What a black picture you paint of Labour, and what a rosy picture you paint of the Tories.
Who else would the Labour Party (and I mean traditional 'old' Labour) support? the ordinary men & women who elected Labour to look after them of course; and who would the Tory Party choose to favour, their well-heeled friends of course, including you know, the ones who couldn't afford to take up Mrs T's offer of 'the right to buy' their Council Houses and so remained 'working class,' whilst their former neighbours became, 'lower class tories.'
You accuse the Trades Unions of exercising some sort of 'improper onfluence' over HM Democratically elected Government - nothing wrong in the majority shareholders 'suggesting' policies beneficial to ordinary citizens, nothing 'improper' in that.
Which is more than can be said of wealthy Tory, Lord whatsisname who dug deeply into his pocket to donate a substantial (I mean mega-bucks) donation to the Conservative election campaign.
Was this a genuine act of generousity or the act of a patrician looking after his own interests, not for seeking acceptance to the House of Peers, he's already one of them, so what else?
On the subject of national and global economies, just like 'the thief that creeps up in the night,' global disasters are no respector of Politics or Political Parties, and I well recall the terrified look on the face of Tory Chancellor of the Exchequer, Norman Lamont when he made public the devastating state of affairs on the notorious 'Black Friday.'
This was just one of a number of 'Black' incidents, most of which have tarnished the reputation of the United Kingdom throughout history.
On a different comparison, this can also be said of former political Leaders of these isles for the acts that they will be remembered for, coming as they did, from a variety of backgrounds and areas of the UK - some having left a legacy of valuable service, others, - well!?
David Lloyd-George PM (Liberal-Wales) for social reform.
William Ewart-Gladstone PM (Liberal-Wales) social reform & morality.
Aneurin (Nye) Bevan MP (Labour-Wales) National Health Service.
Harold McMillan PM (wealthy Tory) "You've never had it so good"
Anthony Eden PM (Tory-down south?) "We'll fight them on the beaches" (the Egyptians) and lost.
Winston Spencer Churchill PM (Tory down south) descendant of noble family, "We'll fight them on the beaches" (the Krauts) and won, with the assistance of a wartime coalition and Clement Attlee (Labour) later to become post-war PM, who managed the 'back room' admin/strategy allowing 'Winnie' to make rousing speeches, consume plentiful draughts of Brandy, smoke God knows how many expensive cigars daily (and nightly) and point two fingers at everyone. But he was a good wartime leader and held, quite rightly, in high esteem.
The remainder of Tory MP's or PM's are too insignificant by personal achievement to remember, with the possible exception of Baroness Thatcher MP PM, who I will always associate as being the grandee guru of the gospel of greed (and self interest) and a modern day minor megalomaniac.
Oh! and by the way, those who do 'something in the City' and 'The Bankers' are STILL THERE and still counting their piles of money, it would take more than global recession to unseat them (despite the coalition Governments "tut! tut! naughty boys smack hands") warning in their recent retribution inspired, blame it on Labour, emergency budget, where under normal electoral conditions
Results 101 to 110 of 209
23rd June 2010, 07:01 PM #101
If you keep subsidizing jobs that do not produce profit then the economy implodes and the country becomes bankrupt.
Fine ideals they do not fill bellies or meet the aspirations of our children to improve on their parentís lot in life.
As for the Bankers they worked under the laws laid down by the last government and once again we are all paying the price for the lack of proper regulation.
Even after the collapse of the banking system the government failed to move on the bonus culture.
Your understanding of the oil spill leaves much to be desired.
Although Chief Executive at BP is ultimately responsible for the actions of his staff that is why he gets the big salary he would not have made the day to day decisions on each and every rig.
What has happened is the drill has hit oil under a very high pressure and blown the well head the oil thus is escaping into the sea.
The side issue of this is there stands to be a lot more oil in the well than initially thought, so now the US government has put a figure on the damages the chances are the share price will recover when the Bankers and investors have completed their number crunching.
This could just as easily have happened due to an earth quake who would you blame then?
It is a gift to the Obama government who are exploiting it to cover the deficit in their budget.
The license to drill for oil that they need was granted so why are they not taking some of the responsibility?
Not right wing just common sense living in the real world
24th June 2010, 04:45 PM #103
The primary responsibility of being 'leader' is in the maxim that, 'the buck stops here.'
In your accusation that "my knowledge of the oil-spill left much to be desired," I readily admit, being non-conversant with such technical operations, which are best left to the 'experts' and high-court judges.
