FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Local elections
Local elections
Jump to: Newest in thread
Well for the first time since I was eligible to vote. I haven't.
My reason
How can I vote for the candidate who will do the best for my area, when only one candidate has bothered to send contact me about their policies.
They talk about voter apathy, what about candidate apathy |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I voted.. but my local mp has been trying to help me with a few things and has "he says" had his eye opened to some shocking failures in the system.
cali |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *waymanMan
over a year ago
newcastle |
"how come the whole country gets to vote except round my way?????"
Many of the shire counties don't have elections this year - we have a bizarre patchwork quilt local government system that makes little or no sense. In Wales we even have a council area where the council si so shit commissioners have been imposed and elections cancelled to make sure the same shit councillors have less chance of getting back in...
Democracy is great.... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"i voted.. but the problem here is that a donkey could wear the "red" rosette and still win....  "
Ain't that the truth! I guess they counted our two votes pretty quickly. Sunderland have already declared, but then they're always first. Lab Hold. Liberals wiped out in Sunderland. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"how come the whole country gets to vote except round my way?????
Many of the shire counties don't have elections this year - we have a bizarre patchwork quilt local government system that makes little or no sense. In Wales we even have a council area where the council si so shit commissioners have been imposed and elections cancelled to make sure the same shit councillors have less chance of getting back in...
Democracy is great...."
...but we still got an unelected government ..ime right confused with this democacy lark ...i heard its all a myth.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Thing is, at the general election, the population was asked for our answers to the big questions and we said 'erm..........'"
..was it ...cant be arsed goin out to vote for a bunch of expense stealing tossers in this weather ...think ile stay in and have a nice cup of tea instead. besides somebody else from one of the parties has already voted for me online..  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Watching Vote 2012 on the BBC.
Lib Dems getting a battering!  "
No big surprise there. I'd say this was a typical mid-term protest vote but the difference this time is that the protest vote is against a coalition government and the only credible alternative people can vote for in protest is Labour.
What is surprising is the rise in UKIP's share of the vote at the expense of the Conservatives. Something Cameron needs to pay attention to over the next two years. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Watching Vote 2012 on the BBC.
Lib Dems getting a battering!
No big surprise there. I'd say this was a typical mid-term protest vote but the difference this time is that the protest vote is against a coalition government and the only credible alternative people can vote for in protest is Labour.
What is surprising is the rise in UKIP's share of the vote at the expense of the Conservatives. Something Cameron needs to pay attention to over the next two years."
I think peeps are goin for ukip cos they appear to be an only alternative to two parties that appear to have joined in the middle from the left and the right....We all remember the labour party getting us into this economic mess and there lies leading to the iraq invasion and them and tories stealing our expenses ...and now we got the tories whose answer to helping us out of this mess is to increase our taxes tell us we need to tighten our financial belts as labours bankrupt the country ..whilst at the same time over generously giving out billions of our money to other countries in international aide and brussells...There all the same ..hence ukip sounding like a feasible voting alternative. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Watching Vote 2012 on the BBC.
Lib Dems getting a battering!
No big surprise there. I'd say this was a typical mid-term protest vote but the difference this time is that the protest vote is against a coalition government and the only credible alternative people can vote for in protest is Labour.
What is surprising is the rise in UKIP's share of the vote at the expense of the Conservatives. Something Cameron needs to pay attention to over the next two years.
I think peeps are goin for ukip cos they appear to be an only alternative to two parties that appear to have joined in the middle from the left and the right....We all remember the labour party getting us into this economic mess and there lies leading to the iraq invasion and them and tories stealing our expenses ...and now we got the tories whose answer to helping us out of this mess is to increase our taxes tell us we need to tighten our financial belts as labours bankrupt the country ..whilst at the same time over generously giving out billions of our money to other countries in international aide and brussells...There all the same ..hence ukip sounding like a feasible voting alternative. "
....We all remember the labour party getting us into this economic mess
I think you'll find it was back in the EIGHTIES that started this econoimic mess....and who were in power then?? erm THE CONSERVATIVES. We have reaped what they have sown  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I think you'll find it was back in the EIGHTIES that started this econoimic mess....and who were in power then?? erm THE CONSERVATIVES. We have reaped what they have sown "
Huh? Wtf are you on about? Blair inherited a robust and thriving economy from the Tories when he won in 97. It was the Tory sleaze that did for them back then. Brown certainly did NOT repay the favour in 2010! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I think you'll find it was back in the EIGHTIES that started this econoimic mess....and who were in power then?? erm THE CONSERVATIVES. We have reaped what they have sown
Huh? Wtf are you on about? Blair inherited a robust and thriving economy from the Tories when he won in 97. It was the Tory sleaze that did for them back then. Brown certainly did NOT repay the favour in 2010!"
