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

[groak]

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.

[groak]

randlemarcus said:

groak said:

Last time I voted was 1970.

Which means you have ceded the right to an opinion, in mine.

Last time I graced the rugby field was 1970 too. Have I ceded the right to an opinion on rugby ? In fact has no-one the right to an opinion on ANYTHING in which they don't actively participate? Please expand on this bizarre notion.....

[groak]

randlemarcus said:

groak said:

randlemarcus said:

groak said:

Last time I voted was 1970.

Which means you have ceded the right to an opinion, in mine.

Last time I graced the rugby field was 1970 too. Have I ceded the right to an opinion on rugby ? In fact has no-one the right to an opinion on ANYTHING in which they don't actively participate? Please expand on this bizarre notion.....

Voting being slightly more important than rugby, I feel it my responsibility to make the damned effort. If I disagree with the choices, I have the option of spoiling the ballot, in the absence of a "none of the above".

If you truly can't be arsed to make an effort every couple of years, I'm fascinated as to why you bother expending calories on typing here. Just as bizarre, IMHO.

So you think people who don't vote avoid it because they're too lazy, do you? And you've somehow formed the opinion that "spoiling the ballot" is a more noble option to withholding that vote, haven't you? But then, you find it fascinating that someone who doesn't vote should post on an internet forum when what's far more fascinating is how you come to link voting and forum-posting in the first place. Could I ask you again, do you feel no-one should opinionate on ANYTHING in which they don't participate, or is this bizarre notion confined only to things political? Could I THEN ask you to post a reply to the original post (without digressing into curious ideas of what people should or shouldn't have the right to think and opinionate about).

[groak]

dandarez said:

randlemarcus said:

groak said:

randlemarcus said:

groak said:

Last time I voted was 1970.

Which means you have ceded the right to an opinion, in mine.

Last time I graced the rugby field was 1970 too. Have I ceded the right to an opinion on rugby ? In fact has no-one the right to an opinion on ANYTHING in which they don't actively participate? Please expand on this bizarre notion.....

Voting being slightly more important than rugby, I feel it my responsibility to make the damned effort. If I disagree with the choices, I have the option of spoiling the ballot, in the absence of a "none of the above".

If you truly can't be arsed to make an effort every couple of years, I'm fascinated as to why you bother expending calories on typing here. Just as bizarre, IMHO.

+1

When did citizens die so the populace could embark on playing a game (sport)?

Is the problem with the quality of the analogy, or don't you completely understand what's going on, presumably because right now it's not your turn to use the brain-cell.

Just in case you live in some dimly-lit twilight of semi-consciousness, what's being asked is whether or not active participation in anything is a prerequisite of the right to hold an opinion on it.

It's Saturday afternoon. You could go shopping, or do The Daily Star crossword or something....

[groak]

groucho said:

What I have noticed is you don't hear much from government anymore. Unlike the last lot, tackle this, tackle that. That's got to be good.

"tackle this, tackle that"...knew that rugby analogy was a bad 'un! More seriously, what you may be saying is that you prefer their absence to their presence. O me too, me too. I'd be totally happy if they didn't exist, but I have no alternative workable organisational framework to offer. I just don't get the impression of any competent alternative to their predecessors. I also don't think IDS' "discovery" of failed areas of the benefit system which have been obvious for decades, or CMD disparaging Pakistan in India have even common sense to commend them.

Hopefully there's better to come.

[groak]

eldar said:

groak said:

So you think people who don't vote avoid it because they're too lazy, do you? And you've somehow formed the opinion that "spoiling the ballot" is a more noble option to withholding that vote, haven't you? But then, you find it fascinating that someone who doesn't vote should post on an internet forum when what's far more fascinating is how you come to link voting and forum-posting in the first place. Could I ask you again, do you feel no-one should opinionate on ANYTHING in which they don't participate, or is this bizarre notion confined only to things political? Could I THEN ask you to post a reply to the original post (without digressing into curious ideas of what people should or shouldn't have the right to think and opinionate about).

