
everyone is out for themselves, you will be less disappointed.

So you have no friends?
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 10:17:07 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article ,
Mark wrote:

On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 11:07:18 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Your feeling of helplessness only arises because you have bought into
the socialism model of life: You want the government to change things
for you.

No. I want governments to do what people want them to do.

And what is that? I want the Govt to give me 50 million quid, a mansion
with a 1000 acre estate and coterie of servants, and a no-fly zone above
it. And yet, strangely, they don't. Should I therefore vote for the
other lot - or someone that'd promise to fulfil my wants?

Don't be silly. I want governments to fulfill their promises that
they made before being elected and a way of getting rid of them more
easily if they don't.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Mark wrote:

On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 11:07:18 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Your feeling of helplessness only arises because you have bought
into the socialism model of life: You want the government to change
things for you. No. I want governments to do what people want them
to do.

And what is that? I want the Govt to give me 50 million quid, a
mansion with a 1000 acre estate and coterie of servants, and a no-fly
zone above it. And yet, strangely, they don't. Should I therefore vote
for the other lot - or someone that'd promise to fulfil my wants?

exactly.

You could probably get that mansion if you were prepared to sacrifice a
lot of things for it.

I recall the case of a lowly public sector worker - Postman or something
- who owned a new rolls royce. "Anyone can do it, but I don't have a
wife, kids, or own my own house. I don't drink, smoke, or eat out. I
don't take foreign holidays. Every penny I earn goes into that car"

The tragedy of the Left, is that he would not be ALLOWED to own that car.

The real tragedy of the Left is that after a couple of generations, he
wouldn't even *think* of wanting to own it.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...

It also means you'll be voting "No" to AV, since proportional
representation is a recipe for continuous coalition government.

The AV is *not* proportional representation.
No lists are involved.
You vote for and elect an MP that stands in your ward.
Your vote does not count towards any other ward.
Not yet anyway.

The AV does allow for tactical voting without too much worry that you will
accidently elect the wrong candidate.

Say there is a con, a lib and a NF candidate.
You can vote for the con with the lib as second.
There is little chance the NF would get in unless a large number of people
actually voted NF.
Unlike now where you can split the vote and let some minor party in.

It also works the other way and people can vote for a minority candidate
without too much fear of letting nulabour back in by listing the cons or
libs as second and third.

And, as we see in the Israeli case, where they use the same list system we
have for MEPs, any government is hostage to extremist parties with one or
two seats (in Israel, it's the extreme religious parties) and because it's
the list system you can't get rid of the ****ers!

--
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines
imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689

Mark wrote:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 09:31:22 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Mark wrote:

Using your analogy people with lots of money start the "game" at a
high level and can easily rise up. People without are stuck at a low
level with virtually no chance of rising. It's not a level playing
field you know.
So what?

Its how you play the game, not where you start, that counts.

But it isn't. It's how much money and who you know that counts.

Making you feel you cant win, is one of the ploys.

As is making you want to support people who tell you how **** your life
is, and they really care enough to make it better.

If you start from the basic assumption that everyone is lying and
everyone is out for themselves, you will be less disappointed.

So you have no friends?

I didn't say you have to end there..merely start there.

... "wind power" is ... just a gut feeling ....

pun intended?

On Apr 14, 12:41*pm, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,



*Mark wrote:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 10:17:07 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article ,
Mark wrote:

On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 11:07:18 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Your feeling of helplessness only arises because you have bought into
the socialism model of life: You want the government to change things
for you. *

No. *I want governments to do what people want them to do.

And what is that? I want the Govt to give me 50 million quid, a mansion
with a 1000 acre estate and coterie of servants, and a no-fly zone above
it. And yet, strangely, they don't. Should I therefore vote for the
other lot - or someone that'd promise to fulfil my wants?

Don't be silly. *I want governments to fulfill their promises that
they made before being elected and a way of getting rid of them more
easily if they don't.

Good. So that means you don't want coalitions, because when parties
enter into coalition discussions, and make an agreement, each has to
ditch some policies and accept some of their opponents' policies, in
order for an agreement to be reached. Which also means that the eventual
manifesto, the agreement between coalition partners, is one that no-one
has had a chance to vote on.

It also means you'll be voting "No" to AV, since proportional
representation

AV is not PR. I'll be voting "no" but not for that reason.

MBQ

On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 14:10:22 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article ,
"dennis@home" wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...

It also means you'll be voting "No" to AV, since proportional
representation is a recipe for continuous coalition government.