I think blair obliterated the tories on the sleaze front he might not av got caught with is trousers down but he sure did get stuck up a few peers. ....education education education ....at a price....only thing blair did for me was convince me that i would never vote labour again.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I think blair obliterated the tories on the sleaze front he might not av got caught with is trousers down but he sure did get stuck up a few peers. ....education education education ....at a price....only thing blair did for me was convince me that i would never vote labour again.
"
Me too. I voted for Blair in 97 as he really seemed like he meant what he was saying, and I'd had enough of Tory sleaze. I had 13 long years to regret that decision and now I'd never vote Labour even if it transpired that Cameron & Clegg enjoyed frollicking with sheep at midnight dressed as Devil Worshippers. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I think blair obliterated the tories on the sleaze front he might not av got caught with is trousers down but he sure did get stuck up a few peers. ....education education education ....at a price....only thing blair did for me was convince me that i would never vote labour again.
Me too. I voted for Blair in 97 as he really seemed like he meant what he was saying, and I'd had enough of Tory sleaze. I had 13 long years to regret that decision and now I'd never vote Labour even if it transpired that Cameron & Clegg enjoyed frollicking with sheep at midnight dressed as Devil Worshippers. "
pmsl now now wishy dont be going giving labour spin doctors any ideas lol it grates a tad with me that ed the ducks only political strategy is to try pull the wool over peeps eyes by saying it wasnt really labour that got us into this economic mess and some amazingly are believeing him ...at the the time the tories/lib dems got there hands on the treasury ,,wasnt there a note by alistar darling saying something of the lines ha ha ha weve bankrupt the country enjoy yr time in power it will be a short one as yv no money to do owt with ......nice to see labour didnt give a shit about the state they left the country in there only concern was to get back power. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
What baffles me is how people think these austerity cuts are some sort of con. Two of the three major parties think we need them and the only one that doesn't is the one not in power! A bit obvious who's likely to be lying.
What do the Tories have to gain by making cuts, except face backlash? They could easily do a labour and spend obscenely to get re elected, but instead they are doing what's right.
The stubbornness of the people in the north is almost embarrassing. People need to wake up and realise that this country prospered becuase of the foundations laid in the late 70s and 80s.
100 years down the line historians will simply look at the state the UK was in pre-Thatcher then look at how she left the country and be absolutely confused as to why she was so hated.
Thankfully Trafford has remained a conservative majority despite losing 3 seats to labour. The conservatives have been responsible for Trafford being one of the top education authorities in the country results wise. It scares me to think how labour could tear it all up if they got in.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"shuts up and goes back to her corner...
Please don't, you've got such a nice ass. You can be the girl who holds up the score cards if ya like. "
I'll second that one 
Whoever you vote for, I hope they win.
But only in your mind because they will all be driving around in cars..........
There could have been more, but that is rant over. 
  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Did anyone happen to hear Mervin King speaking on the Radio the other night?
One of the very interesting things that he said was that a significant part of the problem in the British ecconomy is the housing bubble. Lots of people owning their own homes produces a large amount of debt, which needs low interest rates to help them to service it. The housing bubble can be sourced directly back to the 80's with the sale of large quantities of Council Housing stocks.
Another problem is the general lack of new build housing. Now part of the sale of housing under the 80's government was a restriction on Councils from using the money from sales to build new houses and a moritorium on Councils borrowing money to build houses (the loans were always 'leveraged' against income to be received).
Of course, what we in this country did is nothing more than a hen's peck to what happened in the US, but our deregulated banks were able to join in until their ledgers were up to 5 times the UK GDP. Unsustainable, of course.
Now it is true that the UK Government did not regulate the banks, but then, that was not their job. In May '97 the job of regulating UK Banking sector was hived of to Eddie George at the Bank of England, along with the power to set interest rates. Banks were put into a very previlaged position, not by Blair, but by Thatcher (which, Wishy, is why I refuse to accept your definition of Blair as a socialist, nor the idea that History defines him as such, unless the historians are very ignorant).
I am glad Liverpool has a Mayor, and hope that the Lib Dem's are kicked out of control of the City Council, I have done my bit..........Just a shame that there were not more Green Party candidates |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Did anyone happen to hear Mervin King speaking on the Radio the other night?