I do however admit to being formerly employed in an industry that capitalised on the least essential by-product of distilled crude oil, petrol & diesel, the sale of which attracts a double source of revenue by the Government, first the HMRC fuel levy, and additionally VAT, soon to be increased to 20%, which for comparison means a pump price currently at £5.45 (equivalent) per gallon to £6.54 and with a consequential 'knock-on' effect that will be reflected in an increased RPI and inflation figures.
But don't despair, we're "all in this together" says the governing 'toff at the top' who, when not riding his bike, is transported around in a bullet-proof ministerial chauffeur-driven limousine, with accompanying 'minders,' but you will not see the car stopping for petrol or Mr C dipping his hand in pocket to pay for it, you do that, - but hey! someone's got to do the job.
I like most other folks, depend on the media for information, I am more concerned with the abominable consequences of the disaster rather than the typical capitalist interest, which concerns yourself and other like-minded supporters, whose primary concern seems to place share values before compassion for those affected by the appalling disaster.
One of the most sickening sights that I have witnessed, apart from the revelations of the Nazi wartime concentration camps, is the sight of the creatures of Almighty God, bedraggled and smothered in crude oil, the filthy fruits of mankind's meddling with nature in the Gulf of Mexico, watching them struggling in a sad, sickening and forlorn attempt to save their lives, which will prove impossible, and they will be condemned to a slow suffocating unnatural death.
Danger of the presence of gas, one of several fatal conditions inherent in coal mining, was the death of caged canaries taken underground, which gave the miners a fighting chance of escape.
Not so for the unfortunate herons, pelicans, fish and other wildlife abounding the scene of the oil discharge and, according to environment experts, soon to drift towards and join a particular stream (like the Gulf Stream) which influences other environmental issues of temperature changes that this particular stream is responsible for.
President Obama, who is neither personally involved with BP or the
oil-spill, is demonstrating his responsibility and concer as President of thd USA, for the US Citizens of that are who are affected by this catastrophic event of Biblical proportions.
Also its affect (possible destruction) on the livelyhood of the many who depend on the unpolluted environment for employment, which includes the tourism industry.
You denegrate a leader who is trying to improve the lives of thousands, even millions of his fellow Americans, not all of whom are blessed with a sufficiency of the almighty dollar, by introducing a 'free' health service that will transform the lives of those unable to afford health-care where formerly, calling a private company Ambulance prompted an immediate demand for a fist-full of dollars.
You interpret his intervention in the oil-spill saga as being some sort of public relations exercise to detract attention away from a 'budget deficit' is unworthy, but then it is historically typical of tactics employed by the newly (just about) elected Government (with a little help from their 'friends') who have seized on a golden opportunity of blaming all our problems on the former administration, by introducing a grudge budget which, under 'normal' circumstances, and if included in their policy manifesto, would have stood about as much chance of election as the survival of a snowflake in hell.
While I agree that a CEO, Chief Constable or senior military figure may not have personal 'hands on' control of operational incidents, they DO hold control over their lower ranking officers and managers who DO have hands on control, but THEY, the boss, still 'carry the can' when blame is apportioned.
That's why they are able to wear smarter suits, or uniforms adorned with many 'pips,' crowns or crossed sword badges on their shoulders and 'scrambled-egg' adorned peaked caps and of course, are paid a generous salary for bearing such responsibility at a time of the 'crunch.'
Whatever the complexities or risk factors that accompanied drilling for oil in this sensitive area, they (BP) should have been more diligently investigating, assessing the risks and taken them into account BEFORE drilling took place.
This question was put, I believe, during a US committee hearing with BP executives, but evasive answers were offered by them or else put down to 'factors beyond their control,' meaning poor old God and his 'acts' I suppose.
I watched this performance on TV news, and if body language or uncomfortable demeanour, as displayed by the BP boss, together with his denial of personal responsibility, were anything to go by, then your conclusions may very well equate with mine, GUILTY.
It was also suggested, by at least one member of the US panel, that BP knew the risks involved but chose cost cutting before installing 100% safety measures to protect against potential dangers, which I imagine should have embraced a 'higher-pressure' well than normal because, after all, oil exploration has existed for many years in not only the north sea but also worldwide.
Disasters have occurred, lives have been lost and, hopefully, lessons learned, but not so in the Gulf of Mexico according to your excuse for the disaster.
Surely, when oil is struck, it is naturally going to be released at high pressure, that is a natural assumption, the skill surely comes in trying to control it once it does spout, a skill which may have been employed by BP initially when tapping it, but safeguarding against 'leaks' - a prime responsibility and requirement of ALL plumbers, be it oil, gas or water, was sadly lacking in BP who failed to ensure that the damn stuff did not escape at the rate that it is doing, which was not the result of impact damage, or an isolated earthquake, as you suggest, nor movement of a tectonic plate or a straying deeply diving whale, so what DID cause it?