The AV is *not* proportional representation.
No lists are involved.
You vote for and elect an MP that stands in your ward.
Your vote does not count towards any other ward.
Not yet anyway.

The AV does allow for tactical voting without too much worry that you will
accidently elect the wrong candidate.

Say there is a con, a lib and a NF candidate.
You can vote for the con with the lib as second.
There is little chance the NF would get in unless a large number of people
actually voted NF.
Unlike now where you can split the vote and let some minor party in.

It also works the other way and people can vote for a minority candidate
without too much fear of letting nulabour back in by listing the cons or
libs as second and third.

I know all this - but you don't think they'll stop at AV, do you?

Who won't? Since there is a great vested interest to keep the current
system they'll probably ignore the results of the referendum if it
doesn't yield the "correct" result.

AV won't make a huge difference to the overall result. It is likely
to make the MP's more accountable, which is a good thing.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 07:08:57 -0700 (PDT), "Man at B&Q"
wrote:

On Apr 14, 12:41*pm, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,



*Mark wrote:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 10:17:07 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article ,
Mark wrote:

On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 11:07:18 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Your feeling of helplessness only arises because you have bought into
the socialism model of life: You want the government to change things
for you. *

No. *I want governments to do what people want them to do.

And what is that? I want the Govt to give me 50 million quid, a mansion
with a 1000 acre estate and coterie of servants, and a no-fly zone above
it. And yet, strangely, they don't. Should I therefore vote for the
other lot - or someone that'd promise to fulfil my wants?

Don't be silly. *I want governments to fulfill their promises that
they made before being elected and a way of getting rid of them more
easily if they don't.

Good. So that means you don't want coalitions, because when parties
enter into coalition discussions, and make an agreement, each has to
ditch some policies and accept some of their opponents' policies, in
order for an agreement to be reached. Which also means that the eventual
manifesto, the agreement between coalition partners, is one that no-one
has had a chance to vote on.

It also means you'll be voting "No" to AV, since proportional
representation

AV is not PR. I'll be voting "no" but not for that reason.

Why?

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

In message , Mark
writes
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 11:07:18 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Mark wrote:
On Fri, 08 Apr 2011 13:12:51 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Huge wrote:
On 2011-04-08, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Huge wrote:

On 2011-04-08, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Thu, 7 Apr 2011 23:05:47 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote:

I always knew Bliar was a liar. I'm begining to have a few suspicions
about Cameron.
Only suspicions?
That joke about how you can tell a politician is lying? (His mouth is
moving).

It isn't a joke.
Unfortunately this is an expected trend. Back when, politicians were
self-supporting and more trustworthy. Yes, yes, I know they were toffs
but so what, eh? They had a public service ethic. This was also true on
the Labour side (they weren't toffs but they were still trustworthy and
gentlemen).

Then along comes that nice Mr Wilson, and in the chase after
"trendiness", as aped later by Blair, he decides that he'll make Labour
appear modern and forward thinking (as opposed to those fuddy duddy old
tories) by having politicians become professional and properly paid.

Professionals is now what we've got, and our present-day attitude to
them follows as night follows day.
I beg to differ. Politicians are just the modern day equivalent of robber
barons. They were never "trustworthy gentlemen" - it's just that the
common people were deluded into thinking that.


ARE deluded.
Not Were.

I the olden days, you knew that's what they were. BUT they were also
mindful of not pushing it too far. Don't want trouble at t'mill etc.

Today, they don't have a mill. Politicians have nothing to lose but the
next election. AND if they have stitched up a cosy job on the board of
Subsidy Rapists Incorporated, they don't care if that happens either.

Exactly. It's not what they earn as an MP that attracts them. It's
all the directorships where they get paid a fortune for working 1 day
a year. And when they finish they will get a highly paid job no
matter how incompetent they are.

They should be paid well as MPs but banned from any other form of paid
employment during their term of office. And they should be forced to
get a proper job when they finish.

I am becoming more and more convinced that they are /all/
untrustworthy *******s.


I take it you are too young to remember the Vietman war, Watergate, the
Monica Lewinsky, "Wont get fooled again", ...

No. Why?

No - Who

--
geoff

On Apr 14, 4:17*pm, Mark
wrote:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 07:08:57 -0700 (PDT), "Man at B&Q"



wrote:
On Apr 14, 12:41 pm, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,

Mark wrote:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 10:17:07 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article ,
Mark wrote:

On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 11:07:18 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Your feeling of helplessness only arises because you have bought into
the socialism model of life: You want the government to change things
for you.

No. I want governments to do what people want them to do.