One of the very interesting things that he said was that a significant part of the problem in the British ecconomy is the housing bubble. Lots of people owning their own homes produces a large amount of debt, which needs low interest rates to help them to service it. The housing bubble can be sourced directly back to the 80's with the sale of large quantities of Council Housing stocks.
Another problem is the general lack of new build housing. Now part of the sale of housing under the 80's government was a restriction on Councils from using the money from sales to build new houses and a moritorium on Councils borrowing money to build houses (the loans were always 'leveraged' against income to be received).
Of course, what we in this country did is nothing more than a hen's peck to what happened in the US, but our deregulated banks were able to join in until their ledgers were up to 5 times the UK GDP. Unsustainable, of course.
Now it is true that the UK Government did not regulate the banks, but then, that was not their job. In May '97 the job of regulating UK Banking sector was hived of to Eddie George at the Bank of England, along with the power to set interest rates. Banks were put into a very previlaged position, not by Blair, but by Thatcher (which, Wishy, is why I refuse to accept your definition of Blair as a socialist, nor the idea that History defines him as such, unless the historians are very ignorant).
I am glad Liverpool has a Mayor, and hope that the Lib Dem's are kicked out of control of the City Council, I have done my bit..........Just a shame that there were not more Green Party candidates"
Well yes I did hear what he had to say but I doubt the leftie BBC will report it in any detail despite the fact he was making the 'Today' speech ...
I think you will find any Council Houses bought in the 80s have been well paid for by now seeing as most were bought on 25 year mortgages and were low cost anyway so I doubt they have anything to do with any recent bubble. Maybe look at how Brown was pumping up the economy and people's expectations and conning people that house inflation would never end. People bought at higher and higher prices and borrowed more and more. And then the truth dawned as Brown's Boom went Bust.
Checking on the facts I found that the Conservative legislation allowing the sale of Council Houses allowed Councils to use any money to build new homes. But as most were Labour controlled they didn't. And when Labour came to power in '97 they stopped the use of the money from House sales to build new houses and reduced borrowing powers. So I don't think we can point the finger at the nasty Tories can we ...
Absolutely right about Bank risk taking but I am afraid you aren't quite right about the Bank of England's role in regulation. In '97 Brown gave the B of E responsibility for inflation and interest rates. Good idea. BUT he then removed the powers the B of E had had previously to regulate the banks. Bad idea. And if you don't believe me read Mervyn Kings 'Today' speech of 2 days ago. Brown reduced the B of E to the role of onlookers shouting from the sidelines.
And what has Thatcher got to do with it? She left power some 6 years previous to Blair winning in '97! And how can she be blamed for what Blair did anyway? But then in any political debate Thatcher's name just HAS to be brought in by left leaning people.
I won't comment on Liverpool's politics as its rude to intrude on private grief ... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *waymanMan
over a year ago
newcastle |
"Did anyone happen to hear Mervin King speaking on the Radio the other night?
One of the very interesting things that he said was that a significant part of the problem in the British ecconomy is the housing bubble. Lots of people owning their own homes produces a large amount of debt, which needs low interest rates to help them to service it. The housing bubble can be sourced directly back to the 80's with the sale of large quantities of Council Housing stocks.
Another problem is the general lack of new build housing. Now part of the sale of housing under the 80's government was a restriction on Councils from using the money from sales to build new houses and a moritorium on Councils borrowing money to build houses (the loans were always 'leveraged' against income to be received).
Of course, what we in this country did is nothing more than a hen's peck to what happened in the US, but our deregulated banks were able to join in until their ledgers were up to 5 times the UK GDP. Unsustainable, of course.
Now it is true that the UK Government did not regulate the banks, but then, that was not their job. In May '97 the job of regulating UK Banking sector was hived of to Eddie George at the Bank of England, along with the power to set interest rates. Banks were put into a very previlaged position, not by Blair, but by Thatcher (which, Wishy, is why I refuse to accept your definition of Blair as a socialist, nor the idea that History defines him as such, unless the historians are very ignorant).
I am glad Liverpool has a Mayor, and hope that the Lib Dem's are kicked out of control of the City Council, I have done my bit..........Just a shame that there were not more Green Party candidates
Well yes I did hear what he had to say but I doubt the leftie BBC will report it in any detail despite the fact he was making the 'Today' speech ...
I think you will find any Council Houses bought in the 80s have been well paid for by now seeing as most were bought on 25 year mortgages and were low cost anyway so I doubt they have anything to do with any recent bubble. Maybe look at how Brown was pumping up the economy and people's expectations and conning people that house inflation would never end. People bought at higher and higher prices and borrowed more and more. And then the truth dawned as Brown's Boom went Bust.