You voted neither for nor against the government. That indicates to me that you aren't too bothered who wins or loses. Yet you complain about the result that you could have influenced in some small way.

You do of course have that right, no problem. Trouble is makes you look like a apathetic winger.

Okay. So what do YOU think. You're right, I'm NOT bothered. But you're wrong, I'm neither complaining about the result nor whingeing. What I AM saying is that, so far, there appears to be the seed-sowing of even worse than what the last lot achieved.

Ok, it's PH, and there's a pretty universal crackpot notion that somehow Brown etc caused All The Ills Of The World. He didn't. But there IS a mess. And regardless of The Blame For The Mess, there is the issue of its resolve. It does not so far appear that any new direction has arrived along with ConDem governance which has anything resolutory to offer. In fact it's got the uneasy feeling of the opposite. Am I wrong?

[groak]

tamore said:

groak, what exactly would you like to have seen happen within 12 weeks of new government?

For example? I'd like to see the first shoots of positive change by a party which has had 12 years of opposition and 3 years of watching a mess to form alternative improved directions to lead us and the economy in. I don't think that's unreasonable. What otherwise is the point of the change?

[groak]

5unny said:

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.

What have they done in the past couple of months to make you say this lot are worse?

And given you haven't voted since 1970 you've missed Wilson vs Heath, Thatcher vs Callaghan, Thatcher vs Foot, Thatcher vs Kinnock, Major vs Kinnock, Blair vs Major/Hague/Howard and the election just gone.

Did you not see any differences at all between the aforementioned candidates and their governments? If you did see a difference then why did you not care to vote?

Well whilst there may be an overmanned, overwieldy and over expensive public sector, creating massive redundancy from it is much more dangerous to the economy than creating some much more productive alternative for these workers to do. And so far there appears much talk of redundancy but none of job alternatives.

Then there's the recent radical benefit shifts which don't appear to be any more than trumpeting the "discovery" of systematic failure which everyone has known about for decades. We all KNOW there's a huge disincentivisation in trying to motivate a person who lives in poverty on benefits to live in even WORSE poverty in bottom-level work. But identifying that as a problem isn't solving it.

Then there's this week's CMD visit to India. India and Pakistan have a very fragile relationship and in some ways a potentially very dangerous co-existence. Pouring petrol on this fire isn't even slightly clever. Big city Hindu-Muslim riots and border tension and skirmishing and underlying nuke-growling requires the highest level of diplomacy and tact to handle. Publicly (and to many very unfairly)denigrating Pakistan's attitude to anti-terrorism is a page 1 textbook no-no.

[groak]

markcoznottz said:

frosted said:

I find it funny that we managed to elect a gov formed multiple millionaires and yet we are looking fwrd to be governed by them

People born into money are far less dangerous than people with chips on thier shoulders who spend thier whole life trying to bring the 'rich' down, whilst secretly wanting to be rich themselves. Take Alistair Darling, markist, trotskyite, a person whose whole fundamental political ethos was redistribution of wealth. Fliped his home several times, thus avoiding capital gains tax. So thats ok then, as long as its not HIS money thats redistributed, just someone elses. Theres nothing worse than a champaigne socialist.

Well assuming we've now empowered some leaders blessed with economic nous (tho' I don't for one moment agree that they have) are they going to use it to guide us from the economic wilderness back to the land of promise and prosperity ? C'mon! They're surely not going to deliberately withhold this ability from us are they?

Y'see I think regarding Resolving the Mess they are at LEAST as gormless as Gordo etc and possibly even worse.

It's one of these things I'd like to be wrong about, but my gut instinct is I'm not.

[groak]

andywaterfall said:

groak said:

Last time I graced the rugby field was 1970.....

eldar said:

Trouble is makes you look like a apathetic winger.

He didn't even say which position he played in.

Hooker (no cheap jokes please)

[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.

[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?

[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?