So does anyone like their system of government?

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Brilliant democracy. We hold ministers to account.
arent we also supposed to have the biggest prison population in europe? Good at committing crimes? Brilliant democracy is where people do not do these things. Being caught doing it is both dishonest AND incompetent. Thats 2 ministers in this government found out in 2 years. Its terrible.

If the culture secretary has done something illegal or lacking in morality then of course he should go
of course he did. There is clear proof he was friendly with Murdoch, which is just as bad as cable being antagonistic. If cable was unfit, so was Hunt, and he had just had the example of Cable being dismissed with great publicity which is how the job came to him. He should have passed it to someone else. I would guess most likely he didnt dare refuse it because then he would have had to explain he was himself compromised.

I also am very surprised ministers are allowed to be tipping off outside parties about government decisions, even if they themselves are not making the decisions. (ie he was feeding info to Murdoch about what cable was doing before he got the decision himself)

And as for May - well maybe she has gummed up, and maybe she hasn't. It is possible that the ECHR will see things her way.
May's case was incompetence. I wouldnt think she herself would have decided the date to arrest the guy but some official, but we likely wont know that in detail for 30 years or whatever the wait period is. It doesnt matter what the ECR decides, she fell flat on her face in public. And arent we just expecting massive queues to get into Britain at the Olympics because of shortages of immigration officers? After that little problem before where her staff didnt seem to know whether they were supposed to skip checks and let people past or make them wait as long as it took?

Oh this story is going to get much worse. The BBC just said 7 minutes after they posted a story on the internet that Cable was about to refer the bid somewhere, Michel was emailing Hunt to find out what was happening! Makes you wonder whether Murdoch somehow engineered cables unfortunate leak which got him taken off the case. Murdochs have decided they have nothing to lose by getting some revenge in now.
 
Last edited:

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,616
Media
50
Likes
4,782
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Yes the Murdoch issue looks like becoming another expenses-style mess. Nasty.

To the topic of this thread - the UK needs to return to a religious test for holding political office. In a nation which includes many faiths it needs to be more nuanced than a simple declaration of protestant Christianity, but we need the people who govern us to know God, or to know the divine.

There is a sense in which there really is now a "crisis" of capitalism. It's horrible, isn't it! We cannot replace capitalism - Marxism has failed. Indeed one Marxist nation - China - now looks set to become the most capitalist nation on earth. And within capitalism the rich cannot be forced to pay taxes and bankers will get humungous bonuses - and if either of these conditions are breached the pain will be felt by the poorest. Instead of ungoverned and ungovernable capitalism we need Christian capitalism. We need an expectation that politicians, entrepreneurs, everyone will seek to live by a moral code and be their own most severe judge.

The big political story right now should be a London council that is seeking to make a political point at the expense of the well-being of 500 people. This is beyond any possible justification. The councillors do not have to do this. They think the well-being and happiness of 500 people is expendable so that they can gain a dubious political point. It is a form of cultural cleansing. This is the politics of evil, of Stalin, of the third reich. I do not know which law of man it breaches - maybe none. I am sure it breaches the law of God. There is a limit to how much I can be bothered about what a minister may or may not have done which is ill-advised or mistaken or foolish (and this is all we are talking about) but I am bothered when elected politician in a London borough assault 500 of their weakest residents.
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
To the topic of this thread -...
You think ministerial malfeasance is not relevant to whether we like or approve of our governments? Id say it strikes to the heart of the problem, and repeatedly in a new government....

Norman Fowler (conservative) just said on the radio this mess is the fault of the labour government, because they changed the law to potentially allow one person to own BskyB. So they put temptation in the way of poor Hunt. Oh poor Hunt! The conservative party is in overdrive to try to rubbish the emails. Saying news international staff are liars (they are suggesting the emails were simply made up!) Hardly the sort of company you might want running our media.....

- the UK needs to return to a religious test for holding political office.
You mean like certain arab countries? The majority of the UK are aethiest, do we disenfranchise them?