Checking on the facts I found that the Conservative legislation allowing the sale of Council Houses allowed Councils to use any money to build new homes. But as most were Labour controlled they didn't. And when Labour came to power in '97 they stopped the use of the money from House sales to build new houses and reduced borrowing powers. So I don't think we can point the finger at the nasty Tories can we ...
Absolutely right about Bank risk taking but I am afraid you aren't quite right about the Bank of England's role in regulation. In '97 Brown gave the B of E responsibility for inflation and interest rates. Good idea. BUT he then removed the powers the B of E had had previously to regulate the banks. Bad idea. And if you don't believe me read Mervyn Kings 'Today' speech of 2 days ago. Brown reduced the B of E to the role of onlookers shouting from the sidelines.
And what has Thatcher got to do with it? She left power some 6 years previous to Blair winning in '97! And how can she be blamed for what Blair did anyway? But then in any political debate Thatcher's name just HAS to be brought in by left leaning people.
I won't comment on Liverpool's politics as its rude to intrude on private grief ... "
I'm not going to get into the tribalism of this thread, where some people think supporting a political party is like supporting a football team, complete with stupid insults and cretinous accusations, but your remark about conservative legislation allowing income form council house sales to be re-investd in the 80s is too good to pass up.
Have you got a link to that legislation? Or to the funding formulas and the like? You;re the first person I've ever read making that assertion.
of course, you might also, if you have a more than merely polemical interest in housing policy, want to ponder the impact of the right to a local authority mortgage enshrined in the 1980 Housing Act on the ability of local authorities to borrow or invest in general - not only did councils have to sell houses at massive discounts to tenants, but in many cases they had to lend them borrowed money in order to do it!
Incidentally, there's some good stuff from the Tory controlled lGA out at the moment about the unfairness of the latest proposals to allow councils to invest the proceeds of RTB sales in new houses (unliek the 1980s - funny how even the Tory controlled LGA don't agree with you about that) but only to the value of 30% of the new house - the other 70% has to be borrowed... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"What baffles me is how people think these austerity cuts are some sort of con. Two of the three major parties think we need them and the only one that doesn't is the one not in power! A bit obvious who's likely to be lying.
What do the Tories have to gain by making cuts, except face backlash? They could easily do a labour and spend obscenely to get re elected, but instead they are doing what's right.
The stubbornness of the people in the north is almost embarrassing. People need to wake up and realise that this country prospered becuase of the foundations laid in the late 70s and 80s.
100 years down the line historians will simply look at the state the UK was in pre-Thatcher then look at how she left the country and be absolutely confused as to why she was so hated.
Thankfully Trafford has remained a conservative majority despite losing 3 seats to labour. The conservatives have been responsible for Trafford being one of the top education authorities in the country results wise. It scares me to think how labour could tear it all up if they got in.
"
Maybe if the tories stopped giving our money away to Brussells and other countries via international aide. I thought were spose to be skint.
The only thing to date that the tories/libs have done to piss me of is go give Pakistan 650 million quid in international aide? during there floods.. why when there a country with nuclear capability..they cant be that skint. Be interesting to find out in the future how much of this money filtered its way into the talibans coffers.
Dave said on the matter hopefully peeps in Pakistan will understand were not there enemy we just want to help them.
To me it just seems a defeatist attitude by dave pleading with them not to send suicide bombers over to us by chucking money at them.
Yes i know we cant stop paying the gangsters in brussells due to tony blair signing us into it when he was on his.....i want to be the emporer of europe trip and i dont give a shit if by getting there i have to pile further future debt on the british people.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Did anyone happen to hear Mervin King speaking on the Radio the other night?
One of the very interesting things that he said was that a significant part of the problem in the British ecconomy is the housing bubble. Lots of people owning their own homes produces a large amount of debt, which needs low interest rates to help them to service it. The housing bubble can be sourced directly back to the 80's with the sale of large quantities of Council Housing stocks.
Another problem is the general lack of new build housing. Now part of the sale of housing under the 80's government was a restriction on Councils from using the money from sales to build new houses and a moritorium on Councils borrowing money to build houses (the loans were always 'leveraged' against income to be received).
Of course, what we in this country did is nothing more than a hen's peck to what happened in the US, but our deregulated banks were able to join in until their ledgers were up to 5 times the UK GDP. Unsustainable, of course.
Now it is true that the UK Government did not regulate the banks, but then, that was not their job. In May '97 the job of regulating UK Banking sector was hived of to Eddie George at the Bank of England, along with the power to set interest rates. Banks were put into a very previlaged position, not by Blair, but by Thatcher (which, Wishy, is why I refuse to accept your definition of Blair as a socialist, nor the idea that History defines him as such, unless the historians are very ignorant).
