Blairs Britain

2. Pensions. Everybody should get exactly the same basic pension, it is grossly unjust to give the public sector better deals than the rest of us.

It is even worse when these same people are high earners, they get paid more when working and are better able to save for their future than most people.

3. The police and judiciary should be both accountable too and sackable by the electorate.

Some Judges and Chief constables seem to have completely lost it and pay total disregard to the people paying them.

4. Blair should be in the dock for the Iraq fiasco.
 
Sponsored Links
ellal said:
Just a few of Bliar's 'Achievements'...
.
<a list of measures that address problems with law and order and social problems>
.
I'm sure I've missed out a few, but I think you'll get the picture.
The picture appears to be that our government is addressing the issues that could potentially lead to the kind of social problems that many people on this forum believe are inevitable unless the government takes action...
 
Softus said:
The picture appears to be that our government is addressing the issues that could potentially lead to the kind of social problems that many people on this forum believe are inevitable unless the government takes action...
Ah I see...put in place authoritarian laws that affect everybody - except the crims or immigrants... :LOL:

Just think about that in a few years time when you'll be forced to produce your ID 10 times a day, and yet you'll still see all those people perceived to be such a problem here, wandering around as if nothing's happened!!

At least Bliar's got one thing right - he can fool a lot of people with the politics of fear!!
 
ellal said:
Ah I see...put in place authoritarian laws that affect everybody - except the crims or immigrants... :LOL:
I surmise from the "lol" at the end that you think you've made a joke, but you haven't.

The word "authoritian" appears to be just for effect, to make the laws sound over the top. But what's the difference in meaning between "authoritarian laws that affect everybody" and "laws"?

ellal said:
Just think about that in a few years time when you'll be forced to produce your ID 10 times a day, and yet you'll still see all those people perceived to be such a problem here, wandering around as if nothing's happened!!
There is no basis in fact for your supposition that "all" the problem people will be entirely unaffected by a law requiring that Id cards be carried.

As for me, since you ask, I don't encounter the police ten times per day now, so I can't imagine how they'll be asking me for my own Id so frequently.

ellal said:
At least Bliar's got one thing right - he can fool a lot of people with the politics of fear!!
I wonder what on Earth that emotive and impressive-sounding phrase actually means. Were you by any chance standing on a little box when you wrote that?!
 
Sponsored Links
paulbrown said:
2. Pensions. Everybody should get exactly the same basic pension, it is grossly unjust to give the public sector better deals than the rest of us.
I completely agree. It seems the the unfairness is further exacerbated by the sheer 'publicness' of those jobs.

paulbrown said:
It is even worse when these same people are high earners, they get paid more when working and are better able to save for their future than most people.
I completely agree.

paulbrown said:
3. The police and judiciary should be both accountable too and sackable by the electorate.
Not so sure about this one. I thought that the police were already accountable, and, corruption aside, have effective processes for managing misconduct. Wrt the judiciary, I've always thought that there's something to be said for an unimpeachable bench - paying them a wage so vast that bribery is not a temptation makes sense (to me), as does securing their position for life, because it works both ways!


paulbrown said:
4. Blair should be in the dock for the Iraq fiasco.
I completely agree. I believe that what he did was illegal, and that he's deliberately blurred his decision with misinformation. I like the fact that in West Lancs his name is pronounced as "Tony Blur".
 
Softus said:
As for me, since you ask, I don't encounter the police ten times per day now, so I can't imagine how they'll be asking me for my own Id so frequently.

I assume you buy things!..The system will be in all major shops, and will probably be everywhere that a 'chip & pin' terminal is (the government is to charge for every 'verification')..Along with every service accessed. It is not that you would get stopped that many times. However, there will still be the same number of people walking around, that many perceive as a 'social problem' - so nothing will change, except you being forced to prove who you are for eventually even the simplest of things - doesn't that bother you?
The word "authoritian" appears to be just for effect, to make the laws sound over the top
So 'liberal' or 'politically correct' could also just be for effect eh?..What would you prefer laws which attack the state/citizen relationship to be called then?
I wonder what on Earth that emotive and impressive-sounding phrase actually means. Were you by any chance standing on a little box when you wrote that?!
No, just saying that this is how politics is run these days..
 
ellal said:
I assume you buy things!
Indeed I do.

ellal said:
The system will be in all major shops, and will probably be everywhere that a 'chip & pin' terminal is (the government is to charge for every 'verification')
Please state the likelihood that you've assumed within your use of the word "probably".

ellal said:
However, there will still be the same number of people walking around, that many perceive as a 'social problem' - so nothing will change
So, "walking around", is a problem? Not one that causes any difficulties in the areas that I visit. Do you mean that the criminals will be good at evading the system and therefore won't be under lock and key? If that's what you mean, then why not say that? If you don't, then please say what you do mean.

ellal said:
...except you being forced to prove who you are for eventually even the simplest of things - doesn't that bother you?
Forced? Really? I don't agree that the systems that you say are being proposed are tantamount to the use of force.