And what is that? I want the Govt to give me 50 million quid, a mansion
with a 1000 acre estate and coterie of servants, and a no-fly zone above
it. And yet, strangely, they don't. Should I therefore vote for the
other lot - or someone that'd promise to fulfil my wants?

Don't be silly. I want governments to fulfill their promises that
they made before being elected and a way of getting rid of them more
easily if they don't.

Good. So that means you don't want coalitions, because when parties
enter into coalition discussions, and make an agreement, each has to
ditch some policies and accept some of their opponents' policies, in
order for an agreement to be reached. Which also means that the eventual
manifesto, the agreement between coalition partners, is one that no-one
has had a chance to vote on.

It also means you'll be voting "No" to AV, since proportional
representation

AV is not PR. I'll be voting "no" but not for that reason.

Why?

I consider the whole thing a diversion, a sop to the lib-dems and a
complete and utter waste of time and money. Most people seem to agree
it will not make any difference to the result in the majority of
cases, so why bother?

MBQ

On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 02:10:21 -0700 (PDT), "Man at B&Q"
wrote:

On Apr 14, 4:17*pm, Mark
wrote:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 07:08:57 -0700 (PDT), "Man at B&Q"



wrote:
On Apr 14, 12:41 pm, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,

Mark wrote:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 10:17:07 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article ,
Mark wrote:

On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 11:07:18 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Your feeling of helplessness only arises because you have bought into
the socialism model of life: You want the government to change things
for you.

No. I want governments to do what people want them to do.

And what is that? I want the Govt to give me 50 million quid, a mansion
with a 1000 acre estate and coterie of servants, and a no-fly zone above
it. And yet, strangely, they don't. Should I therefore vote for the
other lot - or someone that'd promise to fulfil my wants?

Don't be silly. I want governments to fulfill their promises that
they made before being elected and a way of getting rid of them more
easily if they don't.

Good. So that means you don't want coalitions, because when parties
enter into coalition discussions, and make an agreement, each has to
ditch some policies and accept some of their opponents' policies, in
order for an agreement to be reached. Which also means that the eventual
manifesto, the agreement between coalition partners, is one that no-one
has had a chance to vote on.

It also means you'll be voting "No" to AV, since proportional
representation

AV is not PR. I'll be voting "no" but not for that reason.

Why?

I consider the whole thing a diversion, a sop to the lib-dems and a
complete and utter waste of time and money. Most people seem to agree
it will not make any difference to the result in the majority of
cases, so why bother?

I disagree. By allowing people to vote for multiple candidates (if
they so wish) it would eliminate tactical voting. It would also mean,
that if you don't vote for the winner, that your vote is not totally
wasted. Hopefully this will encourage more people to to vote make MPs
more accountable.

Until we change our ridiculously outdated electoral system I see no
chance that we will get a decent government.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

Mark wrote:

Until we change our ridiculously outdated electoral system I see no
chance that we will get a decent government.

You really think any other government in the so called democratic world
is any better?

The problems of government have virtually nothing to do with the
electoral process. That's a complete non issue.

On Apr 15, 10:25*am, Mark
wrote:
On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 02:10:21 -0700 (PDT), "Man at B&Q"



wrote:
On Apr 14, 4:17 pm, Mark
wrote:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 07:08:57 -0700 (PDT), "Man at B&Q"

wrote:
On Apr 14, 12:41 pm, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,

Mark wrote:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 10:17:07 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article ,
Mark wrote:

On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 11:07:18 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Your feeling of helplessness only arises because you have bought into
the socialism model of life: You want the government to change things
for you.

No. I want governments to do what people want them to do.

And what is that? I want the Govt to give me 50 million quid, a mansion
with a 1000 acre estate and coterie of servants, and a no-fly zone above
it. And yet, strangely, they don't. Should I therefore vote for the
other lot - or someone that'd promise to fulfil my wants?

Don't be silly. I want governments to fulfill their promises that
they made before being elected and a way of getting rid of them more
easily if they don't.

Good. So that means you don't want coalitions, because when parties
enter into coalition discussions, and make an agreement, each has to
ditch some policies and accept some of their opponents' policies, in
order for an agreement to be reached. Which also means that the eventual
manifesto, the agreement between coalition partners, is one that no-one
has had a chance to vote on.

It also means you'll be voting "No" to AV, since proportional
representation

AV is not PR. I'll be voting "no" but not for that reason.

Why?

I consider the whole thing a diversion, a sop to the lib-dems and a
complete and utter waste of time and money. Most people seem to agree
it will not make any difference to the result in the majority of
cases, so why bother?