I am glad Liverpool has a Mayor, and hope that the Lib Dem's are kicked out of control of the City Council, I have done my bit..........Just a shame that there were not more Green Party candidates"
the green party i like the sound of them ...if you can smoke them as for there policies full of wind ...turbines only....and totally car unfriendly in terms of transport policies maybe we could just get stoned and simply imagine ourselves travelling to our destinations...btw m8 have you put yr crap in all the right bins |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Well yes I did hear what he had to say but I doubt the leftie BBC will report it in any detail despite the fact he was making the 'Today' speech ...
I think you will find any Council Houses bought in the 80s have been well paid for by now seeing as most were bought on 25 year mortgages and were low cost anyway so I doubt they have anything to do with any recent bubble. Maybe look at how Brown was pumping up the economy and people's expectations and conning people that house inflation would never end. People bought at higher and higher prices and borrowed more and more. And then the truth dawned as Brown's Boom went Bust.
Checking on the facts I found that the Conservative legislation allowing the sale of Council Houses allowed Councils to use any money to build new homes. But as most were Labour controlled they didn't. And when Labour came to power in '97 they stopped the use of the money from House sales to build new houses and reduced borrowing powers. So I don't think we can point the finger at the nasty Tories can we ...
Absolutely right about Bank risk taking but I am afraid you aren't quite right about the Bank of England's role in regulation. In '97 Brown gave the B of E responsibility for inflation and interest rates. Good idea. BUT he then removed the powers the B of E had had previously to regulate the banks. Bad idea. And if you don't believe me read Mervyn Kings 'Today' speech of 2 days ago. Brown reduced the B of E to the role of onlookers shouting from the sidelines.
And what has Thatcher got to do with it? She left power some 6 years previous to Blair winning in '97! And how can she be blamed for what Blair did anyway? But then in any political debate Thatcher's name just HAS to be brought in by left leaning people.
I won't comment on Liverpool's politics as its rude to intrude on private grief ... "
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
Maybe if the tories stopped giving our money away to Brussells and other countries via international aide. I thought were spose to be skint.
The only thing to date that the tories/libs have done to piss me of is go give Pakistan 650 million quid in international aide? during there floods.. why when there a country with nuclear capability..they cant be that skint. Be interesting to find out in the future how much of this money filtered its way into the talibans coffers.
Dave said on the matter hopefully peeps in Pakistan will understand were not there enemy we just want to help them.
To me it just seems a defeatist attitude by dave pleading with them not to send suicide bombers over to us by chucking money at them.
Yes i know we cant stop paying the gangsters in brussells due to tony blair signing us into it when he was on his.....i want to be the emporer of europe trip and i dont give a shit if by getting there i have to pile further future debt on the british people.
"
It was actually 65m for the floods, but there is a lot more aid given in general so your point kind of still stands. It's a strange thing international aid to former colonies, perhaps it's some sort of guilt money for pillaging the resources to enable/fund the industrial revolution? The money wouldn't have been filtered to the taliban but firmly into the back pockets of the corrupt politicians.
Also it isn't a case of pleading with them not to send suicide bombers over because there hasn't ever been any suicide bombers sent here from abroad. The Money is more likely in exchange for their continued support in the war on terror for which they have actually paid the most lives.
On the EU front, we cant simply leave Europe as most of the foreign investment in the UK is reliant on us having free trade with the other EU countries. It would be a disaster for the economy to leave, thousands more unemployed, farmers and fishers would lose out on massive subsidies etc. Another reason not to leave is to have influence in the politics of Europe. Isolationist policies haven't fared well in any country bar perhaps the USA which is the only country on earth with enough resources and infrastructure to sustain itself.
The only aspect of the EU I have a problem with, and it's a major problem, is the legal side. We should not be told what our laws have to be.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
I'm not going to get into the tribalism of this thread, where some people think supporting a political party is like supporting a football team, complete with stupid insults and cretinous accusations,......"
Very well said, it's a little sad that otherwise intelligent people allow themselves to be completely sucked in by propaganda and as a result feel able to ignore and distort facts in order to play the blame game. It makes it difficult to have effective public honest debate because the 'cheerleaders' among us drown out the logic based on fact with noise.
