Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
libitina

Ballot Box Backlash-

Recommended Posts

Well yes but we could be stuck with them until 2009, so not getting too excited.

Do you think the sheeple are pi$$ed off with them yet? I think they're just beginning to grumble and might bottle it next week. Better the devil you know etc..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It rather depends if Labour can stuff enough ballot boxes to counter act their expectant ar$e whipping, the apparatchiks are in the process of doing so right now.

Our laughably fraudulent postal ballot system is just another one of Prescott's triumphs :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guy_Montag

Yesterday's Guardian had some alternatives:

Consensus

Imagine

World

Emergent Party

Imperial Party

MP3 Party

The Millennium Council

Telepathic Partnership.com

The Non Political Party

Mums' Army

Grumpy Old Men Political Party

No Candidate Deserves My Vote

Make Politicians History

Virtue Currency Cognitive Party

Xtrordinary People Party

New Millennium Bean Party

Church of the Militant Elvis Party

The Rock#n'Roll Loony Party

The Dungeons Death & Taxes Party

Check them on the web.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't actually know that its them wot done it. Certainly they done it, but its the media that determines whether its a story. This ridiculous incompetence could have gone on for years if the media decided to hold fast, or just go easy. The fact is that if the media decide its a story the its a STORY ...

I'm not a Sun reader (I get too irritated by all those unneccessary CAPS and BOLD CAPS to emphasise the obvious) but if you want to know, watch The Sun. Rupert Murdoch always backs a winner. I guess its to cement the view that politicians have to suck up to him. But if you want to know the way the wind REALLY blows, check out whether prezza and his erstwhile bird are on the front page.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't actually know that its them wot done it. Certainly they done it, but its the media that determines whether its a story. This ridiculous incompetence could have gone on for years if the media decided to hold fast, or just go easy. The fact is that if the media decide its a story the its a STORY ...

I'm not a Sun reader (I get too irritated by all those unneccessary CAPS and BOLD CAPS to emphasise the obvious) but if you want to know, watch The Sun. Rupert Murdoch always backs a winner. I guess its to cement the view that politicians have to suck up to him. But if you want to know the way the wind REALLY blows, check out whether prezza and his erstwhile bird are on the front page.

ELizabeth have you been drinking ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Death, Dungeons and Taxes Party

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Death, Dungeons and Taxes PartyThe Death, Dungeons and Taxes Party is a satirical British political party. It fielded candidates in two constituencies in the United Kingdom general election, 2005. Its manifesto advocated the reintroduction of hanging (but only for "minor offences"), the annexation of France, and the reduction of the school leaving age to nine.

:lol::P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John Prescott has performed many services to Tony Blair, and it may turn out that his affair with his diary secretary - or rather, the timing of its exposure - is one of these. Without those pictures of Tracey Temple's legs and the Deputy Prime Minister's stomach flailing amorously across the front pages, the public might have paid undivided attention to the scandal of the 1,000-plus released and undeported foreign criminals.

If I were a Labour spin doctor this morning, I should not be at all sorry if tomorrow's papers turned out to be full of more legs (including other people's?), and that same stomach. Always quick in these matters, Peter Mandelson spoke up yesterday morning in defence of Charles Clarke (who let out the foreign criminals); and pointedly offered no defence of Mr Prescott in the matter of Tracey's legs. This column will therefore try to do what the Government does not want, and concentrate on the scandal at the Home Office.

The release of the assorted murderers, rapists, etc into what is still known as "the community" has been described as a blunder. So it is, in the sense that it was not supposed to have happened, and that it shows just how badly so many public services are run. But to regard this as just an aberration that ministers must "sort out" is to miss the point.

The scandal of the foreign prisoners is a natural result of a very big policy, one which has been developed, rather quietly, only after the Labour election victory of 1997 was in the bag - a commitment to truly enormous levels of immigration.

In 1997, the Labour manifesto said that all modern countries had to have a "firm control of immigration and Britain is no exception". Round about 2000, this policy changed, in favour of what is called "managed migration". The manifesto at the election last year said: "Our philosophy is simple: if you're ready to work and there's work for you to do, you're welcome here".