There is a sense in which there really is now a "crisis" of capitalism. It's horrible, isn't it! We cannot replace capitalism - Marxism has failed.
Sorry, did anyone give marxism a fair trial?

And within capitalism the rich cannot be forced to pay taxes and bankers will get humungous bonuses - and if either of these conditions are breached the pain will be felt by the poorest.
It would seem capitalism is capable of interpretation of meaning just as much as communism. It is a fundamental part of capitalism that for it to work the rich must have money taken away from them. Otherwise it is some other system.

Instead of ungoverned and ungovernable capitalism we need Christian capitalism. We need an expectation that politicians, entrepreneurs, everyone will seek to live by a moral code and be their own most severe judge.
Historically speaking, it has never worked yet. The powerful ALWAYS exploit the weak. They are only prevented from doing so by force of one sort or another, and thats why we have rules and regulations and taxes. So much more civilised than riots.

The big political story right now should be a London council that is seeking to make a political point at the expense of the well-being of 500 people. This is beyond any possible justification. The councillors do not have to do this. They think the well-being and happiness of 500 people is expendable so that they can gain a dubious political point. It is a form of cultural cleansing. This is the politics of evil, of Stalin, of the third reich. I do not know which law of man it breaches - maybe none. I am sure it breaches the law of God. There is a limit to how much I can be bothered about what a minister may or may not have done which is ill-advised or mistaken or foolish (and this is all we are talking about) but I am bothered when elected politician in a London borough assault 500 of their weakest residents.
Now theres a polemic. for the benefit of our foreign friends, a local council has said it cannot rehouse the homeless within its borough because 1) there are no spare houses and 2) all of them have so high a free market rent that it exceeds the amount the government will pay to house someone. So they are attempting to move people somewhere in the country housing is cheaper. They say they have a legal duty to house people and it is the only way they can.

I agree this is pretty outrageous but it is exactly what the government stated it expected to happen when it recently imposed a cap on the amount of housing benefit it would pay towards peoples housing. The council is doing what it was told to do by the government. There was much publicity at the time that this would happen and it is. Someone yesterday said the council has a ten year waiting list for housing. Further, since they are not the most expensive borough in London, they say they already have an influx of people displaced from even more expensive areas. I also saw someone interviewed from one of the northern towns where it is proposed these people might go. The woman said they have plenty of cheap houses but also 70 persons seeking every job vacancy. Which I expect is why the housing is cheap. Isnt it ironic that under Thatcher, Norman Tebbitt had an 'on your bike' policy where he suggested the unemployed should leave areas of high unemployment and move to places there are more jobs. Now we are doing the reverse. Lets just get these nobodies out of London, eh?

Incidentally, the BBC just observed the adjacent council has been shifting people to Birmingham for some time. They are sending out letters that if people refuse to move to Birmingham they will be thrown out of their accommodation. It is also suggested all this has to do with the Olympics, which is happening in this area and pushing up demand for accommodation. Didnt China and India turf out the poor to make their sporting fixtures look nicer?
 

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,616
Media
50
Likes
4,782
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Zoopla has info on property prices in Newham. There are many hundreds of flats and houses available in the borough well within cost limits. The task for Newham is to rehouse the 500 people who are on benefits and who are presently in very expensive property in cheaper property which is readily available in the borough. The UK system is that most living on benefits live in property rented within the private sector - the availability of council housing isn't really relevant.
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
oh what fun. I hear one of Hunt's advisers has resigned for passing information to Murdoch. I guess they hope to hold the line there with him taking the blame. We shall see whether anyone can prove Hunt was personally involved or had sanctioned helping Murdoch. I think people are still saying Hunt was involved with the Murdoch organisation and was friendly with Murdoch before this started and people began to be 'careful'. Everyone will be trying to find out whether Hunt ever took the advice offered in the released emails to make unofficial private phone calls to Murdoch.
 

