Mods locking threads.

[hoolahoop]

Crofty in an excellent appointment to the higher echelons of the VSC. Despite being politically incorrect in the past the VSC has recognised his talents and he has benefited accordingly. So have we all. We now have a voice (I'm talking about all us doom mongers).

If Crofty changes his mind about his views in the past then that should give all us doom mongers pause for thought. He now has a lot more information to hand and I for one will respect his views and not jump to the obvious conclusion that he is now towing the VSC line because that is how he will get on. I credit him with being an honest individual who will still give his honest opinion about things. His answers to VSC questions are always excellent and the other moderators could take a leaf out of his book.

As far as the Labour/Tory argument goes I am an unabashed Labour Party hater. They have totally ruined the country and anyone who is thick enough to blame the Tories who are only trying to sort out the horrendous mess they were left should never be allowed to vote ever again.[/quote]

Unfortunately we seem to have lacked both effective ruling and opposition parties (both Conservative and Labour) over the last 20-30 years or so.
It begs a question about how effective our existing type of democracy is , imo the weakness of an opposition and it's policies are equally as bad as the inefficiences of the ruling group. All politicians are elected to contribute to the well being of this nation and they have all failed in recent times to produce the goods sadly.
In the meantime 'Rome still burns' infrastructure is corroding alarmingly and the fabric of society is beginning to tear about at the seams.
 
The Tory/Liberal parties both 'swanned' about whilst Rome was burning as the existing Labour leadership continues to do.
Where are the strong opposition policies that can be used by the Government of the day as there were in the past (albeit 'watered down' and given a diferent slant) ? The answer is nowhere, basically we have a set of grey politicians that could virtually be moved from party to party without any discernable difference.

My apologies I've just realised this is an 'on topic' thread.

[Filo]

I credit him with being an honest individual who will still give his honest opinion about things.

Are you questioning my/our integrity, if you are, I resent that comment!

[The Red Baron]

Is this a kind of odd variant of Godwin's Law- that any internet discussion will eventually end up on the subject of party politics?

[Donnywolf]

As far as the Labour/Tory argument goes I am an unabashed Labour Party hater. They have totally ruined the country and anyone who is thick enough to blame the Tories who are only trying to sort out the horrendous mess they were left should never be allowed to vote ever again.

This topic is far too big NOT to have a dedicated thread

Minds immesurably superior to mine can then tell you why THEY think you are wrong

Personally each colour Govt blames the previous lot and you seem to have gone along with that view with the phrase \" they have totally ruined the Country \"

However were you around when Mrs Thatcher decided to totally ruin the Mining industry which in turn led to .... which led to .... which led to ... where we are today ?

As for suggesting that people have to be of a certain intelligence to be allowed to vote - I come from a more serious angle and would wish EACH VOTE cast JUST to be of equal weight.

Some Tory seats are won with 11 or 12 thousand votes and (I cant be bothered to look it up) some Labour Seats are won with 36000 votes (Hemsworth and Goole and Thorne used to be higher even than that) so 36000 gets Labour 1 Seat whereas the same number of votes gets the Conservatives 3 Seats

Personally I think that is grossly unfair but heigh ho what the F... do I know. I should not even be entitled to a vote iyo

[The Red Baron]

Unfortunately we seem to have lacked both effective ruling and opposition parties (both Conservative and Labour) over the last 20-30 years or so.
It begs a question about how effective our existing type of democracy is , imo the weakness of an opposition and it's policies are equally as bad as the inefficiences of the ruling group. All politicians are elected to contribute to the well being of this nation and they have all failed in recent times to produce the goods sadly.
The Tory/Liberal parties both 'swanned' about whilst Rome was burning as the existing Labour leadership continues to do.
Where are the strong opposition policies that can be used by the Government of the day as they were in the past (albeit 'watered down' and gien a diferent slant) ? The answer is nowhere, basically we have a set of grey politicians that could virtually could be noved from party to party without any obvious difference.

Hoola- was just going to post something along the lines that there's nothing more bankrupt in this country than the current state of the political parties and you beat me to it!

That's why I've become a convert to PR. Not that awful Alternative Vote thing that Clegg tried to get brought in last year, which would have only entrenched the current system. No, what's needed is proper PR, Single Transferable Vote in multi-member constituencies. It is the only thing that will bring about the political realignment we need to get better government and better opposition. At the moment it's like a choice between three flavours of ice cream that are barely distinguishable from one another.