Probably the fairest way to look at immigration numbers is to consider the net figure. This sets off total emigration from Britain

(a growing phenomenon) against total immigration. In 1997, there was a net immigration into Britain of 26,000. In 2004 (the most recent figure available), the net figure was 342,000. The inflow in 2004, before you subtract the outflow, was 582,000 (and, of course, these figures cannot measure the probably large-scale illegal immigration which also takes place). So at least one per cent of our previous existing population - the equivalent of seven parliamentary constituencies - arrived here in one year.

Leave aside for a moment how such a change affects people's attitude to their country, to their neighbours and to their children's future. Just think of it in terms of what it means to a government whose job it is to run things.

It affects far more than just the immigration service. It puts into schools, usually in poor areas, thousands of new children who cannot speak English. It means that local authorities have to provide housing to many of the new arrivals. Because such assistance is calculated on the basis of "need" rather than on a conventional waiting list, it often means that the newcomers jump the queue. It automatically confers rights to all sorts of benefits and social services on the immigrants.

Take the NHS. It must treat, as of right and free, all the new arrivals, some of them carrying diseases recently little known here (TB, for example, has revived). And in practice, it can hardly manage to distinguish between those who are legal and illegal. The NHS guidance says that the service must be offered only to people who are "ordinarily resident" here, and defines this as "someone who is living lawfully in the UK, voluntarily and for settled purposes as part of the regular order of their life for the time being, with an identifiable purpose for their residence here which has a sufficient degree of continuity to be properly described as settled".

Even if that means anything to the harassed hospital receptionist, why would she risk obloquy by saying no to applicants? She is forbidden to refuse treatment on grounds of race, gender, sexual orientation, social class, age, religion, disability, medical condition or appearance. If she wants to avoid trouble, all she can do is let everyone in.

The ramifications of mass immigration work down even to voting registers, which have now become highly problematic and open to corruption in a way that used only to occur in Northern Ireland, and the teaching of religion in schools. And, of course, they are particularly heavy in all aspects of the criminal justice system - legal aid, terrorism, policing, court procedure and, hence the current difficulty, prisons. Indeed, the 300 per cent increase in foreign prisoners over 10 years reflects quite well on the behaviour of the foreigners (or badly on the competence of the police?), since it is a much smaller rise than the nearly 1,400 per cent increase in net immigration in the same period.

So Mr Clarke's current problem is the direct effect of the Government's current policy. Labour has hugely changed the facts on the ground, but scarcely altered the systems available to deal with them. Like someone who tries to pour tea-leaves down a narrow plughole, it experiences blockage. "Managed migration" has scarcely been managed at all.

The Government's position on immigration is not wrong in every respect. There is a strong economic argument for the free flow of labour, just as there is for the free flow of goods; and a reasonable amount of to-ing and fro-ing would seem to be an inescapable feature of almost all rich and modern societies (Japan, perhaps, is an exception). Few of us would be pleased if we suddenly found that the nurses and doctors, waiters and cleaners, pharmacists and bank clerks, plumbers and building labourers on whom we rely were sent back (even if there clearly were a "back" to which they could be sent).

But there is a general rule of life in society that the very fast increase of anything tends to be a bad idea. This is true even of benign phenomena such as economic growth where, say, three per cent per annum is good and six per cent per annum spells trouble. It is true of inflation, population, school places, swings at elections, anything. It is doubly true of immigration, for the problems mount so fast for both parties - the arrivals and the indigenous. So what the Government has done is appalling, even if you are no Powellite on immigration.

The effects are obvious - worse housing and higher house prices, worse hospitals and longer waiting lists, worse schools, worse drug crime and streets threatened by the ex-convicts that Mr Clarke failed to notice, worse risk of militant Islam, less probity in administration, more fiddling of benefits. And what is so strange about all of this is that the victims are overwhelmingly those who have traditionally looked to Labour for support and protection - what is left of the working classes and those classes who mostly do not work very much at all.

