Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

MK - have you chosen to forget that your buddies on the other side of the house also support HS2?

for myself, i remain to be convinced of its value, not least because it seems impossible to read a balanced view on the subject

HS2 is not even a Conservative policy. It was started in 2009 by Labour. The coalition reviewed the Labour report on HS2. The company HS2 Ltd was formed by Labour in 2009.

cynic.

Just for the record: I am not a nu/old labour supporter, nor a liberal (clegg)

I was a tory supporter until call me dave took over.

and now, purely out of curiosity?

Probably ukip. There is little choice.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10426604/Taxpayers-foot-10000-bill-for-failed-asylum-seekers-flying-lessons.html

Minor parties.

One of the major problems a "minor political" party has in the UK is that the "major" parties are either in the “control” of major parts of the media, or beholding to the adherents of major parts of the “media”. The outlets are often subservient to the “ownership” and present the views of a small number of individuals.

In some cases the outlets falsify the data and falsify the arguments presented, in order to support or maintain their own advantaged positions. (Similar can be seen in some of the postings on this thread.)

These outlets of “information” to the public, are often perverted by their ownership to benefit their own structures, or concepts or “political ideology” of a “fitting” society.

Also, the major parties have the advantage, because of it number of adherents, not necessarily intellect, to more forceful presentations of “ideology”, without being subject to similar amount of objective criticism even if it is deserved.

Often the members of “minor parties” are smeared, vilified, or maligned by those who see themselves as political proponents of the major parties, who see this as a method of distracting attention from the argument presented. This however points to the inadequacies of the propositions, or the arguments of the distracters, who do not like their often prejudiced ideas, or discriminatory positions challenged. This seems to be a characteristic of the many members of the present Tory party and its leadership.

But, there is an obvious difficulty for a “minor” party to cover all the complexities of “governing” of a “society”, due to the insufficient number to cover all the aspects of government in the required depth. That is one of their weaknesses, as well as in general the important funding of their “propaganda” or “self advertisement” organisations and machinery.

But the major parties can hardly be seen as made up of “clones” and they may have a “strength” as an amalgam of those who in general have similarly commonly based “ideologies” and appears to be a reasonably “coherent” political stance.

But, as can be seen in present con party there are huge divergences of opinion, not the least being relationship to Europe, or immigration, which can be see dividing it. Looking at the coalition it could be viewed as consisting of three dissimilar parties clinging together out of necessity in order to have any hoping of surviving.

There is also the fraction of the old Tory “wets”, from the ardent tory right wingers, that is the remnants who haven’t already joined the UKIP and taked their financing with them

There is already a flow of “cash” from the “major” parties and this may enable the fractions to be seen more clearly and the “minor” parties may attract more voters.

How many minor parties are there really?

It may be Interesting to watch, from a comfortable arm chair.

What is the betting on Britain having another coalition government? Perhaps, made up of the leading lights of the minor parties.

Looking at how this government squanders money, the below symbolises the present tory economics.

The coalition is a problem for Cameron. He cannot implement policies that would be more Conservative in nature because he has to get them past the Libs.Clegg has a similar problem. It is all very well disenchanted Conservatives bleating that they don't like the policies, but they are a negotiated deal all the time. The best way to improve what Cameron can do is to vote Conservative and give him a good majority. Then you will get Conservative policies you like instead of watered down versions that have the Lib stamp of approval on them.

It is a problem with coalitions everywhere in the world. The policies get fudged to satisfy coalition partners and the more partners then the more fudging. In Italy there are 7 major parties and 42 minor parties plus 69 regional parties. There have been more than 150 parties since the war that have gained at least 2 MPs. The result is that Italy has had an average of one government a year since the war. Some have lasted as little as 11 days.

The only way to get thing done in this country is to give a decent majority to the government.

Forgot this one.

I know understand the New tory party!




Compared with this lot Ed looks moderate and well place on the middle ground.

MK - you're sort of right, but i have yet to see proper policies from ukip other than "stop all immigration" and "walk away from eu" which inter alia (a) have been properly costed and (b) are not just populist and radical, and lacking realism and pragmatism

============

re EU
from the rumblings, i think i'm beginning to like the (very necessary) renegotiations that are taking place behind the scenes

slightly predictably, CBI is saying it would be disastrous to walk out.

my guess is that by the time a referendum SHOULD take place (labour won't have it), then whoever is in downing street will be able to present a pretty good case as to why we should remain within the EU

Call me dave is a goner, and so is the tory party if they go into the next election with him at the head.