But would I be bothered about a system that requires me to divulge personal details in order to complete a transaction? Frankly? No. But I'm content to live in a world where things bother some people and not others, without feeling that I have to I have to change their opinion to match mine.

Have you read the Æsop's fable about the fox without a tail?

So 'liberal' or 'politically correct' could also just be for effect eh?..What would you prefer laws which attack the state/citizen relationship to be called then?
I prefer, since you ask me for my preference, for them to be called by their usual name, i.e. "laws". Whether or not their intent and deployment are authitarian is a matter of opinion, and my underlying point was that you're subliminally sneaking your opinion into the description and not presenting it as something for debate. And your style is verging towards the crazed, strident and spitting university student union committee member with a heavy socialist bias - not the best way to bring people round to your way of thinking.

...just saying that this is how politics is run these days..
I'm starting to lose where you're going with this. Who do you think "does the running" of the politics these days?

I think that you underestimate the world-beating laziness of the British people. If there was an Olympic event in the sport of apathy, we'd all be 9th Dan black belts and would trounce all other nations. If we could be bothered to attend.
 
Please state the likelihood that you've assumed within your use of the word "probably".
If you have kept up with developments, it is now intended that there will be two levels of ID 'verification'..one for lower amounts via a type of 'chip & pin', and one for higher amounts or services, via biometrics checking. Therefore, in the same way that retailers had to install 'Chip & pin' in oreder to avoid being liable for fraud, then it is the same with ID verification, for which they are to be charged a fee..so therefore it is probable that the system will be widespread, and no doubt if I'd have said 'definately', then you'd have moaned about that..


Forced? Really? I don't agree that the systems that you say are being proposed are tantamount to the use of force.
In the same way that you won't be forced to use public services?..How voluntary is that?. Can you buy anything with a card without your pin in a shop now (apart from a very few exceptions)? - of course you don't have to buy anything do you!

With money there is a way around it - cash. Although you would at some point have to use a card. With ID verification there will be no alternative, so 'forced' is a correct description, not the government spin..

Even the minister in charge now says people will be 'required to show their ID many times a day, day in day out, to verify who they are'!

But would I be bothered about a system that requires me to divulge personal details in order to complete a transaction? Frankly? No.
But are you happy that every time you produce those details via ID, it is recorded, who asked for verification, when, and 'any other details of the request'..?

But I'm content to live in a world where things bother some people and not others, without feeling that I have to I have to change their opinion to match mine.
In an ideal world...however, although you can choose to think one way or another, in practical terms that choice is very limited..

I prefer, since you ask me for my preference, for them to be called by their usual name, i.e. "laws". Whether or not their intent and deployment are authitarian is a matter of opinion, and my underlying point was that you're subliminally sneaking your opinion into the description and not presenting it as something for debate. And your style is verging towards the crazed, strident and spitting university student union committee member with a heavy socialist bias - not the best way to bring people round to your way of thinking.
I certainly don't fit your bizarre description, but from that little irrelevant rant, I think the words pot, kettle and black come to mind..subliminally of course!

I'm starting to lose where you're going with this. Who do you think "does the running" of the politics these days?
There is a difference between 'how' and 'who'..you have asked the later, whereas I have stated the method. Laws are promoted nowadays playing on people's fears far more so than ever before. This is because it's an easier way of getting bills through that would have far less chance if the real reasons were told..In the case of IDiot cards, we were told that they were the panacea for anything from terrorism to fraud to illegal immigration, and yet all of these arguments have been debunked, sometimes by the government themselves. It is only since the bill has passed that some of the real details have emerged (and most of those details are ones that were warned about, specifically because they were not ruled out )..

I think that you underestimate the world-beating laziness of the British people. If there was an Olympic event in the sport of apathy, we'd all be 9th Dan black belts and would trounce all other nations. If we could be bothered to attend.
Well I won't disagree with that..give an already apathetic electorate a bit of spin, and not many care...unless of course it affects their main concern - making money!
 
GIVE THEM A SCARE THEN


and vote in the party that they are most afraid of



you know which one i mean go on give them a go :cool:
 
Slogger said:
GIVE THEM A SCARE THEN


and vote in the party that they are most afraid of



you know which one i mean go on give them a go :cool:

Then that's also playing to the 'politics of fear'..!

Tell you what - I'll do it the old fashioned way and vote for the party whose views most closely represent mine shall I - Although since there is effectively only 1 in our area, the choice is limited somewhat..!

Democracy?
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top