There is no 'black-box' to be recovered, so what can we deduce?
That the equipment, pipes, valves, automatic shut-off towers etc didn't work; sadly it's down to ineptitude or human error, by whom is another matter, but it needs to be established and lessons learned and if the subterannean engineering and planning by BP was 'unfit for purpose,' or safety was compromised in favour of cost cutting influences, then this must be honestly divulged without evasion, equivocation or concealment of any kind.
Only then can a new chapter begin and hopefully restore the former excellent reputation of this British Company (although now mainly American) and ensure continuity of employment for its thousands of employees.
That is my opinion, vex or please, by one unqualified in the technicalities of oil exploration, but as an average citizen concerned with man's activities which may jeopardise the pure environment that we were first endowed with and, together with the stricken animal life in the Gulf of Mexico, a fellow-creation of the Almighty Architect of the Universe. (smib)
24th June 2010, 05:35 PM #104
Ahh! the good old days, gone forever? and all caused by those snotty nosed, unwashed and smelly sub-citizens protesting for their 'rights.'
Where indeed would democracy and human rights be if it were not for the 'Tolpuddle Martyrs' and the American War of Independence.
Still chasing foxes and leading a useless life of leisure I suppose.
24th June 2010, 07:22 PM #105
That's not the JC with whom I have become acquainted - if he did write those derogatory and discriminating remarks they may have been just a 'wind-up' but, as he well knows, this paticular subject in the past, attracted a volume of interest and dspute, we've already been through all that and I somehow recall JC's compliment of a 'poignant' submission posted by myself in support of the disabled.
I remain committed in supporting the needs and wants of the aged and disabled and the provision of appropriate means of overcoming the difficulty of using facilities, which are easy for the able-bodied, but difficult and sometimes impossible for those with a disability.
A person's disability cannot always be ascertained by a cursory visual appraisal - some conditions are concealed by deeper rooted problems than the apparent 'looking well' compliment which such appearance sometimes prompts.
I am both aged and disabled, there's nothing I can do about the age, I haved had more than my alloted life span, I do my best to cope with continuing disability problems which are medically described as 'for life, I have paid my NHS contributions and income tax from the day I started working at 15, served my 2 year National Service in the RAF, married with one son, had my house built in 1962, extended it in 1992, I own it and pay no mortgage, together my wife and I, whilst not denying ourselves anything, have saved what we have earned and spent some of it visiting many places by road, rail and air round the world, including the notable European ones, France, (WW2 D Day beaches & the Nazi submarine pens at St Nazaire) Spain, Italy (Rome & Pisa) Switzerland (under the fountain in Geneva) towed a touring caravan around France & Italy, drove along the Formula 1 GP race-track in Monaco (without the caravan) poked our noses in the Grande Casino in Monaco, visited St Tropez a few times and exerienced a moonlit coastal drive from St Tropez back to our caravan at St Raphael, Oh! and a six week visit to see our son who had (tempoarily) 'emigrated' to Australia. We stopped-over for a few days outward at Singapore in December - magic and Hong Kong - exotic inward, dining in the floating 'Jumbo Restaurant' of James Bond 007 fame, watched the sun (rapidly) setting on the south China sea, viewed Hong Kong from Victoria Mountain, watched a 'mock' wedding in a quasi Chinese Temple, accompanied by musicians and dancers and ate a 12 course luncheon in the oriental equivalent of an English 'manor house,' declined the offer of a glass of water from a container in which an enormous, obviously dead, snake was curled, the water reputed to contain 'aphrodisiac' properties then, after a white-knuckle take off, from what appeared to be the main street of Kowloon, and with the assurance of the Captain of the BA Boeing Jumbo Jet 747 that, "the wing tips are nowhere near the surrounding mountains and, I've done this hundreds of times," we flew back, calling at Bombay to refuel and a change of sari-clad stewardesses (yes curry was an option) and a 10 hour flight back to a foggy Manchester Airport and reality.
I am no longer able to face the rigours of flying and we have resorted to cruising which, although consuming holiday quota's at an alarming rate, suits my disability especially if I can book a disability adapted balcony or outside view 'stateroom' which is not always available due to popularity and limited availability depending on the size of the ship = availability better on Azura or Ventura in the case of P&O.
So on behalf of us disabled, and sometimes elderly, cruisers, please don't condemn us for suffering either or both of the above, we would rather be without them and normal like most of you, and as some of us are in the 'autumn' of our lives, please don't begrudge us the compensating enjoyment of cruising, for as long as we can afford to, and before the 'winter snow' of life catches up with us.
Even Obamaís Generals get gagged for criticism.