He couldn't even get a majority after the worst gov ever (broon)

Now he has been shown to be two faced liar with the backbone of a worm, and a man who's word isn't worth a toss.

Conservative majority?


lol

I'll get back to you on that c.

MK - i would certainly agree that though the current guys have done a very good job in turning round the uk economy (just ignore fred's rubbish!), they've made a total pig's ear of a number of other serious (or just headline- grabbing) issues

I have returned -):

Now Alf, You require "me" to help "you" to form an Intelligent and highly enlightning view of who "you" should vote for in the next GE, Well I'm afraid that I will have to do quite a bit of work on that depending in which constituency you reside. So a "consultancy fee" will be due from "you", As a guide I usually charge a very reasonable £500 per hour... But in your case it will be £600+vat... All right then?

So what has Cameron lied about?

Stan - i don't suppose your consultancy advice is worth any more than 6p an hour, and that's to anyone who would even employ you in any field ..... i certainly wouldn't

From http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/exchanges-between-cameron-and-miliband-getting-personal-1-5645703

Chris Moncrieff writes:

Exchanges between Cameron and Miliband getting personal

I suspect that when Ed Miliband was elected Labour leader, David Cameron assumed he would be a walkover. Admittedly, Miliband did have a shaky start, but he is now seriously beginning to rattle the Prime Minister.

For instance, whatever the merits or demerits are of Miliband’s pledge to freeze energy prices in the first 20 months of a Labour Government, it is certainly an attractive proposition to the average voter. Cameron is only too well aware of this, which is why, no doubt, he has denounced the proposal as a con and why he has twice described Miliband as ‘a conman’ – an insult he was lucky not to have been forced to withdraw.

The savage snarling that goes on between the two men at Prime Minister’s Questions demonstrates they are more than simply at political loggerheads, their contempt for one another has clearly assumed a personal aspect.

I suspect this will become more obvious as each day passes too.

It also goes some way to explaining why Cameron has agreed to pay the political strategist Lynton Crosby, the so-called Wizard of Oz, a stupendous £500,000 to help the Tories win the election.

I can envisage the Tory headlines already: “Would you trust a man who shopped his own brother?”

But Cameron – and Crosby too -–should beware. History has shown that a dirty campaign does not impress the voters – it tends to have a reverse effect.

l I trust that Britain will now cease lecturing other countries on the virtues of democracy in the wake of the royal charter which, shamefully, gives politicians control – if they choose to use it – over what until now was a free press.

It is unspeakable that our MPs, some of whom have scandalously shown they cannot conduct their own affairs with propriety, should be allowed responsibility for Britain’s newspapers.

It is the first dangerous step towards state control of the press – an outrage, whichever way you look at it.

Some would say, probably with justification, that this is politicians’ revenge for the disclosures about the expenses racket they’d been indulging in for years, at the expense of the poor British taxpayer. Only a handful of MPs paid the price for their dishonesty and were sent to prison. The vast majority claimed that they did not break the rules, and that was all right.

Some even had the temerity to wave cheques at television cameras proclaiming they had paid back what they had filched. But shoplifters, for instance, if caught, don’t get the opportunity to return the goods to make it all right. Nor did the politicians have a conscience about purchasing, for instance, plasma-screen televisions with money belonging to other people who could not dream of affording such a luxury.

But anyway, back to the issue at hand.

When, a few days ago, the press appealed against the proposition, the judges refused it. They returned to the court within just minutes of the case being made out with a 3,000-word statement saying why they’d rejected it. It is quite obvious, to the meanest intelligence, the statement had been prepared before the Fleet Street case had even been put forward. A scandal in itself.

And now we have a situation where if someone sues a newspaper for libel and loses the case, then the newspaper, outrageously, has to pay his costs. If that is Westminster’s idea of fairness and justice, it is a sad day for society.

The fact is, some newspapers are alleged to have broken the law and some journalists, too, are alleged to have broken the law. These cases should, therefore, be handled by the criminal law.

Instead, we have a situation where the whole industry is being punished for the alleged shortcomings of a few.

Paxman on not voting

"By the time the polls had closed and it was too late to take part, I was feeling really uncomfortable: the person who chooses not to vote - cannot even be bothered to write 'none of the above' on a ballot paper - disqualifies himself from passing any comment at all."