Wasn't really such a great idea, was it?

[-Pete-]

I think you're right Groak.

Who would you like to be in power (be specific about the names) and what would you like them to be doing (be specific about the policies)?

[WhoseGeneration]

groak, you really are a little devil, aren't you?
You do ask worthwhile questions but ones that would be better asked some eighteen months hence.
To turn the "ship of State", bit like that supertanker.
It's about, as in any organisation, perhaps including your's, ensuring the ethos determined at the top is transmitted down the layers to the front line.
That might, in the situation of Government, meet resistance.
For many reasons, not least the previous years of a particular view.
Anyway, you appear to not worry about any Government's stance with regard to private sector activity and it's taxation.
You actually a non dom, with your companies registered offshore?

[Oilchange]

You haven't voted since 1970? yet all of a sudden after 12 weeks of Cameron being in power you have the opinion its all gone distastrously wrong and he's the wrong choice? 'New' Labour had 13 years to make things better, they fked up royally on a number of things, lied, cheated, spun their way through to leaving us in a financially calamatous state and then claim to have saved the world!!

My God, if ever there was a Labour Troll post then its this one. Most policies take years to implement and see the benefits/failings of. To judge this lot after 3 months is premature to say the least.

The country gave Blair a nice honeymoon period after winning the 97 election, it seems the Labour cronies are so absolutely furious, bitter and twisted they LOST (haha) that they simply can't give cameron a chance and have to slate him from the word go.

Personally I think he's acted more like a statesman in the 2 months after the election than Gordo the Clown did in the 2 years he was in...

[groak]

-Pete- said:

I think you're right Groak.

Who would you like to be in power (be specific about the names) and what would you like them to be doing (be specific about the policies)?

In power: Y'see this is the problem. I don't think the way it is works anymore. More and more people are less and less enthusiastic about antagonistic party politics and professional (and otherwise talentless) politicians. In fact I think a democratically elected parliament of professional and partisan politicians is not what Joe Public wants. I'd be happy with a non-party parliament of highly able leaders who could draw on any available advisory resource to further the basic aim of national improvement.

Policy : Although he was just lying about it and never did it, I thought Blair's promise of Education Education Education was the best thing I'd heard in my lifetime. Universal high quality education from pre-school to uni!! Wow!! Okay it's costly, and it needs great patience, but by the time its firstfruits are teenagers the benefits become more obvious and more exciting by the day. Like the Man U team Alex Ferguson grew in the 90's. I'd certainly willingly pay more tax if THAT was to be implemented.

[groak]

WhoseGeneration said:

things

ahhh,, y'know....yer team signs a new striker in a fanfare of excitement and after a few games the team isn't scoring any more goals than it used to....'course everyone hopes he'll find his feet and it'll all start clicking, but....are Dave n' The Gang really what we need?

Me, I think what happens is that Things Change. I really really do not believe that political decision influences macro-change. I semi-believe "things" are cyclical. So it's a matter of, almost, luck and timing whether or not any administration's economic performance is considered good or bad in retrospect. There are other areas which CAN be influenced tho. What you could vaguely term National Morality is probably one. Can these tories give direction to, particularly, younger people so that they increase self-esteem, self respect and as a consequence start creating a virtuous circle for themselves?

I don't really care about who's in power because I just adapt to whatever crap and havoc they create. But I'm tired of the endless selfishness because it creates far too many losers.

[Zod]

groak said:

Last time I voted was 1970.

As you might expect, as someone who couldn't care less which party's in governance I don't find it hard to be objective.

After only a few weeks of ConDem it's kind of just beginning to be apparent that there wasn't really much point in getting quite excited about something "new".

Ok. That's putting it tactfully.

Reality: This lot are worse, and sillier, than the last lot. You can almost smell government-inspired disaster on the way.

Hope I'm wrong.

Not a single criticism of substance.

Worthless first thread.

(not entirely surprising from somebody too apathetic to vote in the last forty years)

[groak]

Oilchange said:

You haven't voted since 1970? yet all of a sudden after 12 weeks of Cameron being in power you have the opinion its all gone distastrously wrong and he's the wrong choice? 'New' Labour had 13 years to make things better, they fked up royally on a number of things, lied, cheated, spun their way through to leaving us in a financially calamatous state and then claim to have saved the world!!

My God, if ever there was a Labour Troll post then its this one. Most policies take years to implement and see the benefits/failings of. To judge this lot after 3 months is premature to say the least.

The country gave Blair a nice honeymoon period after winning the 97 election, it seems the Labour cronies are so absolutely furious, bitter and twisted they LOST (haha) that they simply can't give cameron a chance and have to slate him from the word go.

Personally I think he's acted more like a statesman in the 2 months after the election than Gordo the Clown did in the 2 years he was in...