There are those who believe Preston Northend are the best team in the land, sadly 'keyboard party politics' is becoming little more than a football chant. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
The beauty of foreign aid is that is allows those that give it to have some sort of say in how the recieving country is run. We can slam the Pakistan govt for not doing enough on terror, and then pacify them by giving them £60m in aid. We get to make our point over terrorism and embarrass them internationally into doing something about it, and then we get a slap on the back for helping a struggling country. Win/Win.
The world is not as black & white as some people think. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The beauty of foreign aid is that is allows those that give it to have some sort of say in how the recieving country is run. We can slam the Pakistan govt for not doing enough on terror, and then pacify them by giving them £60m in aid. We get to make our point over terrorism and embarrass them internationally into doing something about it, and then we get a slap on the back for helping a struggling country. Win/Win.
The world is not as black & white as some people think."
well we gave to pakistan and they repaid us by housing bin laden right next to one of there secret servant agencies ..so either they have taken the piss ..along with our money ...or there intellegence agiencies are pretty crap i see the scenario brit/american agent in phone call to pakistani agent ...any sign of bin laden yet? ..pakistani agent..no sign yet ..as there waving at each other over there verandas, |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
I'm not going to get into the tribalism of this thread, where some people think supporting a political party is like supporting a football team, complete with stupid insults and cretinous accusations,......
Very well said, it's a little sad that otherwise intelligent people allow themselves to be completely sucked in by propaganda and as a result feel able to ignore and distort facts in order to play the blame game. It makes it difficult to have effective public honest debate because the 'cheerleaders' among us drown out the logic based on fact with noise.
There are those who believe Preston Northend are the best team in the land, sadly 'keyboard party politics' is becoming little more than a football chant. "
i know but i just find it a more mentally stimulating than would you shag the poster above you.....come an av a go if ya think yr ard enuff  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The beauty of foreign aid is that is allows those that give it to have some sort of say in how the recieving country is run. We can slam the Pakistan govt for not doing enough on terror, and then pacify them by giving them £60m in aid. We get to make our point over terrorism and embarrass them internationally into doing something about it, and then we get a slap on the back for helping a struggling country. Win/Win.
The world is not as black & white as some people think.
well we gave to pakistan and they repaid us by housing bin laden right next to one of there secret servant agencies ..so either they have taken the piss ..along with our money ...or there intellegence agiencies are pretty crap i see the scenario brit/american agent in phone call to pakistani agent ...any sign of bin laden yet? ..pakistani agent..no sign yet ..as there waving at each other over there verandas,"
I'm glad you raised the Osama question. Right next door to one of their security agencies he was 'found' to be living.
Do you think the Americans could have mounted the operation to kill him without UK involvement?
The US Seal teams involved set out from Afghanistan where we have a strong presence and there is no way those Black Hawks could have flown from Afghanistan without us seeing them. The US would have had to let us know beforehand what was going on.
They then flew into Pakistan from Jalalabad to Abbottabad - a distance of 330km - unseen by the Pakistani security services. At this point it is worth noting that Pakistan is a nuclear-capabale country and recently purchased 6 subs from China. A sub doesn't cost £10bn alone, but the systems to know where the fook it is ramp up the price to what we see reported. So Pakistan should have spotted those Black Hawks as they crossed their border. They didn't 'see' them though.
How come?
Well, Osama Bin Laden was losing his grip on al-Queda and his underlings thought he wasn't being active enough. A known operative called 'the Kuwaiti' was allowed to courier information to Bin Laden which alerted the Americans to his location. They then watched the compund for six months using drone planes (which we would have known about) and then eventually, when it confirmed Bin Laden was there Barrack Obama gave the order to go get him.
Bin Laden was killed along with every other male in that compound and Pakistan did nothing (except grumble a bit about not being told).
Pakistan get a nice little aid package, the world is rid of Bin Laden, and we still get to know what the Americans are up to.
If we stop giving aid to countries who don't really need it, we get told to "fuck off" when we want to know about sensitive issues. You don't really think it's about books and schools, do you? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I'm not going to get into the tribalism of this thread, where some people think supporting a political party is like supporting a football team, complete with stupid insults and cretinous accusations, but your remark about conservative legislation allowing income form council house sales to be re-investd in the 80s is too good to pass up...."
You say you won't. And then you do. Make up your mind.
As always, when faced with realities, the Left move the debate onto personal abuse and away from the point at issue. I was, however, debating the issues and in no way attacked anyone or inded made any "stupid insults and cretinous accusations". I will leave that to you and your ilk.
