Right. Now I really am voting Lib Dem.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Bennett:

It is important. But if you think the Tories wont go to war if the US wants in, say, Iran or Saudi if there is a coup, you're sorely mistaken.

Whatever the 'Intelligence'

Stephen

---

I realise that, but I feel like the long term consequences of failing to call 'them' to account is more important that the short term stuff. Probably myopic and parochial, but it's how I feel.

I didn't know there was an erection ?

Quote from Mekon: Actually, I would actually vote Tory rather than let Blair get away with taking us to war. Yes, it would be 4 years of misery, but failure to call him to account for ignoring a million people on the streets and regular polls of >50% against the war is too horrible to countenance, and in my mind, a more important issue that all the QoL stuff the Tories will no doubt screw with if they do get in.

Actually, I think the Tories would have taken us to war as eagerly as Blair. They would have probably been even less honest about it than that wanker currently in No.10.

Thank gawd slug-like cnut Mandelson - the Kenneth Baker of the current govt - has been booted off to Europe. Blair has been quite canny, having shifted his despised mate off to a despised institution across the Channel. A colleague of mine who lives in Hartlepool says that Mandy is one of the most hated politicians in that city. It was only vigorous lobbying by the Blairite establishment, as well as the ineptitude of the opposition, that saw him re-elected. The only person in the world who takes the twat seriously is Dylan Jones, balding editor of a mag for superannuated yuppies called GQ.

However, I see that UKIP arsehole Kreepy Kilroy is thinking of standing in the by-election prompted by Mandy's departure.

The heart sinks

Kevin (Sean Rowley, BBC Radio London)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matthew Robinson:
"he told the media: "No self-respecting small businessman with a brain in the right place would ever employ a lady of child-bearing age."

Somehow I think Mick would approve.

---

Yes, it's difficult isn't it? Although pretty much all of what I personally have heard attributed to UKIP spokespeople I don't like, it is however undeniable IMHO that this particular statement has in an element of accuracy. I believe that a very large proportion of employment in the UK is by "small" businesses, defined as those having less than 50 employees. Employing someone actually costs a great deal more than the employee actually receives (with many businesses it's probably the biggest single cost), and to have a situation where the employer knows for certain that he/she will have to fork out no matter what, even if the employee isn't actually there doing the work whose requirement led to their recruitment in the first place, would tend to screw the business plan somewhat, to put it mildly. In the case of the civil service, a giant call centre, multi-nationals, etc., a long term view can be taken and it's quite likely that no problem really exists, but for a small engineering firm, or printing works with perhaps 5 to 15 employees in total, the problem is real and practical will undoubtably and inevitably bias the employer in the way suggested.

More generally, although I personally would applaud anything to make the UK "more European" in attitude, I tend to interprate this as a migration towards a culture where two-hour lunch breaks are sacrosanct, and the expectation of enhancing one's quality of life with plenty of time to sit around with friends and share food, drink and quality conversation is taken for granted.

If, however "Europe" is simultaneously experiencing a cultural shift towards America, there really isn't any point, in my view!

Best;

Mark

Stephen,
You mention investment in Transport as one of Labour's successes but I think that's being overly generous. Their Transport policy is a shambles. The only man who has really done anything positive regarding Transport is Ken. The government can take no credit for that - if they'd had their way we'd have had Dobson.
Simon

quote:

---

Originally posted by Simon Perry:
Stephen,
You mention investment in Transport as one of Labour's successes but I think that's being overly generous. Their Transport policy is a shambles. The only man who has really done anything positive regarding Transport is Ken. The government can take no credit for that - if they'd had their way we'd have had Dobson.
Simon

---

I agree that improvement has been slow. But at least there isinvestment. It'll take 20 years to rebuild 20 years of decay IMHO. On my line to London, there are repairs until the end of the year going on. I see this as a positive thing - though it is annoying in the short term.

Regards

Stephen

quote:

---

I agree that improvement has been slow. But at least there isinvestment. It'll take 20 years to rebuild 20 years of decay IMHO. On my line to London, there are repairs until the end of the year going on. I see this as a positive thing - though it is annoying in the short term.

---

They've just scrapped the expansion of the highly successful Manchester Tram system, at a time when they are touting congesion/road charging and trying to increase public transport usage. The proposed Liverpool tram system is also under threat, these are for cost issues (£190million required for the Manchester system, in the same breath they are promoting a proposed £10billion cross city Rail link in London)

"the same breath they are promoting a proposed £10billion cross city Rail link in London"

It's easy to justify becuase of the importance of London's economy to the UK and it's long-standing chronic transport problems. It's relatively easy to justify such a large investment and all sorts of non-partisan organisations have been pushing for Cross Rail for years.

Also Cross Rail has been *urgently* required by London for some 20 years and was originally stymied by Thatcher (she chose to bale her hopefully-soon-to-be-jailed Canadian mate by building the much less important Jubilee extension instead) and the previous Blair government (who chose to build the much less important new Channel Tunnel rail link instead).

Matthew

I'm not trying, for a minute, to suggest the London Cross rail link isn't needed.

However in the light of this and the push to get everone onto public transport not spending 2% of this figure on expansion of a currently successful scheme, seems shortsighted in the extream not to mention sending out completely the wrong message.

After all London is the ONLY city in the UK where not having a car is an option due to extensive (if overcrowded) public options.

Have Blair & Co considered What happens when they have built all of these wonderful cross rail tram thingys? - the fines from congestion charging, speed cameras et al will substantially reduce leaving a gaping gap in the finances.

Mike

I could not vote Lib Dem because their transport policy is as wacko as that of Labour.

They believe in "phase shift" the result of which in reality is reduced mobility for ordinary citizens and those delivering vital goods to keep our economy growing, rather than providing an attractive alternative to private cars. Both the Labour and LibDem ideology wrt transport is a kind of perverse environmentalism that asserts that the best journeys are those not made at all, and that we should return to a feudal system where peasants are nailed to the land and are not free to travel.

Instead we should be investing in multi-mode mobility for all. Our big cities should have either an underground railway system and/or trams where digging tunnels is not feasible. Between our major towns and cities we should be developing high speed rail links similar to the French TGV, including direct links to the Channel tunnel that don't involve travelling through London. Such a major investment in rail infrastructure should be funded both publicly and privately to encourage more investment in this country that is currently driven away by our uncompetitive and delapidated transport system.

In addition to building better railways we should be building more and better roads. This island-bound logic that the more roads are built the more vehicles drop down from the sky to use them, is just plain nonesense. The same could be said of house building...

Growth in car usage is caused by the increase in licensed drivers, the fact that cars last longer as well as the absence of any viable alternative. Deliberately limiting road space or impeding the due progress of motor vehicles only causes an increase in exhaust emissions through unnecessary congestion.

We need to develop a fast-track planning system ('scuse pun) for road and rail construction that places the nation's interests over those of local objectors. Whilst it would be undemocratic to silence NIMBYs we could at least just ignore them and compensate them for any loss in value to their homes for example.

GPS satellite technology for road use pricing will be the last nail in the coffin for freedom of movement. The Authorities will know where you are at all times and exactly how quickly you travelled.

There isn't a single political party in this country that is prepared to invest in both public transport and the roads so in years to come emigration may be the only option.

However, if you value your liberty and future prosperity there is only one party to vote for and that is the Conservatives. If only they would invest in public transport...



Regards,

Steve.