I've got a tenant. Nice enough chap. Been in the flat for years. Every Wednesday a nurse comes to his flat and gives him a jag in the arse. Keeps him calm. No side effects either. Would you like me to find out what's in the needle and pass it on to you ? It'd be no problem to do, and I'm sure it would help you to move on...

[groak]

Zod said:

groak said:

blah-de-blah

Not a single criticism of substance.

Worthless first thread.

(not entirely surprising from somebody too apathetic to vote in the last forty years)

For substance read more of the thread or any broadsheet's reportage.

Worthless? Apparently a generalisation not entirely shared.

Do I avoid voting because I'm apathetic or is this something you decided yourself without asking ?

Stick to being stern with your children. Internet fora don't suit taking judgementalism seriously. And anyway, what relevance have your comments to the topic?

[Oilchange]

I'd happily take a jab in the arm to numb the sound of Labour voters whining about losing power...

Edited by Oilchange on Sunday 1st August 23:08

[-Pete-]

groak said:

I think a democratically elected parliament of professional and partisan politicians is not what Joe Public wants. I'd be happy with a non-party parliament of highly able leaders who could draw on any available advisory resource to further the basic aim of national improvement.

i.e Proportional representation? I'm all for it, concensus politics for concensus society. The Them/Us politics is childish and mirrors the them/us mindset of the racist/football/sexist/religious zealots.

groak said:

Universal high quality education from pre-school to uni!!

Got to watch out for those crazy targets and measurements though. If everyone has 7 A-grade A-levels then it devalues them to some extent. Also, is uni the right place to learn how to weld, or build a brick wall, or work in a shop, or cook, or clean toilets? They all need doing.

I'm surprised you can find anything good to say about Blair. Whereas Gordon Brown was clearly out of his depth, I think Blair was clever and deliberate about his deceit. He stood up for unsanctioned military action which caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians, an order of magnitude more than Saddam Hussein in his lifetime, whilst encouraging the workshy and continuing PPI and increasinging the jobs-for-mates quangos and nanny state bureaucracy. And allowing Brown to pee away our reserves in the good times. And deregulate the financial industry to the point where greed couldn't resist the temptation.

Anyway, back to the OP, I think ConLib are doing very well so far. A good balance between allowing business to prosper and not forgetting the ordinary people. I'm sure it's a whole lot better for the populace than the mentalist would have done

Edited by -Pete- on Monday 2nd August 00:08

[Zod]

groak said:

Zod said:

groak said:

blah-de-blah

Not a single criticism of substance.

Worthless first thread.

(not entirely surprising from somebody too apathetic to vote in the last forty years)

For substance read more of the thread or any broadsheet's reportage.

Worthless? Apparently a generalisation not entirely shared.

Do I avoid voting because I'm apathetic or is this something you decided yourself without asking ?

Stick to being stern with your children. Internet fora don't suit taking judgementalism seriously. And anyway, what relevance have your comments to the topic?

"Internet fora don't suit taking judgementalism seriously." What does that sentence mean? It's gramatically correct. All of the words are properly spelt English, but the sentence is nonsense.

[groak]

-Pete- said:

Anyway, back to the OP, I think ConLib are doing very well so far. A good balance between allowing business to prosper and not forgetting the ordinary people. I'm sure it's a whole lot better for the populace than the mentalist would have done

I'd agree that there's a better atmosphere, but that always happens when a decaying dying party that's been too long in power gets turfed out. But relief at being rid of those Labour horrors is one thing. Faith in the competence of their replacement is another. I hope you're right, but, for example, massive pub.sec. redundancies and a VAT hike are strange and dangerous measures to take in a fragile economy. They should also forget about "radical" when dealing with the welfare benefits systems. Slow gradual reshaping is what it needs, not bull-in-a-china-shop impulsiveness.

[groak]

Zod said:

groak said:

Zod said:

groak said:

blah-de-blah

Not a single criticism of substance.

Worthless first thread.

(not entirely surprising from somebody too apathetic to vote in the last forty years)

For substance read more of the thread or any broadsheet's reportage.

Worthless? Apparently a generalisation not entirely shared.

Do I avoid voting because I'm apathetic or is this something you decided yourself without asking ?

Stick to being stern with your children. Internet fora don't suit taking judgementalism seriously. And anyway, what relevance have your comments to the topic?

"Internet fora don't suit taking judgementalism seriously." What does that sentence mean? It's gramatically correct. All of the words are properly spelt English, but the sentence is nonsense.

I think you may have a problem with relevance. This thread is about whether or not much has been, or shows likely to continue to be, gained by the recent change of government. But you've decided to digress it down some tangent road of (value) judgements about ME. Whenever, either on PH or any other internet forum, judgemental (and inevitably irrelevant) commentary begins, a negative atmosphere starts. The point gets lost. Petty insult replaces it. Y'see this isn't the Inner House of the Court of Session, it's a forum and form of light entertainment. So if you've some conflict issues please understand that there are far better places to air them than an internet forum thread. The medium doesn't suit them, or taking them seriously. And what happens if you persist in them is you'll end up making even more of a cokk of yourself as you wander further and further from relevant contribution and closer and closer to vanishing into a square world of petty personal insult and conflict. If you've got a sore head, take an aspirin. I don't want to share it. Does THAT make more sense?