I disagree. *By allowing people to vote for multiple candidates (if
they so wish) it would eliminate tactical voting. *It would also mean,
that if you don't vote for the winner, that your vote is not totally
wasted. *Hopefully this will encourage more people to to vote make MPs
more accountable.

Until we change our ridiculously outdated electoral system I see no
chance that we will get a decent government.

What we will get is full PR and perpetual coalitions held to ransom by
extremist minorities holding the balance of popwer.

MBQ

On 15/04/11 10:25, Mark wrote:

I disagree. By allowing people to vote for multiple candidates (if
they so wish) it would eliminate tactical voting. It would also mean,
that if you don't vote for the winner, that your vote is not totally
wasted. Hopefully this will encourage more people to to vote make MPs
more accountable.

a. What's wrong with tactical voting.
b. Why would a vote under AV be any less 'tactical'

It won't make any real difference. The same sort of people will still stand
for election, whoever you vote for the government will get in. Some
constituencies may be a little less 'safe', some marginal constituencies
will become 'safer'


--
djc

Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,
"Man at B&Q" wrote:

On Apr 14, 4:17�pm, Mark
wrote:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 07:08:57 -0700 (PDT), "Man at B&Q"

AV is not PR. I'll be voting "no" but not for that reason.

Why?

I consider the whole thing a diversion, a sop to the lib-dems and a
complete and utter waste of time and money. Most people seem to agree
it will not make any difference to the result in the majority of
cases, so why bother?

Right, and in order to defeat it, folks have to actually vote NO.
Otherwise we'll have it passed on a piddley turnout.

I definitely WILL be.(voting NO)

And a lot of polls suggest I wont be in a minority either.

If vince cable wants it and Chris Huhn wants it its bound to be utter crap.

On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 19:57:42 +0100, djc wrote:

On 15/04/11 10:25, Mark wrote:

I disagree. By allowing people to vote for multiple candidates (if
they so wish) it would eliminate tactical voting. It would also mean,
that if you don't vote for the winner, that your vote is not totally
wasted. Hopefully this will encourage more people to to vote make MPs
more accountable.

a. What's wrong with tactical voting.

What's right with tactical voting?

You vote for someone you don't want to elect in an attempt to stop
some other person you don't want to elect.

b. Why would a vote under AV be any less 'tactical'

Because you can vote for who you /really/ want to win (if there is
anyone) without losing the chance to block those who you dislike the
most.

It won't make any real difference. The same sort of people will still stand
for election, whoever you vote for the government will get in. Some
constituencies may be a little less 'safe', some marginal constituencies
will become 'safer'

All seats will become less safe. AV is likely to engage more voters
and candidates will need 50% of the vote to win.

What we have now is where a few voters in a few marginal
constituencies decide the government. The rest of the population get
virtually no say. AV is not perfect but it's a lot better than what
we have now.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 20:55:18 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,
"Man at B&Q" wrote:

On Apr 14, 4:17?pm, Mark
wrote:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 07:08:57 -0700 (PDT), "Man at B&Q"

AV is not PR. I'll be voting "no" but not for that reason.

Why?

I consider the whole thing a diversion, a sop to the lib-dems and a
complete and utter waste of time and money. Most people seem to agree
it will not make any difference to the result in the majority of
cases, so why bother?

Right, and in order to defeat it, folks have to actually vote NO.
Otherwise we'll have it passed on a piddley turnout.

I definitely WILL be.(voting NO)

And a lot of polls suggest I wont be in a minority either.

So you'll be voting for less democracy. That's clever.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

Mark wrote:
On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 19:57:42 +0100, djc wrote:

On 15/04/11 10:25, Mark wrote:

I disagree. By allowing people to vote for multiple candidates (if
they so wish) it would eliminate tactical voting. It would also mean,
that if you don't vote for the winner, that your vote is not totally
wasted. Hopefully this will encourage more people to to vote make MPs
more accountable.
a. What's wrong with tactical voting.

What's right with tactical voting?

You vote for someone you don't want to elect in an attempt to stop
some other person you don't want to elect.


That's right. :-)

b. Why would a vote under AV be any less 'tactical'

Because you can vote for who you /really/ want to win (if there is
anyone) without losing the chance to block those who you dislike the
most.

You can't vote for who is not on the electoral register or whatever its
called,

It won't make any real difference. The same sort of people will still stand
for election, whoever you vote for the government will get in. Some
constituencies may be a little less 'safe', some marginal constituencies
will become 'safer'

All seats will become less safe. AV is likely to engage more voters
and candidates will need 50% of the vote to win.

