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.

Fred,

Although I said we would have to agree to disagree, I just can not allow your last post to go unanswered.

You say, Brown has principles and ideals, which he occasionally fails to live up to.

My view is that he had very few principles and ideals which he 'usually' failed to live up to. His main so called principal of putting the country before himself and his party, went completely out of the window when he tried to save his own and parties neck by not accepting what the voters wanted, IE Gordon Brown/Labour out of office.
As to being respected in Europe, I think he is looked at as someone who will always roll over and give in (the promised referendum, another of Browns shot down principles). And yes, I know Cameron also promised a referendum, so that is one principle he is equally guilty of failing, although the difference is when Brown became leader he promised said referendum, whereas at least with Cameron, he backed down via the last manifesto.
As to the world, I feel especially on immigration, Brown was at least behind closed doors, 'laughed' at.
Now if you want to talking about respect in Europe and the World, you only have to look at Margaret Thatcher, now she did have respect.

You say, Cameron is happy to jettison any principle or ideal he many have had, in order to get into power.

My view is that he is 'not' happy to jettison and principles or ideals to get into power. He only had three choices.

1 Allow the Liberals to form an alliance with Labour, which would be as discussed previously totally against democracy, IE the parties that came second and third becoming the ruling coalition party.

2 Forming a none total majority party, which apart from being almost impossible due to our system, would soon result in being outvoted on the majority of his parties manifesto.

3 Doing what he has done, re the Con/Lib alliance which means at least he can get most of the manifesto through. Yes there will be give and take, but on the main issue (the huge national debt) this is the best hope.

I did not want any sort of coalition, but thats what we have, so we should back it to give it a chance to work, 'FOR THE SAKE OF THE COUNTRY'

I only have 1 question. If you had been Cameron, 'what would you have done'.

Greek,

I don't think Cameron backed down as such on the issue of a referendum. It was simply a case that, with the Labour government having already signed the Lisbon Treaty, it was now a fait accompli and there was no longer anything to have a referendum on. Unless, of course, you are suggesting that we should have a referendum either on tearing up the agreement completely or leaving the EU altogether.

I think the majority of the population reluctantly accept that, although there are obviously some old stick-in-the-mud UKIP members who disagree.

Hi Hilary

I agree there would have been no point to hold a referendum at the time as you say, the treaty had been signed. The fact was he promised a referendum, even as happened it had been signed, He was more stupid to make such a promise than none principled in not holding one.

I do though think we should have a referendum on leaving the EU completely.

Sorry the above is a bit rushed, can't expand the above as busy for next few hours, getting ready or my long charity walk.

Greek

Seymour has answered on behalf of Fred for you Kayak 'His big problem as far as I can tell is that he's blinkered and cannot see beyond his own 'utopian world'.
The very same personality comes across.

Greek,

I hope, I would not have denigrated individuals and vociferously lied about the policies of other parties. (Later seemingly to introduce some of them.)

I would not have permitted, what I would consider corrupt funding from overseas, with its possible future consequences.

I would not have made knowing false promises, which I knew I couldn't fulfil (glaring NIC).

I would not have had a manifesto. which appeals to the greed of individuals and the "racial" bigotry of many.

(For many, immigrants means the blacks. blues or reds, but not Caucasians . The groups, who can be easily recognised and attention focussed upon as an excuse for failings in their own expectancies.) (The tories played this card as much as the BNP, but are already stumbling over the difficulties of devising any effective policies.)

If, I was Cameron and with the position that he had got himself into, I would have probably done a similar deal. But, thank god I am not.

If I was Clegg, I wouldn't have touched it with a barge pole.

If the politicians have a "social conscience" as you suggest, there is no reason why they could not have form a minority government. Or, at the very least, a temporary coalition of all parties for a two year period to address the immediate economic problems.

This would be to the benefit of the country at the present moment. With the present return of MPs, I would have had no objection to Cameron as PM, and a representative party balance in cabinet, with a "free" vote in the house.

If the above had been done, with restraint on all sides, it would have been possible to introduce legislation to address the economy and the "political reforms".

I think that there may have been general public support for this type of coalition, although there are many involve in tribal politics, who would raise their hands in horror. Some of those raised their voices and hands against a coalition government, spent their days after the election sucking up to the Liberals.

What I have written above is a simplification of what may have been possible.

The devil is in the detail.

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

Here is a challenge to you.

I think you are retired and probably about 10years younger than I am.

Reflect back to period before retirement from about 1997.

Has the standard of living of you and your children improved since that date?

Has the expectancies of the majority of people increased during that period?

Have they wished or demands being more often not been fulfil?

How many home improvements have you or they made?

Has housing and living accommodation been improved overall?


How has been their hospital medical treatments and care been and was it improved?

How many holidays at home or overseas have they had, compared with the previous ten years?

If there are young children have the schools been improved, are there attempts to raise the standards for them and others?

Has policing improved?

You should know the crime rates?

Have the pay rates and working conditions for the "poorer" and more vulnerable been improved?

Look around in general and see if conditions and expectancies been improved.

For me this is the legacy of Brown.

Yes, during this period, mistakes have been made, they are bound to have been.

Will mistakes occur in the future? Yes they will.

Has Brown admitted to what he sees as mistakes? Yes.

You may disagree, but I am interested to see the results of the coalition and think that any attempt to push legislation for a fixed term parliament through, without a referendum, I hope will be challenge to the limit.

(The details of the suggested changes have to be examined carefully, but there must be democratic means to bring a government down.)



When you look at the list compare it and the infrastructure of the country with the period of 1980 -1997.