Mmm. The same thing here when our Generals told the truth about our last governments cut backs to the services. :o
I could spend a lot of time baffling you with combustibility limits of various fuels but it would just go over your head.
The facts of life are if there is no money to pay for goods or services then you just canít have them.
Printing money just makes things worse, you really have no understanding of economics and should read the US press the honey moon is over and he is failing to deliver
[ I do however admit to being formerly employed in an industry that capitalised on the least essential by-product of distilled crude oil, petrol & diesel, the sale of which attracts a double source of revenue by the Government, first the HMRC fuel levy, and additionally VAT, soon to be increased to 20%, which for comparison means a pump price currently at £5.45 (equivalent) per gallon to £6.54 and with a consequential 'knock-on' effect that will be reflected in an increased RPI and inflation figures.]
Pump price of £ 5.45 ų 117.5 = 0.0463829 x 100 = £ 4.63829 x 20% = 0.927658 + = £ 5.565948 or to make it simple for you a gallon would go up by 12 pence.
or about 2.7 p per litre
Even if we add on the 2 pence per litre that the last government had planned you have £4.63 + 0.09 = £4.72 x 20% + = £5.67 a long way short of your claim.
It is no wonder the finances of the country got in such a state
For an ex County councilor you should be ashamed at best your math is poor or you are trying to deliberately mislead the public. :D
Digression and bluster-time to move over
I honestly and sincerely believe that, no matter what evidence I, or any other forum member for that matter, places before you, your entrenched views of both politics and society will remain somewhere between the Jurassic Age and the start of the First World War.
Gordon, the world has moved on, and so should you: and with that in mind please allow me to firstly take this thread back 'on message'. Here is a picture I took the day before yesterday. It shows one of the three largest ships to enter Southampton, the Norwegian Epic. Let me explain what may appear as nothing unusual to you, but will have considerable bearing on the vis-a-vis argument.
And this is the whole point of the debate. Southampton and its waterway entrance The Solent, can handle all these large ships, irrespective of the state of the tide. Thus, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year, the turnaround of a cruise ship can be achieved within the framework of the demanded time and on schedule. Liverpool is incapable of meeting that criteria, irrespective of any European grant or Cheshire hot air.
Secondly, I would suggest, that if you wish to continue with with a political debate, devoid of any tenuous cruising links, I would be happy to transfer your last two unconvincing diatribes to the 'Politics' 'off topic' thread.
Last edited by Solent Richard, Lee on the Solent; 30th June 2010 at 11:00 AM. Reason: needed to copy the picture ref.
25th June 2010, 08:17 AM #108MarieC, Troon Guest
Gordon, you wrote: That's not the JC with whom I have become acquainted - if he did write those derogatory and discriminating remarks they may have been just a 'wind-up' but, as he well knows, this paticular subject in the past, attracted a volume of interest and dspute, we've already been through all that and I somehow recall JC's compliment of a 'poignant' submission posted by myself in support of the disabled.
You are correct in your opinion of JC and as he is away right now I feel I have to point out that he copied this comment from the review section and I have highlighted his own words in black.
Hope this helps.
Last edited by MarieC, Troon; 25th June 2010 at 08:22 AM.
25th June 2010, 05:15 PM #109
There is a much simpler calculation than the Albert Einstein-like, "my arithmetic is superior to your's," boastful example.
The calculation that we 'inferior' mortals, nozzle in hand dispensing the stuff, used was:
example: 1.20p per litre multiplied by 454 = 5.45 + 20% VAT = 6.54 which is near enough for me, and which assumes that the 'deadly-duo' do not increase the 'fuel duty' by some concealed or back-door measure, which would then make it even more expensive.
This would then impact, by the 'knock-on' effect, on petrol/diesel driven means of transport meaning, higher distribution costs for the essentials of life, emergeny and public service vehicles, local council motor fleets which, combined with the Police, Fire Service and Ambulance services, plus HMG's enforced economy measures, could prove a little heavier for the camel's back to bear than the existing 'last straw,' oh! and luxury cruises as well.
As regards the remainder of your self-congratulating, dye in the wool, right-wing capitalist beliefs are concerned, they are of no interest to me and contribute nothing to the subject upon which you are purporting to comment.
You are merely using this forum as a platform to spout your political bias and 'have a go' at me.
You hold your beliefs and I mine, I have no desire to persuade you to agree with my opinions and you would be wasting your time trying to convert me to yours, so I suggest that you save your words, and me the inconvenience of responding to your lessons in mathematics and politics.
You've had your moment of glory and self-generated publicity on this site, so be content, disappear and 'stir' something more rewarding, like a cup of tea!