No doubt Labour calculates that its new immigrants will be its new voters: it is thought that about 80 per cent of Asians who vote and 90 per cent of blacks vote Labour. But, black or white, you want social order and you don't want chaos. I suspect next week's local elections will make that clear.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jh...04/29/ixop.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ELizabeth have you been drinking ?

Not at all. I am deadly serious. I have got to the point that I think that anything other than offending the high and the mighty is irrelevant. The 4th Estate has become over the past two years the ideological forces, not of the state, but of the incestuous ruling network that is working towards making itself synonomous with the state (B@llocks to Blair - loud and clear). Aspects of the press are waking from their slumber currently, but for how long? Until the next 20 pound note goes up their noses (and have you noticed how rampant cocaine became in the past 8 years, while we all got more and more parking tickets and have come to the point of being fined for putting junk main in the wrong rubbish bins, and theatened with arrest for wearing T-shirts that are impolite to our auspicious leader? Blimey, we could be in China or Soviet Russia, get back! watch out for the gulags)...

However having also remembered the Sun's most irritating Style Guide aspects (now that would be fun to read :o ) I just felt to use them just once in my life... and got accused of being without my faculties :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lost and found

Missing socialist principles sought. Last seen in 1980s. Of little practical use but hold strong sentimental value. Write to: Cuddles Prescott c/o HM Gov, London

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bart of Darkness
Do you think the sheeple are pi$$ed off with them yet? I think they're just beginning to grumble and might bottle it next week. Better the devil you know etc.

I'd go along with this 100%. Partly because....

The other parties don't appear to be making the most of Labours little set-back do they?

The Daily Torygraph seems to provide the main opposition these days (not a Torygraph reader BTW).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Daily Torygraph seems to provide the main opposition these days (not a Torygraph reader BTW).

They can lose it sometimes, the Torygraph did a nice complementary piece on Blair last summer, and I thought something was very, very odd, the next day was the tube bombings and a few days later they shot dead Menezes. The Telegraph also did a similar piece praising Blair following his speech to the Houses of Congress, the next day Dr David Kelly was found dead.

Basically when the Telegraph itself gets swept along it's usually an ominous sign, and we're soon thrown back to cold reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what about the bnp though ?

do you think they will do well. and if so - why ?

Blah, they're just a strawman this government is using to scare all the hacked off "never again" former labourites into voting for this shower. At this stage Labour are the perfect opposition to themselves, nobody else matters <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The other parties don't appear to be making the most of Labours little set-back do they?

Sadly, no. I've developed a healthy dislike of the current government, what a bunch of smug, odious b*stards they are. Hewitt, Blunkett, Mandleson, 2 Shags...

Unfortunately just when we need good opposition, we get Cameron. I wanted Clarke!!!

:angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Blah, they're just a strawman this government is using to scare all the hacked off "never again" former labourites into voting for this shower. At this stage Labour are the perfect opposition to themselves, nobody else matters

i dont support them at all, but this time its different. all i hear from my contacts is 'dunno. mmm..bnp..'

much more than last time. they really are getting a quality foothold in some worse off areas. expect more. they are picking up some middle class idiots too.

while the tories are playing about with an unelectable frop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i dont support them at all, but this time its different. all i hear from my contacts is 'dunno. mmm..bnp..'

Maybe, but something like two-thirds of people don't bother to vote in local elections so it doesn't really matter what they think, witness our glorious central government with a storming 19% mandate.

Edited by BuyingBear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
*frowns at Fred*

i am compulsive. i cant help it.

i wish i was impulsive. then id pull birds....

..oh and assertive, good sense of humour, likes going out or staying in with dvd of sliding doors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i am compulsive. i cant help it.

i wish i was impulsive. then id pull birds....

..oh and assertive, good sense of humour, likes going out or staying in with dvd of sliding doors.

Well, you've already got the GSOH, but liking sliding doors isn't really considered a plus point. :D

And I can see you lurking Homeless ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 301 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.