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,616
Media
50
Likes
4,782
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Sorry, did anyone give marxism a fair trial?

Marxism in the USSR resulted in the purges which killed tens of millions. There is a single mass grave near Minsk believed to contain 200,000 bodies. There is another enormous mass grave in the vicinity of Kiev. Millions have died in China in order to build a Marxist society. In every nation where it has been tried, Marxism has brought mass murder and concentration camps. Today North Korea is a Marxist society. How many more people have to die before the world accepts that Marxism has failed and will always fail?

The old British Library reading room identified the seat where Karl Marx habitually sat (at the end of a row). Academics avoided the one next to it as that was the devil's seat, where the devil sat to whisper his poison in Marx's ear. Marxism has caused more murders and more harm to humanity than any other dogma. While we have made progress in putting fascism and racism beyond the pale, Marxism still has a veneer of respectability. And this respectability is its great danger. Marxism claims that somehow every Marxist society that has ever existed wasn't really Marxist and we should give it another go. More people should be murdered, more lives wrecked and more evil done - and sometimes even all this done by good, kind, idealistic people who actually believe what they are doing is right. Right now in the UK we have a resurgence of Marxism. We have six MPs (Respect and Green plus the four Sinn Fein who don't sit) who are at least ideologically Marxists. And in London we have in Livingstone a Marxist standing for election, and perhaps about to be elected.

Yes Marxism has been given a fair trial. We should be alert to condemn it absolutely just as we condemn fascism. And whenever Marxism surfaces it should be treated as the work of the devil. Fascism makes bad people do bad things. Marxism makes good people do bad things.
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
I had the impression that what happened in revolutionary Russia was simply a continuation of the imperial court under new management. The marxist wallpaper had very little to do with the substance of the system and serious revolutionaries rapidly got the chop.

Meanwhile Michael Gove, education secretary, has been trotted out to argue Hunt should not be responsible for the actions of his adviser (Adam Smith) and that it is entirely reasonable Hunt had no idea what Smith was doing in Hunt's name. Putting aside for a moment the question of whether it is reasonable Hunt's adviser had gone maverick and was acting entirely on his own initiative in passing on government information, the official ministerial code states that a minister is responsible for what his advisors do. Gove insisted that although the code says this, in reality an apology after the fact was entirely sufficient to compensate breeching the code. It was repeatedly put to him in interview that there was a reason for the code and it making ministers responsible for actions made in their name by their advisors, but gove was having none of it and essentially insisted the code was open to interpretation. So clearly not worth the paper it was written on. Just ignore it if inconvenient. No reason for ministers to behave honourably.

Despite Hunt's claims of even handedness in considering this matter, the anti-bid groups are now complaining that they never got anything like the acces to make their case as did Murdoch.

As a side issue it would seem there is now further question as to what meetings Cameron had with one of the Murdochs. Apparently he had previously denied meetings, but it now transpires he went to dinner with Murdoch and Rebecca Brooks (another news international employee) where according to the emails the takeover was discussed. This contradicts camerons previous denials that any such meeting took place. The BBC also stated there had been a series of different versions of who met who coming from the PMs office as they were pressed further.

The emails also went into the relations between Murdochs and the previous government. They said that the Murdoch empire decided to support the conservatives politically once it became clear the labour government absolutely would not support the takeover bid. They then set about seeing if they could get what they wanted from the conservatives. Unfortunate for them that they ended up with a lib dem minister who was also having none of the takeover and refused to talk to them. It also seems the official advice form the regulatory body opposed the takeover. So the advice could have been taken long since to end the matter.

The simple explanation seems to be the obvious one. Murdoch asked labour to allow the takeover and he would support them. They refused. So he asked the conservatives the same, and they accepted. Then despite extraordinary failures by authorities to investigate, the phone hacking story snowballed leading to more and more correspondence being seized from news international....and all the embarassing details coming to light. Hunt today in the house denied that any of the communication with Murdoch during this process had influenced his decision. Indeed not. It would seem that nothing anyone said at that point was likely to change a decision already made.