It wont make people more likley to vote, since the whole system is about
electing an executive twho then utterly fail to address the issues that
they have the proised to affect, and fiddle with the ones they didnt.,
leaving the country in even more of a mess.


What we have now is where a few voters in a few marginal
constituencies decide the government. The rest of the population get
virtually no say. AV is not perfect but it's a lot better than what
we have now.

The reason those marginals can do that, is because the marketing (spin)
departments of the two major parties are almost as good as each other.

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 09:42:13 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Mark wrote:
On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 19:57:42 +0100, djc wrote:

On 15/04/11 10:25, Mark wrote:

I disagree. By allowing people to vote for multiple candidates (if
they so wish) it would eliminate tactical voting. It would also mean,
that if you don't vote for the winner, that your vote is not totally
wasted. Hopefully this will encourage more people to to vote make MPs
more accountable.
a. What's wrong with tactical voting.

What's right with tactical voting?

You vote for someone you don't want to elect in an attempt to stop
some other person you don't want to elect.


That's right. :-)

b. Why would a vote under AV be any less 'tactical'

Because you can vote for who you /really/ want to win (if there is
anyone) without losing the chance to block those who you dislike the
most.

You can't vote for who is not on the electoral register or whatever its
called,

No. But you can vote for more than one candidate if you wish.

It won't make any real difference. The same sort of people will still stand
for election, whoever you vote for the government will get in. Some
constituencies may be a little less 'safe', some marginal constituencies
will become 'safer'

All seats will become less safe. AV is likely to engage more voters
and candidates will need 50% of the vote to win.

It wont make people more likley to vote, since the whole system is about
electing an executive twho then utterly fail to address the issues that
they have the proised to affect, and fiddle with the ones they didnt.,
leaving the country in even more of a mess.

I disagree with the first part. Most people don't think like this so
they are more likely to vote.

What we have now is where a few voters in a few marginal
constituencies decide the government. The rest of the population get
virtually no say. AV is not perfect but it's a lot better than what
we have now.

The reason those marginals can do that, is because the marketing (spin)
departments of the two major parties are almost as good as each other.

The reason it happens is because it /can/ happen under the current
system.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 09:53:43 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article ,
Mark wrote:

What we have now is where a few voters in a few marginal
constituencies decide the government. The rest of the population get
virtually no say. AV is not perfect but it's a lot better than what
we have now.

This is a foolish specious argument.

So anything you don't agree with is foolish and specious then?

The seats are "safe" because a lot
of people bothered to turn out to vote in them.

No. Seats are safe because some people turned out to vote for them
and fewer people for the other candidates. Many people do not bother
to vote at all, especially in a "safe" seat.

That's those who you are
referring to as "the rest of the population", above. And guess what - in
those seats someone probably gets more than 50% of the vote. I thought
that was what you wanted.

Some seats do get more than 50% of the vote and they are not all safe
seats. Many safe seats get a lot less than 50% of the vote.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

On 18/04/11 09:24, Mark wrote:
On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 19:57:42 +0100, djc wrote:

On 15/04/11 10:25, Mark wrote:

I disagree. By allowing people to vote for multiple candidates (if
they so wish) it would eliminate tactical voting. It would also mean,
that if you don't vote for the winner, that your vote is not totally
wasted. Hopefully this will encourage more people to to vote make MPs
more accountable.

a. What's wrong with tactical voting.

What's right with tactical voting?

You vote for someone you don't want to elect in an attempt to stop
some other person you don't want to elect.


Just like AV then. Because I have no wish to elect any of the
self-important, self-serving busybodies who are offered.



--
djc

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 18:56:21 +0100, djc wrote:

On 18/04/11 09:24, Mark wrote:
On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 19:57:42 +0100, djc wrote:

On 15/04/11 10:25, Mark wrote:

I disagree. By allowing people to vote for multiple candidates (if
they so wish) it would eliminate tactical voting. It would also mean,
that if you don't vote for the winner, that your vote is not totally
wasted. Hopefully this will encourage more people to to vote make MPs
more accountable.

a. What's wrong with tactical voting.

What's right with tactical voting?

You vote for someone you don't want to elect in an attempt to stop
some other person you don't want to elect.


Just like AV then. Because I have no wish to elect any of the
self-important, self-serving busybodies who are offered.

There's no proposal to making voting compulsory.

One thing that could be done with AV is add a "no candidate" option,
which might appeal to some of the posters here.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.