[The Red Baron]

As far as the Labour/Tory argument goes I am an unabashed Labour Party hater. They have totally ruined the country and anyone who is thick enough to blame the Tories who are only trying to sort out the horrendous mess they were left should never be allowed to vote ever again.

This topic is far too big NOT to have a dedicated thread

Minds immesurably superior to mine can then tell you why THEY think you are wrong

Personally each colour Govt blames the previous lot and you seem to have gone along with that view with the phrase \" they have totally ruined the Country \"

However were you around when Mrs Thatcher decided to totally ruin the Mining industry which in turn led to .... which led to .... which led to ... where we are today ?

As for suggesting that people have to be of a certain intelligence to be allowed to vote - I come from a more serious angle and would wish EACH VOTE cast JUST to be of equal weight.

Some Tory seats are won with 11 or 12 thousand votes and (I cant be bothered to look it up) some Labour Seats are won with 36000 votes (Hemsworth and Goole and Thorne used to be higher even than that) so 36000 gets Labour 1 Seat whereas the same number of votes gets the Conservatives 3 Seats

Personally I think that is grossly unfair but heigh ho what the F... do I know. I should not even be entitled to a vote iyo

Are you talking about the number of votes cast in those seats or the majorities? Some of it is due to poorly-drawn constituency boundaries which have been un-reformed for a long time. Having larger constituencies which elect several MPs would help to do away with that unfairness- and STV would ensure that every vote counted.

[hoolahoop]

The last sentence says it all RB and it's not good enough, good post.

[hoolahoop]

As far as the Labour/Tory argument goes I am an unabashed Labour Party hater. They have totally ruined the country and anyone who is thick enough to blame the Tories who are only trying to sort out the horrendous mess they were left should never be allowed to vote ever again.

This topic is far too big NOT to have a dedicated thread

Minds immesurably superior to mine can then tell you why THEY think you are wrong

Personally each colour Govt blames the previous lot and you seem to have gone along with that view with the phrase \" they have totally ruined the Country \"

However were you around when Mrs Thatcher decided to totally ruin the Mining industry which in turn led to .... which led to .... which led to ... where we are today ?

As for suggesting that people have to be of a certain intelligence to be allowed to vote - I come from a more serious angle and would wish EACH VOTE cast JUST to be of equal weight.

Some Tory seats are won with 11 or 12 thousand votes and (I cant be bothered to look it up) some Labour Seats are won with 36000 votes (Hemsworth and Goole and Thorne used to be higher even than that) so 36000 gets Labour 1 Seat whereas the same number of votes gets the Conservatives 3 Seats

Personally I think that is grossly unfair but heigh ho what the F... do I know. I should not even be entitled to a vote iyo

If as you state the system was corrupt and favoured a particular party to the extent you describe Wolfie, then don't you think that the Labour party had sufficient time and reason to balance it more as you suggest ?
The Boundaries Commission deals with this side of it does it not , couldn't the Govt. of the day have asked them to look at the discrepancies that you claim are all so evident ? Jeez they had more than enough time didn't they ?

[jonnydog]

Has this thread not earned the right to go in off-topic yet

[hoolahoop]

Has this thread not earned the right to go in off-topic yet

Nah we're still working on it jd.

[Donnywolf]

As far as the Labour/Tory argument goes I am an unabashed Labour Party hater. They have totally ruined the country and anyone who is thick enough to blame the Tories who are only trying to sort out the horrendous mess they were left should never be allowed to vote ever again.

This topic is far too big NOT to have a dedicated thread

Minds immesurably superior to mine can then tell you why THEY think you are wrong

Personally each colour Govt blames the previous lot and you seem to have gone along with that view with the phrase \" they have totally ruined the Country \"

However were you around when Mrs Thatcher decided to totally ruin the Mining industry which in turn led to .... which led to .... which led to ... where we are today ?

As for suggesting that people have to be of a certain intelligence to be allowed to vote - I come from a more serious angle and would wish EACH VOTE cast JUST to be of equal weight.

