The Ranting Room

fandango wrote: <SPAN =msgSidePro id=userPro2859019 title="View Drop Down" ="showDropDown'userPro2859019', 'proMenu2859019', 160, 0;">Blacksword </SPAN> <DIV =dropDownMenu id=proMenu2859019> Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Prog Reviewer Joined: 22 June 2004 Location: Blue Bell Knoll Online Status: Online Posts: 6614     changing the subject...how can a miserable old scrote like you live in 'Blue Bell Knoll'??...   ...are you sure its not Deadly Nightshade??....     <!-- google_ad_section_end -->

Behind every cynic, Jared is someone who just wants to be loved. Or is it just wants to get plastered and moan all the time..... cant remember which..

BTW, did I mention that I passed my driving test at long last. I shall do my best not allow my my angst to turn into horrible road rage!

Blacksword
Prog Reviewer



Joined: 22 June 2004
Location: Blue Bell Knoll
Online Status: Online
Posts: 6614

NaturalScience wrote: fandango wrote: ..except that the Blair/ Brown partnership continued to privatise the un-privatisable;...like prisons Don't blame Labour, the practice was started much earlier... <h2><span ="mw-line">History of prison privatization</span></h2> The privatization movement can be traced to the contracting out the confinement and care of prisoners after the American Revolution. Deprived of the ability to ship criminals and undesirables to the Colonies, Great Britain began placing them on hulks moored in English ports.

Very true. It's not a new concept. Amazingly, we are currently considering locking up crims on moored boats, once again. Our prisons are full apparently.

Of course, crime is falling, just as it did under the Tories. In fact I believe it has done under every single government in living memory, if their stats are to be believed. At this rate Britain will be crime free before long... Double plus good, hey!

Jared & Andy

A succinct & accurate summation of the British political system - I'd give you clappies or thumbs up emoticons, but both of those are smiling.

It's a shame there's no emoticon for a sad shaking of the head

James wrote: In Britain though, there tends be a strong support for each party.  Most Conservative voters will likely never vote for the opposition, however bad their own leadership is.  It is not good form.  You are a Tory for life.The same applies for Labour (or New Labour) voters, who remember the Conservative years and do not want to return back to those times.  The problem is though, Conservatives are thicker-skinned, whilst unfortunately, Labour supporters are not showing themselves to be.So I disagree with your comments mostly.  Some people do vote like you do but in the case of Labour, they'd rather abstain from voting, than vote for the Conservatives.  The Conservatives vote for their own party, however appalling it is.You have also missed my main point also.  Maybe I just did not word it correctly, oh well.  I am not repeating it.

James, 'NuLab' gained a lot of votes from former Tory supporters in 1997. Thats how they achieved such a huge landslide in that election. Prior to that we even saw Tory MPs defecting to Labour, as was the case with Alan Howarth.

How did Labour do this? By becoming a more electable Conseravtive party. The 'New Labour' Team, comprised of the likes of Peter Mandelson et al, were very shrewd. They had been watching the Tories every move since the mid 80's, and Thatcher being replaced by Major was a God send for them. With inflation running at 15%, the housing market in freefall, and an un-inspiring PM, the Tories were on the way out. Blair had wanted that job since the early 80's, and as MP for Beaconsfield had talked of the need for the Labour party to 'modernise' For New Labour, this meant abolishing 'Clause 4' of their constitution which committed the party to public ownership of utilities, railways etc. Of course the Tories had privatised everything, and the cost of re-nationalisation would have bankrupted the country. This is how the Tories left their legacy behind. They knew that any party that replaced them would have to continue governing the country with a Tory economic agenda. Very clever on their part!

Anyway, it's gone full circle now. The charismatic leader that was Blair, has been replaced with Gordon Brown (the labour parties answer to John Major) and lo and behold their ratings are plummeting. It;s time to prepare for another round of Tory government, but this time, I would bet a lot of money on their being very little noticible difference from what went before.

It's a shame about Gwyneth Dunwoody, but New Labour have run their course, and people invariably vote on national issues at all elections. It's perceived to be the best way to kick a party in the nuts when they have screwed up on something big. What constitutes a screw up, is of course subjective, but for many people, Iraq, ill managed immigration policy, lies, cash for honours, insane beaurocracy, failing on crime, robbing the poor to pay the rich etc doesn't go down very well. If anyone thinks the Tories will play the game any differently, however, they are dreaming, in my humble opinion.

Silly me. I forgot that he is one of the world's foremost air flute players

Man Erg wrote: ^^^ Is G.W. a musician?

....No.

Relayer09 wrote: Political parties, what a load a festering foul smelling pig vomit those are.

Don't hold back - tell us what you really think of them...

Relayer09 wrote: Why is it that if you dislike a certain canidate then people automatically assume you're affiliated with the opposing party?

Relayer09 wrote: who the hell ever told these people who pretend to be other people for a living (actors & celebrities) that they have some inane insight into the grand scheme of world politics?

Don't forget musicians:



er!   

We tried a while ago, but the bloody Italian builders buggered off before they'd finished it!

debrewguy wrote: I'm sure serious cases can be made for ulterior political motives for many of the Big Media conglomerates. But to tell a fellow citizen that basing his vote on what his favourite newspaper says is stupid or that they should disregard said paper's recommendation sounds like you're questioning that person's intelligence & freedom of choice. I don't like Fox network's slant on the news. I rarely see the liberal leftist agenda that many American conservatives claim is rampant in media. But if you watch Fox & agree with their point of view, isn't it logical that you would agree with their recommendations come election time. Our recent municipal election stirred up a mini tempest. It seems that some who supported losing candidates believed that a newspaper or any other media outlet, for that matter, should not mention the candidate(s) that they support. As if their fellow citizens only saw the name, but not the reasons why the paper in question supported one candidate over another. Far too many of the "educated" classes think they know better. Far too many times history has shown us that the intelligentsia is more dangerous than the so called ignorant masses. Give me a simple common sensical decent manager of a Prime Minister or President, and I'm happy. Give me big plans, rainbow coloured dreams, and ever confident easy answers to difficult problems and you lose me.

The problem with mass media is that it tends to put slants on any and all stories to support their own views. When this happens it becomes increasingly difficult for someone to make an informed opinion because usually they arent getting all the facts, and those they are gettingcould very well have been misrepresented quite badly.