And what do we make of this? I nearly said, 'bring back Bambi' (Blair), but then there was something else about how his communications bill changed suddenly at the last minute to favour Murdoch....So the lesson is UK government is not open, honest or reflecting the best interest of the people.
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Fascism makes bad people do bad things. Marxism makes good people do bad things.
Perhaps we should ask Perados about that one. I think you just argued everyone in Germany and Italy, and anyhere fascim took hold last century (which would include the UK), were all fundamentally bad people not misguided good ones.
 

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,616
Media
50
Likes
4,782
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Perhaps we should ask Perados about that one. I think you just argued everyone in Germany and Italy, and anyhere fascim took hold last century (which would include the UK), were all fundamentally bad people not misguided good ones.

People are always individuals, always with individual responsibility. I'm not accepting any sort of national stereotype. Individuals who actively embrace fascism (as opposed to not having the courage to speak out against it) are embracing a dogma that considers some people better than others, more valued than others. This is something fundamentally amiss with people who think in this way. It breaches philosophical ideas around liberal societies as well as the tenets of the major religions (it breaches "love thy neighbour" for example). There is a lot of arrogance associated with the belief along with a lot of moral transgression or religious sin. Fascists are people acting badly.

By contrast Marxists are frequently people acting from the very best of intentions. They are people who really do want what is best for people. Yes the dogma can throw up its cranks, but mostly Marxists are nice people. But what they do causes immense suffering and misery. This is the rationale for regarding Marxism as the devil's doctrine. It takes good people and makes them do wrong. Often Marxists feel they are listening to reason and sense, and they may well be right in this. Human beings frequently go off the rails when they listen to head rather than heart.

A system of government which I would like is one where people listen to their heart. While there is nothing wrong with cuddling kittens I think it has to go a bit further than that - listening to their heart is a metaphor for being guided by the Holy Spirit. And my criticism of politicians in the UK of all parties is that all too few seem to have any religious belief. Cameron has school-boy Anglicanism; Clegg claims to be an agnostic (though he too has the school religious experience); does anyone know what Miliband believes? In the USA Obama acknowledges faith; Romney is a member of a dangerous cult. Our politicians would all act better if they knew that they face judgment not just before their electorate but before the throne of God.
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
So today someone tried to pin it on the civil servants. In the morning someone questioned why the senior civil servant at the culture ministry had agreed to Hunt's advisor talking to Murdochs man. Suggesting it was the civil servants fault for agreeing to it.

It happened that the civil servant in question was in parliament today answering questions about something else, and they took the opportunity to ask him directly. He was asked whether he had agreed to the meetings, and didnt answer, referring them to the previous written statement. He was asked whether he thought the meetings had been appropriate, and wouldnt answer. he was asked several times.

Afterwards another written statement was forthcoming with another odd form of words implying his agreement to the arrangement.

Dont know what happened there. If he had agreed and was happy about it, cant think why he wouldnt simply say so. Much simpler, settle the matter. Instead....he found he couldnt or didnt dare speak. I doubt he would outright lie to an MPs question.


It just gets worse and worse. Obviously, if Hunt now has to resign for meetings with Murdoch or his representatives the next head on the block will be that of the prime minister himself, who has also been less than forthcoming about meetings with Murdoch's staff. Not to mention that problem over having originally employed an ex Murdoch man as his spin doctor on becoming PM.

No, i dont like this system of government.
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Today in the Uk, the prime minister was not a happy bunny. He was summoned to the house of commons to answer questions about culture secretary Hunt when he had planned to be out canvassing for the forthcoming local elections.

The opposition argues Hunt has broken the rules on how ministers should behave. The rules say a minister is responsible also for the actions of his advisers. His adviser Smith has resigned because he behaved incorrectly. He claims he did this entirely spontaneously without the minister knowing. According to the code, that doesnt matter, Hunt was still responsible becuse he hired the bloke and gave him authority to act in his name.