Some Tory seats are won with 11 or 12 thousand votes and (I cant be bothered to look it up) some Labour Seats are won with 36000 votes (Hemsworth and Goole and Thorne used to be higher even than that) so 36000 gets Labour 1 Seat whereas the same number of votes gets the Conservatives 3 Seats

Personally I think that is grossly unfair but heigh ho what the F... do I know. I should not even be entitled to a vote iyo

If as you state the system was corrupt and favoured a particular party to the extent you describe Wolfie, then don't you think that the Labour party had sufficient time and reason to balance it more as you suggest ?
The Boundaries Commission deals with this side of it does it not , couldn't the Govt. of the day have asked them to look at the discrepancies that you claim are all so evident ? Jeez they had more than enough time didn't they ?

I agree ... that is my point really ...Politics is corrupt and both Labour and Conservative BOTH \"benefit\" from first past the post so maintaining the Status quo suits them both even given that they may be out of power now and again

There have been landslides using this system - massive majorities in Parliament for a Party getting just 42% of the total vote. So we got an extremeist Government when only 42 out of 100 voted for them and 58 out of every 100  voted against them ... BARKING MAD

I agree with Jonnydog ... dump this on Off topic

[hoolahoop]

Hoola, I think it's more to do with the \"Road to Damascus like conversion\"

The about face from crofty has been so swift that I'm convinced the VSC have him holed up somewhere and an imposter is posing as him

Come on VSC tell us what you have done with the real crofty

Let's just say what remains has helped pay towards the \"red ink\" on the JR Flag you'll see tomorrow...

You haven't put graffiti all over the new VSC flag have you Crofty.

[ditch_drfc]

However were you around when Mrs Thatcher decided to totally ruin the Mining industry which in turn led to .... which led to .... which led to ... where we are today ?

Think you need to have a look again at who closed down the majority of the mines.

[hoolahoop]

However were you around when Mrs Thatcher decided to totally ruin the Mining industry which in turn led to .... which led to .... which led to ... where we are today ?

Think you need to have a look again at who closed down the majority of the mines.

Thinking the same mesen , I can't remember many of any mines being closed down during her time at the top. Strange how these 'urban myths' come about and become deeply entrenched . Quite simply Thatcher did NOT close all the mines, yes she took on a moron who was blindly followed by some but not all miners.

[The Red Baron]

As far as the Labour/Tory argument goes I am an unabashed Labour Party hater. They have totally ruined the country and anyone who is thick enough to blame the Tories who are only trying to sort out the horrendous mess they were left should never be allowed to vote ever again.

This topic is far too big NOT to have a dedicated thread

Minds immesurably superior to mine can then tell you why THEY think you are wrong

Personally each colour Govt blames the previous lot and you seem to have gone along with that view with the phrase \" they have totally ruined the Country \"

However were you around when Mrs Thatcher decided to totally ruin the Mining industry which in turn led to .... which led to .... which led to ... where we are today ?

As for suggesting that people have to be of a certain intelligence to be allowed to vote - I come from a more serious angle and would wish EACH VOTE cast JUST to be of equal weight.

Some Tory seats are won with 11 or 12 thousand votes and (I cant be bothered to look it up) some Labour Seats are won with 36000 votes (Hemsworth and Goole and Thorne used to be higher even than that) so 36000 gets Labour 1 Seat whereas the same number of votes gets the Conservatives 3 Seats

Personally I think that is grossly unfair but heigh ho what the F... do I know. I should not even be entitled to a vote iyo

If as you state the system was corrupt and favoured a particular party to the extent you describe Wolfie, then don't you think that the Labour party had sufficient time and reason to balance it more as you suggest ?
The Boundaries Commission deals with this side of it does it not , couldn't the Govt. of the day have asked them to look at the discrepancies that you claim are all so evident ? Jeez they had more than enough time didn't they ?

I agree ... that is my point really ...Politics is corrupt and both Labour and Conservative BOTH \"benefit\" from first past the post so maintaining the Status quo suits them both even given that they may be out of power now and again

There have been landslides using this system - massive majorities in Parliament for a Party getting just 42% of the total vote. So we got an extremeist Government when only 42 out of 100 voted for them and 58 out of every 100  voted against them ... BARKING MAD

I agree with Jonnydog ... dump this on Off topic

You could argue that the current boundaries are actually biased against the Tories. At the last GE they got 36% of the vote, Labour got 29%. Had those figures been reversed, Labour would have had a healthy majority, even with the Lib Dems on 23%.