And as you have made it so personal I feel no obligation to answer any of the rest of your Post. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I only mentioned local elections and world war three has broken out
Hey - you re lucky, the war is at least being fought with conventional weapons"
Well conventionally ... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The beauty of foreign aid is that is allows those that give it to have some sort of say in how the recieving country is run. We can slam the Pakistan govt for not doing enough on terror, and then pacify them by giving them £60m in aid. We get to make our point over terrorism and embarrass them internationally into doing something about it, and then we get a slap on the back for helping a struggling country. Win/Win.
The world is not as black & white as some people think.
well we gave to pakistan and they repaid us by housing bin laden right next to one of there secret servant agencies ..so either they have taken the piss ..along with our money ...or there intellegence agiencies are pretty crap i see the scenario brit/american agent in phone call to pakistani agent ...any sign of bin laden yet? ..pakistani agent..no sign yet ..as there waving at each other over there verandas,
I'm glad you raised the Osama question. Right next door to one of their security agencies he was 'found' to be living.
Do you think the Americans could have mounted the operation to kill him without UK involvement?
The US Seal teams involved set out from Afghanistan where we have a strong presence and there is no way those Black Hawks could have flown from Afghanistan without us seeing them. The US would have had to let us know beforehand what was going on.
They then flew into Pakistan from Jalalabad to Abbottabad - a distance of 330km - unseen by the Pakistani security services. At this point it is worth noting that Pakistan is a nuclear-capabale country and recently purchased 6 subs from China. A sub doesn't cost £10bn alone, but the systems to know where the fook it is ramp up the price to what we see reported. So Pakistan should have spotted those Black Hawks as they crossed their border. They didn't 'see' them though.
How come?
Well, Osama Bin Laden was losing his grip on al-Queda and his underlings thought he wasn't being active enough. A known operative called 'the Kuwaiti' was allowed to courier information to Bin Laden which alerted the Americans to his location. They then watched the compund for six months using drone planes (which we would have known about) and then eventually, when it confirmed Bin Laden was there Barrack Obama gave the order to go get him.
Bin Laden was killed along with every other male in that compound and Pakistan did nothing (except grumble a bit about not being told).
Pakistan get a nice little aid package, the world is rid of Bin Laden, and we still get to know what the Americans are up to.
If we stop giving aid to countries who don't really need it, we get told to "fuck off" when we want to know about sensitive issues. You don't really think it's about books and schools, do you?"
No wishy not at all ..for instance when it was licking of in libya most countries sent in there spies under the guise of international aide workers . We on the other hand decided send our spies in by flying them in in a big noisy chinook right in the middle of the rebels stronghold ...how we thought that would sneak our spies in i dunno...its not exactly very covert now is it.
the point i was making on foreign aide is that in such economic times charity should start at home. Yes i understand all about why we give ...what i dont understand is that given our economic crisis at the moment why have the tories increased the amount of foreign aide policy rather than reduce it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"the point i was making on foreign aide is that in such economic times charity should start at home. Yes i understand all about why we give ...what i dont understand is that given our economic crisis at the moment why have the tories increased the amount of foreign aide policy rather than reduce it. "
Because those receiving it want more.
I'm being a bit flippant here actually. In the case of India they have repeatedly said they don't want or need the £300m we send them but the UK body responsible for distributing aid to India insisted they take it or they won't have a reason to exist. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *phroditeWoman
over a year ago
(She/ her) in Sensualityland |
"I only mentioned local elections and world war three has broken out
Hey - you re lucky, the war is at least being fought with conventional weapons
Well conventionally ..."
and hypothetically...;-) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *waymanMan
over a year ago
newcastle |
"I'm not going to get into the tribalism of this thread, where some people think supporting a political party is like supporting a football team, complete with stupid insults and cretinous accusations, but your remark about conservative legislation allowing income form council house sales to be re-investd in the 80s is too good to pass up....
You say you won't. And then you do. Make up your mind.
As always, when faced with realities, the Left move the debate onto personal abuse and away from the point at issue. I was, however, debating the issues and in no way attacked anyone or inded made any "stupid insults and cretinous accusations". I will leave that to you and your ilk.
And as you have made it so personal I feel no obligation to answer any of the rest of your Post."