This leaves aside the question of whether Hunt really did or did not know. Many people have said it stretches credulity impossibly that an adviser would do something against the wishes spoken or unspoken of his boss. It is their job to know exactly what their boss wants and arrange it.

So the PM was summoned back to answer why the investigative process for a minister behaving wrongly has not been invoked against Hunt even for the lesser charge, where he seems clearly guilty. The official whose job it is to investigate this can only do so if the PM refers a case to him. The PM refuses to refer it.

All this is made rather worse for the PM since he designed the system he is refusing to set in operation. Admittedly, he did design it so he can refuse to set it into operation, but it hardly helps his personal image that he created a flawed system which fails to deliver.

So what have we? The PM came to power promising to clean up ministerial behaviour and implemented a new code of conduct with an impartial judge to investigate allegations of wrong doing. But then it turns out to be just window dressing, because when a case turns up, he refuses to set it going. The guy who would ber doing the investigating has said he could make a preliminary finding on whether there are grounds for a full investigation in a few days. Would have ruled by now had he been asked. I think we can all infer from the non-referral that he was unlikely to rule as the PM wished.

What we have is another example why no one respects the political system. The PM saying in his defence that the last government had done exactly the same in their turn hardly helped.
 

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,616
Media
50
Likes
4,782
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Can't be too fussed about this one. Labour did nowt to sort out the Murdoch empire. The coalition gave anti-Murdoch Cable the job of sorting it out, which in the event was seen to be anti-Murdoch bias. Hunt has not done Murdoch any favours.

The ministerial code is one of these stupid rules that needs repealing. The idea that any minister can actually know everything that goes on in his department is a comfortable fiction held by people who have never run anything. In my experience you can have a pretty good idea with under a dozen, a fair overview at 30, but if you think you know everything that is going on at 60 you are deluded. Organisations create their own cliques so that it can be relatively senior people close to the boss who are the ones who are ungovernable. The ministerial code is utter rubbish and should be ditched.

labour are having a field day. They know as well as anyone else that the ministerial code is stupid. The sadness is that their political opportunism has the potential to damage the country. And certainly has the potential to see local councils turn red at the local elections.
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Then what you are saying is the ministerial code is simply window dressing intended to impress voters, while actually doing nothing. I think there would be even more upset voters if it was abolished. Another example of where what voters want and mps want divides.

UK local elections yesterday had more record low turnouts. What a surprises.

The conesrvatives did badly and several conservatives have said they must get back to core conservative values and distance themselves from those nasty liberals. Idiots. Collapsing support for the present conservative government has nothing to do with their partners or even their official policies in the main. Right now they have a minister fighting to explain his entanglement with Murdoch and already lost another because he had too close ties with pivate industry.

Time and time again I have seen them lying about something. They might consider it as putting a good spin on things, but it simply comes across as dishonesty. As far as I am concerned, I want politicians who tell the truth. I may not like their policies, but I respect them much more for honestly stating what they are.

A couple of recent examples, the airports minister came forward and claimed no one had to wait more than 1.5 hours for immigration. This after various people had said they were waiting much longer. Then along come the operators of heathrow with their security videos, saying, no, the longest wait they had recorded was 3 hours.

The last budget, which took away certain tax reliefs for pensioners. The conservatives boasted they might have taken away tax reliefs, but they had boosted the pension by a whopping £5, or whatever it was. So much better than labour, who one year only put it up 5op. Except.....both these increases were simply rises according to the inflation rate. Neither one was either generous or mean, just reflected inflation. The conservatives tried to lie that they were being generous. Meanwhile, in the background, they also reduced top up pensions for the poorest.
 

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,616
Media
50
Likes
4,782
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
The ministerial code is absurd. Ministers cannot possibly abide by it - the best they can do is cover their tracks so they don't get caught out by it. It is a nice sort of example of a faulty system that makes liars out of ministers.