I don't know where you got the 42% from. The current Government had (in theory) the backing of 59% of voters, although it is doubtful that many of them thought they were voting for a coalition.

[The Red Baron]

However were you around when Mrs Thatcher decided to totally ruin the Mining industry which in turn led to .... which led to .... which led to ... where we are today ?

Think you need to have a look again at who closed down the majority of the mines.

Thinking the same mesen , I can't remember many of any mines being closed down during her time at the top. Strange how these 'urban myths' come about and become deeply entrenched . Quite simply Thatcher did NOT close all the mines, yes she took on a moron who was blindly followed by some but not all miners.

Far more mines were actually closed under the Major Government than under Thatcher. I wouldn't call Scargill a moron- I actually think he was a very clever and dangerous man. The thing was he ended up being more dangerous to his followers than to those he opposed.

[Filo]

yes she took on a moron who was blindly followed by some but not all miners.

That moron was correct all along though, in the months running up to the announced closure of Cortonwood he was telling everyone that the Tories had a secret pit closure program, something that the Tories all along denied, even though the brought in an American with a history of closing business`s down to over see the closure programme. The thing that the mentioned \"moron\" got wrong was falling for the Tories carefully orchestrated timing of the closure`s, they knew closing the first pit in the closure programme down in the militant heartland of the Yorkshire coalfield would trigger a strike, something they wanted and got! Why did they not close a Notts pit down first? Because they knew if they did then the whole of the NUM would have been behind the strike and the Tory government would have been brought down like Heath`s government in the 70`s was. The Tories used the Notts miners and then shit on them big style!

[Donnywolf]

Its the way people (mis)read my comment

I said when Thatcher decided to ruin the Mining industry (not the number of Pits that closed under her Prime Ministership). There may well have been more closed under Major but the seeds had been sown previously

I was trying to point out to mjdgreg that succesive Govts merely blame the previous lot and did he remember that period in the history of the Party he seemed to support - in that if the Mines had not been destroyed we may not be in this mess now *

*Personally who knows ?

[Mr1Croft]

I think we all need to remember the 1970-74 Conservative Government under Ted Heath, the unions decided that they would demand pay rise after pay rise and the UK was so low on coal supplies that many of you will remember Ted Heath imposing that 3 day week on your television sets. This ultimately lead to Heath saying \"Who Governs Britain?\" and the Voting public said \"Not you Ted\".

The Education secretary of that time was Margaret Thatcher, and she was dubbed Milk Snatcher after her policy to stop milk for certain ages of primary school children. She ultimately would not let that drop that the government was brought down by what she described as \"terrorists demands\" in her speech some years later in Brighton when the hotel was bombed hours earlier.

Thatcher was smart in that the UK had just found oil on the shores of Scotland, and coal supplies were much more than that under Heath in that she could afford (only just) to let the miners strike again, it was one battle she would not lose, and Scargill knew this would require the backing of all miners which he why he called a strike without asking the members to vote.

The British people were in truth fed up of this saga, and many were relieved when Thatcher 'won', what brought about this 'myth' is the scenes you all witnessed on the evening news with rioting between ordinary working class men and police officers, she didn't help her self by calling these people criminals when they were only trying to do what is best for their family.

As for Scargill, he was a very good public speaker, but taking in mind that he has recently sued the NUM over a legal dispute shows you where his heart his. He named his office in Barnsley King Arthur's castle and had a portrait of himself Stallin like on the back of the wagon issuing to follow him. As good as he was speaking he underestimated Thatcher and that made her victory that much sweeter.

[ditch_drfc]

At the end of the day he could have avoided the whole mess by just having a vote. He couldn't take democracy, and the rest is history.

[Filo]

I think we all need to remember the 1970-74 Conservative Government under Ted Heath, the unions decided that they would demand pay rise after pay rise and the UK was so low on coal supplies that many of you will remember Ted Heath imposing that 3 day week on your television sets. This ultimately lead to Heath saying \"Who Governs Britain?\" and the Voting public said \"Not you Ted\".

The Education secretary of that time was Margaret Thatcher, and she was dubbed Milk Snatcher after her policy to stop milk for certain ages of primary school children. She ultimately would not let that drop that the government was brought down by what she described as \"terrorists demands\" in her speech some years later in Brighton when the hotel was bombed hours earlier.

