Stop heydon windfrm..

[Huge]

And you were doing so well until there. I refer you to the marches against the Iraq War and the Hunting with Dogs bills. Made exactly no difference.

[Huge]

Oh, I think there are. Maybe 2 or 3 MPs in the HoC. Not enough to make a difference.

[The Natural Philosopher]

I think both made a difference, but just in that case, not enough.

Personally I would say that Iraq destroyed Tony Bliars credibility with a lot of people completely. But with George Bush's minions knowing exactly what WAS in his 'toothpaste', he was on a sticky wicket..

As far as Hunting With Dogs goes, with a hugely urban vote of people who have never seen a fox in their lives, nor the vicious and indiscriminate damage it can and does do, and have no clue about how difficult it is to shoot a small furry animal safely and cleanly with a rifle, or poisoning it without endangering other wildlife and condemning it to an equally vile death, and a totally distorted picture of what hunting with dogs was, provided courtesy of the loonier animal rights lobby, there was never any chance to change the governments mind.

If you like,. most people didn't care, and the vast mass of LABOURS votes came from people who either didn't care, or were firmly convinced that if there was anything more evil than a toff on a horse with a dog chasing a fox, it was Margaret Thatcher, the Devil in Female Human Flesh.

As it is, despite annual death threats, hunting with dogs quietly continues.

[The Natural Philosopher]

There are, but not in cabinet positions, mostly. They are too dangerous.

[Grimly Curmudgeon]

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember The Natural Philosopher saying something like:

Mostly over here, afaics.

[Mark]

No. Why?

It is in its current state but I do not accept that it cannot be improved.

Banks seem to have plenty of money again.

LOL! This is the system. We need politicians that work for us not the other way around.

You're right on one level that it is the cash that really controls society. However you are wrong that an average individual can have any significant influence by choosing how to spend their money. They don't have enough money for this. The consumer chooses what to buy from a small selection of products that big businesses choose to offer.

No. I want governments to do what people want them to do.

LOL

It's money that talks. They're not interested unless it leads to a large pot of money from them at the end.

Using your analogy people with lots of money start the "game" at a high level and can easily rise up. People without are stuck at a low level with virtually no chance of rising. It's not a level playing field you know.

[The Natural Philosopher]

So what?

Its how you play the game, not where you start, that counts.

Making you feel you cant win, is one of the ploys.

As is making you want to support people who tell you how shit your life is, and they really care enough to make it better.

If you start from the basic assumption that everyone is lying and everyone is out for themselves, you will be less disappointed.

[Tim Streater]

And what is that? I want the Govt to give me 50 million quid, a mansion with a 1000 acre estate and coterie of servants, and a no-fly zone above it. And yet, strangely, they don't. Should I therefore vote for the other lot - or someone that'd promise to fulfil my wants?

[The Natural Philosopher]

exactly.

You could probably get that mansion if you were prepared to sacrifice a lot of things for it.

I recall the case of a lowly public sector worker - Postman or something

- who owned a new rolls royce. "Anyone can do it, but I don't have a wife, kids, or own my own house. I don't drink, smoke, or eat out. I don't take foreign holidays. Every penny I earn goes into that car"

The tragedy of the Left, is that he would not be ALLOWED to own that car.

[Mark]

But it isn't. It's how much money and who you know that counts.

So you have no friends?

[Mark]

Don't be silly. I want governments to fulfill their promises that they made before being elected and a way of getting rid of them more easily if they don't.

[John Williamson]

The real tragedy of the Left is that after a couple of generations, he wouldn't even *think* of wanting to own it.

[The Natural Philosopher]

I didn't say you have to end there..merely start there.

[Tim Streater]

I know all this - but you don't think they'll stop at AV, do you?

[Steve]

pun intended?

[Man at B&Q]

AV is not PR. I'll be voting "no" but not for that reason.

MBQ

[Mark]

Who won't? Since there is a great vested interest to keep the current system they'll probably ignore the results of the referendum if it doesn't yield the "correct" result.

AV won't make a huge difference to the overall result. It is likely to make the MP's more accountable, which is a good thing.

[Mark]

Why?

[geoff]

In message , Mark writes

No - Who

[Man at B&Q]

I consider the whole thing a diversion, a sop to the lib-dems and a complete and utter waste of time and money. Most people seem to agree it will not make any difference to the result in the majority of cases, so why bother?

MBQ