[-Pete-]

groak said:

-Pete- said:

Anyway, back to the OP, I think ConLib are doing very well so far. A good balance between allowing business to prosper and not forgetting the ordinary people. I'm sure it's a whole lot better for the populace than the mentalist would have done

I'd agree that there's a better atmosphere, but that always happens when a decaying dying party that's been too long in power gets turfed out. But relief at being rid of those Labour horrors is one thing. Faith in the competence of their replacement is another. I hope you're right, but, for example, massive pub.sec. redundancies and a VAT hike are strange and dangerous measures to take in a fragile economy. They should also forget about "radical" when dealing with the welfare benefits systems. Slow gradual reshaping is what it needs, not bull-in-a-china-shop impulsiveness.

I'm strangely in agreement with you again. There's no easy answer to the mess we're in, but somebody has to take a grown-up view at some point and start unravelling it. You and I can largely avoid VAT, if we choose to, and I suspect the PS created one or two unnecessary jobs in the last 10 years. But I have to say I'm relieved that they are willing to (FINALLY) do something about the wrong direction UK plc have been heading in the last 13 years.

[Zod]

groak said:

Zod said:

groak said:

Zod said:

groak said:

blah-de-blah

Not a single criticism of substance.

Worthless first thread.

(not entirely surprising from somebody too apathetic to vote in the last forty years)

For substance read more of the thread or any broadsheet's reportage.

Worthless? Apparently a generalisation not entirely shared.

Do I avoid voting because I'm apathetic or is this something you decided yourself without asking ?

Stick to being stern with your children. Internet fora don't suit taking judgementalism seriously. And anyway, what relevance have your comments to the topic?

"Internet fora don't suit taking judgementalism seriously." What does that sentence mean? It's gramatically correct. All of the words are properly spelt English, but the sentence is nonsense.

I think you may have a problem with relevance. This thread is about whether or not much has been, or shows likely to continue to be, gained by the recent change of government. But you've decided to digress it down some tangent road of (value) judgements about ME. Whenever, either on PH or any other internet forum, judgemental (and inevitably irrelevant) commentary begins, a negative atmosphere starts. The point gets lost. Petty insult replaces it. Y'see this isn't the Inner House of the Court of Session, it's a forum and form of light entertainment. So if you've some conflict issues please understand that there are far better places to air them than an internet forum thread. The medium doesn't suit them, or taking them seriously. And what happens if you persist in them is you'll end up making even more of a cokk of yourself as you wander further and further from relevant contribution and closer and closer to vanishing into a square world of petty personal insult and conflict. If you've got a sore head, take an aspirin. I don't want to share it. Does THAT make more sense?

I've read the whole thread. Your complaint about the government amounts to no more than that, after 70 odd days you're not aware of any improvement. Most of us felt our hearts lift the moment Brown left Downing Street and for me, that feeling of lightness is still there.


edit: the usual quote bks

Edited by Zod on Monday 2nd August 10:49

[Wanta996Gotta]

Its Gaff after Gaff from Cameron on the international stage with his Puppy-dog Junior partner speech with regards to the US and just today our representative in Pakistan getting summoned to explain Camerons latest remarks and not mentioning Gaza being a Prison Camp????. Defence(Fox) having a fall-out with Gideon over who will pay for Trident. Gideon also telling banks that they "have" to lend??? You dont say Gideon.............how did you work that one out and what are you going to do to force them exactly?

Sure its only been 80 days? but anyone thats not worried with what we have seen and heard so far is in denial. Not to mention the report over the weekend that there "Hard on Benifit cheats" ideas plan is just to move them onto other benifits. Figures of only 100,000 taken off benifits have been forcasted.

And all this is before there cuts and VAT rises have even started.

Edited by Wanta996Gotta on Monday 2nd August 10:43

[Zod]

Well, the education reforms might turn out people who can spell.

[Wanta996Gotta]

Zod said:

Well, the education reforms might turn out people who can spell.

They obviously never worked before under the Tories. And the tory moron(Gove) in charge cant seem to count as it took him 5 attempts to let the public know what schools would be getting grants.

Edited by Wanta996Gotta on Monday 2nd August 11:08

[Zod]

not that he was being sabotaged by Labour-loyal civil servants, oh no, not at all.

Whatever Gove does as Education Secretary, he's not Balls. The whole country hates Balls, perhaps with the exception of people like you.

[tamore]

boo hoo.... the new labour experiment came crashing down on itself. not fair, not fair, not fair!!!

hopefully whichever brand of milliband get's the opposition hotseat, he's in it for a generation.