It exists becaue the average voter cannot comprehend the reality of running an operation as big as a government department. People are not willing to accept that a minister will make hundreds of decisions a week, most of which are unremarkable, a few of which may even be inspired, and that every week, even every day, ministers will make some decisions that are simply wrong. They are making wrong decisions not (usually) because they are criminal or incompetent but simply because they are human. Until we as a nation have the maturity to accept that competent, well-intentned and hard working ministers will make mistakes them we have the culture of bak covering and not getting found out - and living in terror of an absurd ministerial code.

The local elections have been a victory for apathy, a small victory for Labour and the fringe parties, and a drubbing for both coalition parties. I'm assuming however that BORIS will be back. If so this is an event that has the potential to change our nation's history.

10% of Labour voters are expected to vote BORIS.
Almost all UKIP voters will vote BORIS as second choice.
Lord Sugar will vote BORIS.

The whisper is that BORIS will stand as an MP in 2015 and do the part time job of an MP alongside the part time job of Mayor (until 2016). He will have no difficulty finding a safe Tory seat. If Cameron loses the election BORIS will be next Conservative leader (PM 2020?) However the really whacky idea is that the Conservatives agree a transfer of leadership at the next election so that it is BORIS who runs for PM. He seems able to appeal both to UKIP (he is pledged to an in/out referendum and wants out and to Labour and Lib Dem voters. The idea is let Cameron carry the can for everything that has/will go wrong and let BORIS be the new face that people like.

Cameron and BORIS not only went to the same school they were in the same class. There is the potential for them to make something like this work.

BORIS for PM!
 
2

223790

Guest
The only time politicians are telling the truth is when they call each other liars.
 

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,616
Media
50
Likes
4,782
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
The only time politicians are telling the truth is when they call each other liars.

I'm not bothered about politicians telling the truth. I am bothered about their personal integrity - which is not the same thing.

I don't agree with the LibDems. But Clegg and the parliamentary LibDem party showed integrity in entering into coalition as this ws right for the country. It is a great pity the nation is punishing them for doing the right thing.

London right now is fascinating. Ken has shown a lack of integrity in his anti-Semitic comments and willing to play the race card. In this case however the people seem to have seen through him and are (I hope!) rejecting him. BORIS is a colourful character - my iPad defaults to capitalising his name - and one who seems to be clear what he believes. He demonstrates integrity.

I want a political class governed by integrity. Part of this requires a media with integrity and a public with integrity. I find it hard to see a morality which functions without a perception of the divine, so I'm very close to saying that I want a political class who are religious. I certainly believe the Anglican bishops should be in the Lords - I would add the Moderator of the General Assembly and the Chief Rabbi and a few others.
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Cameron and BORIS not only went to the same school they were in the same class. There is the potential for them to make something like this work.

BORIS for PM!
Two people not only from the same school but also the same class becoming PM? so what does that tell you about britain?

I'm not bothered about politicians telling the truth. I am bothered about their personal integrity - which is not the same thing.
funnily enough they lie most about things which affect their election prospects, so I am.

I don't agree with the LibDems. But Clegg and the parliamentary LibDem party showed integrity in entering into coalition as this ws right for the country. It is a great pity the nation is punishing them for doing the right thing.
Every time the coalition does something against the liberal manifesto one of the liberals is put up to say what a great idea it is to do the opposite of their policy. Not surprisingly they are being crucified.

London right now is fascinating. Ken has shown a lack of integrity in his anti-Semitic comments and willing to play the race card. In this case however the people seem to have seen through him and are (I hope!) rejecting him.
I was more concerned with bendy buses which get stuck across crossings and a plan to turn the uxbridge road into a tramway. As far as I could tell from the prospectus they issued it made much less financial sense than having an extra bus lane and buying some new buses. Now, charging to drive into central London was an excellent idea.