That says all we need to know. You make an unsupported assertion about a policy area I know something about, then run away claiming you've been personally insulted by a question. Well done. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I think blair obliterated the tories on the sleaze front he might not av got caught with is trousers down but he sure did get stuck up a few peers. ....education education education ....at a price....only thing blair did for me was convince me that i would never vote labour again.yeh and the torys have never left the country in a mess ,HA i dont think so
Me too. I voted for Blair in 97 as he really seemed like he meant what he was saying, and I'd had enough of Tory sleaze. I had 13 long years to regret that decision and now I'd never vote Labour even if it transpired that Cameron & Clegg enjoyed frollicking with sheep at midnight dressed as Devil Worshippers.
pmsl now now wishy dont be going giving labour spin doctors any ideas lol it grates a tad with me that ed the ducks only political strategy is to try pull the wool over peeps eyes by saying it wasnt really labour that got us into this economic mess and some amazingly are believeing him ...at the the time the tories/lib dems got there hands on the treasury ,,wasnt there a note by alistar darling saying something of the lines ha ha ha weve bankrupt the country enjoy yr time in power it will be a short one as yv no money to do owt with ......nice to see labour didnt give a shit about the state they left the country in there only concern was to get back power. "
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
OK I have had enough of your totally unnecessarily personal comments. But then as I said before (and as you have now proved twice) you lefties can't have a debate or disagreement about issues. As soon as you start to lose the argument you resort to personal abuse. Well fine but I will NOT sink to your level. However:
" "That says all we need to know.""
Yes it means I don't abuse.
""You make an unsupported assertion about a policy area I know something about..." "
It didn't need supporting at the time. But you show you are trying to be too clever by half. Legislation tends to prescribe what can NOT be done and has no need to say what can be done and this is the case here. For example Legislation may well say "On conviction for murder a defendant will serve a Statutory Life term". It has no need to say "Where someone has not been convicted of Murder they are free to go about their business". Inter Alia the relevant legislation to which I was referring does not, and has no need to, say "Councils can spend their money as they choose" as it does NOT say "Councils are forbidden to ....". So the answer to your rather cheap question is that no I cannot give you a link because it doesn't, and never did, exist! Simples!
" ... then run away claiming you've been personally insulted by a question. "
I didn't run away as you put it. I declined to answer your question because of your personal comments.
And forgive me but "complete with stupid insults and cretinous accusations" is very insulting and isn't actually a question. So do at least get your facts right.
" "Well done." "
Sarcasm is thought of as the lowest form of wit but I think it suits you .... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *waymanMan
over a year ago
newcastle |
"OK I have had enough of your totally unnecessarily personal comments. But then as I said before (and as you have now proved twice) you lefties can't have a debate or disagreement about issues. As soon as you start to lose the argument you resort to personal abuse. Well fine but I will NOT sink to your level. However:
"That says all we need to know."
Yes it means I don't abuse.
"You make an unsupported assertion about a policy area I know something about..."
It didn't need supporting at the time. But you show you are trying to be too clever by half. Legislation tends to prescribe what can NOT be done and has no need to say what can be done and this is the case here. For example Legislation may well say "On conviction for murder a defendant will serve a Statutory Life term". It has no need to say "Where someone has not been convicted of Murder they are free to go about their business". Inter Alia the relevant legislation to which I was referring does not, and has no need to, say "Councils can spend their money as they choose" as it does NOT say "Councils are forbidden to ....". So the answer to your rather cheap question is that no I cannot give you a link because it doesn't, and never did, exist! Simples!
... then run away claiming you've been personally insulted by a question.
I didn't run away as you put it. I declined to answer your question because of your personal comments.
And forgive me but "complete with stupid insults and cretinous accusations" is very insulting and isn't actually a question. So do at least get your facts right.
"Well done."
Sarcasm is thought of as the lowest form of wit but I think it suits you .... "
Well done, but that's not an answer.
I asked for a link to the legislation, you can't provide one. As you say, it doesn't exist.
Your tantrum about my general reference to the tribal behaviour of posters on political threads here is both disproportionate and compelling evidence for the proposition that you aren't very good at comprehension.
The fact that you haven't addressed the whole area of capital expenditure allocations in the 80s (when councils could only spend capital receipts within limits set by government, and for the purposes approved by government) tells me you genuinely don't know what you're on about.
One point needs to be addressed though;
"Inter Alia the relevant legislation to which I was referring does not, and has no need to, say "Councils can spend their money as they choose"" is actually the best evidence for the proposition that you haven't a clue.
Councils are statutory corporations; they only have the powers parliament gives to them by statute. So actually, any power of a council does have to appear in a statute in order for it to exercise that power. The ruling in the Bideford Town Council case makes that really clear; Bideford weren't prevented from saying prayers because any harm arose - they were prevented from saying prayers because they had no power to do so. That's why Pickles rushed the introduction of general power of competence, which he believes will empower councils to do whatever they want to. So, to summarize, you don't appear to have a clue about local government law, or local government in the 1980s.
For a keyboard warrior with a high opinion of himself, that's a pretty glaring weakness. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