Same old shite! Why don't you guys just give Fred a pat on the head and a lump of sugar. Your trying to knit fog!

The Bluffers Handbook for Politicians.

Fred,

I include Caucasian in immigration
You have agreed that if you were Cameron you would probably have done the same deal. So presumably you have exactly the same faults as he has, IE you said, "Cameron is happy to jettison any principle or ideal he many have had, in order to get into power. The latter has already torn up the promises in the Tory manifestos and cheated his own party".
So hung by your own argument, petard!

As to your other questions, not avoiding the issue, just feel it is obvious that we will never convince each other that our view is the correct one. So whilst 100% accepting that you are entitled to your views (no matter how much I disagree with those views), I will leave it there.

Greek.

We wouldn't have a budget deficet if we were not paying one hundred and twenty thousand million to the EU to keep the Greeks et al. in the style that they do not deserve and have not earned. I am expecting the Euro to fall apart in a few years when it becomes obvious that the Greeks have not changed their ways and owe even more money than they do at present. It is noticable that the FT, which for years tried to persuade the country to join the Euro has quietly dropped its stance, but then they are nearly always well behind things in their thinking. The UKIP members are the sensible ones.

P.S I no longer read Fred's posts as I have better thing sto do with my time and now that I make my money on the markets I no longer have to suffer fools at all, and certainly not gladly.

TIM.

You must have difficulty living with yourself.

I would have thought it was you Fred who had difficulty living with himself

when you grow up and look back on what your views are now, you will be very surprised how they will have changed

Greece has rwetirement at 55 and various other abusrd benefits. France is in a similar position. They need to get a dose of reality if they expect any help.

Kayak,

You asked me a question and I will try an answer, although you may not understand what I write.

I have followed the careers of many politicians, from numerous parties over varying periods of time and tried to understand their motivations and ideals for doing what they did or do. It should be obvious, by now, that I do not necessarily agree with all their ideals, or actions. That is one reason why I do not have any particular tribal allegiance, or membership.

Although, I am an atheist, I was instilled at a early age with some Christian values, which included respect of others, belief in the community, of trying not being abusive, or utilising the vulnerabilities of others for my own unfair personal gain. (It is obvious that, I have not always lived up to those ideals, but at least I was observant of those values, and attempts were and are made.)

Those values remain core feelings, although, as can be seen, I am prepared to be intellectually amoral in discussion, but I do consider for advancement of a society, that the core values I mentioned above would be sensible standards and lead to a more harmonious, and therefore safer ongoing society.

For myself, offspring and their children, it would seem a more preferable society, to the grab it for oneself, and run society which is developing.

This doesnt discount those who obtain advantages, by work, and the use of the attributes they possess and have developed, but there is a necessary balance to rewards and they have to take the whole of society consideration and carry it as a whole.

(This doesnt have to be so, but I would prefer it to be, as I dont want a society where one has to constantly look over ones shoulders.)

(I feel Brown had similar core value and his policies were aimed in that direction, but he is a political beast and restrained by his chosen art.)

Development, of an inclusive society, is problematic and certainly full of difficulties, as witnessed.

Inequalities of basic rights, and/or, even expectancies, make it more difficult for it to be attained.

I may be mistaken, but I dont think that the present tory party holds the values I wish for this country. That fortunately remains their right,.

Fred
Such rubbish you post here.

Camelot,

No difficulty, I am often amused at myself and my actions, but I am not frightened to review and question my opinions and actions.

Never felt any need of the herd, in order to hold an opinion, although certainly observant of it, when forming my opinions.

Greek,

Many don't and see only "black and "white" or "them" from "there".

Tim.

I don't think the Euro zone or the Euro will collapse,and expect it to rise above their present problems. To complicated to fail.

Not so sure about the economy of the UK.

I think the UK is in for a far rougher time than many expect.

Interesting to see, NIC, is to go up as in the form of Personal Tax, CGT is going to go up. VAT is to go up and in spite and in spite of everything Personal taxation will go up.

Services are to be cut and unemployment to increase with depression of the housing market.

May strengthen the Pound for a while, but will depress exports.

Interesting.

Hays,

I didn't expect you to understand, or even want to.

One wife had a lucky break.

Go back, to your prophesies and insider knowledge of the tories and electoral system, you will feel at home there.
=============

I will go back to getting ready for my next wanderings.

France

8-)


The smile is for France.

You seem to misunderstand almost everything and are more blinkered than most of the politicians.

The Conservatives are pro business and try to help business. they are pro people making money. These attitudes do not preclude them being interested in the wellfare of the population. The only way the lives of the majority will improve is if business and therefore the country is successful. The Labour part and all other similar socialist movements are all for a flat even society and will try and push that through even against the will of the people. The Labour party becomes more and more Facist the longer they are in power. It is only because Blair pretended to be something other than Labour, that he remained in office. Labour typically get elected, tax and spend and get thrown out.

Why are the tories so keen on fixed period 5year parliament at this point in time.

Was it in their manifesto?

One relatively important piece of economic literature (The Spirit Level) suggests that the rich are better off in an equal society (such as Japan or the Scandinavian countries) than in an unequal society where there is a big divide between the rich and the poor (such as the US and UK).

The idea is that by putting more money in the pockets of the poor, they are the people who are more likely to spend and the money spent will in turn also benefit the rich because it is they who own the factories that make the goods that the poor buy. The theory sounds nice but, when you consider that Japan have been effectively bankrupt for the last 10 years, the theory is not without flaws.

The theory has also been promoted in schools and universities in the UK in recent years and forms a major part of the teachings of the youth of today.