Thatcher was smart in that the UK had just found oil on the shores of Scotland, and coal supplies were much more than that under Heath in that she could afford (only just) to let the miners strike again, it was one battle she would not lose, and Scargill knew this would require the backing of all miners which he why he called a strike without asking the members to vote.

The British people were in truth fed up of this saga, and many were relieved when Thatcher 'won', what brought about this 'myth' is the scenes you all witnessed on the evening news with rioting between ordinary working class men and police officers, she didn't help her self by calling these people criminals when they were only trying to do what is best for their family.

As for Scargill, he was a very good public speaker, but taking in mind that he has recently sued the NUM over a legal dispute shows you where his heart his. He named his office in Barnsley King Arthur's castle and had a portrait of himself Stallin like on the back of the wagon issuing to follow him. As good as he was speaking he underestimated Thatcher and that made her victory that much sweeter.

Politics from the text book seldom reflect the realities of the situation at the time, we were in an unofficial state of marshall law in Yorkshire during the strike, people were prevented from travelling out of Yorkshire at a checkpoint just the other side of Bawtry, I know this for a fact, I was prevented from going fishing on the Trent by the militia masquerading as police officers, ask one of your uncles Lee, TC, he was in the same car! So who was the Soviet style leader? Scargill? or Thatcher?

[Donnywolf]

I think we all need to remember the 1970-74 Conservative Government under Ted Heath, the unions decided that they would demand pay rise after pay rise and the UK was so low on coal supplies that many of you will remember Ted Heath imposing that 3 day week on your television sets. This ultimately lead to Heath saying \"Who Governs Britain?\" and the Voting public said \"Not you Ted\".

The Education secretary of that time was Margaret Thatcher, and she was dubbed Milk Snatcher after her policy to stop milk for certain ages of primary school children. She ultimately would not let that drop that the government was brought down by what she described as \"terrorists demands\" in her speech some years later in Brighton when the hotel was bombed hours earlier.

Thatcher was smart in that the UK had just found oil on the shores of Scotland, and coal supplies were much more than that under Heath in that she could afford (only just) to let the miners strike again, it was one battle she would not lose, and Scargill knew this would require the backing of all miners which he why he called a strike without asking the members to vote.

The British people were in truth fed up of this saga, and many were relieved when Thatcher 'won', what brought about this 'myth' is the scenes you all witnessed on the evening news with rioting between ordinary working class men and police officers, she didn't help her self by calling these people criminals when they were only trying to do what is best for their family.

As for Scargill, he was a very good public speaker, but taking in mind that he has recently sued the NUM over a legal dispute shows you where his heart his. He named his office in Barnsley King Arthur's castle and had a portrait of himself Stallin like on the back of the wagon issuing to follow him. As good as he was speaking he underestimated Thatcher and that made her victory that much sweeter.

Politics from the text book seldom reflect the realities of the situation at the time, we were in an unofficial state of marshall law in Yorkshire during the strike, people were prevented from travelling out of Yorkshire at a checkpoint just the other side of Bawtry, I know this for a fact, I was prevented from going fishing on the Trent by the militia masquerading as police officers, ask one of your uncles Lee, TC, he was in the same car! So who was the Soviet style leader? Scargill? or Thatcher?

I can back up that Statement as I used to fish on the Trent \" a lot\"

Also I once ran foul of a similar \"ambush\" at J36 near Goole. I was off there to catch a train to London and the Police / Army were stopping every single car to ensure that every Miner heading for Goole or Drax (not sure where) were stopped and diverted elsewhere

They honestly would not believe that myself and my Dad who was going to drive the Car home were not involved. I showed them the Ticket to London AND the time and how it was  \"running out\" and eventually the bloke in charge deigned that I was allowed past and had to shunt 2 Lanes of traffic to let me out

Some years later I was heading to London by Car when the news came on announcing Thatcher has resigned / been forced out and I laughed my b******s off

[Mr1Croft]

I think we all need to remember the 1970-74 Conservative Government under Ted Heath, the unions decided that they would demand pay rise after pay rise and the UK was so low on coal supplies that many of you will remember Ted Heath imposing that 3 day week on your television sets. This ultimately lead to Heath saying \"Who Governs Britain?\" and the Voting public said \"Not you Ted\".

The Education secretary of that time was Margaret Thatcher, and she was dubbed Milk Snatcher after her policy to stop milk for certain ages of primary school children. She ultimately would not let that drop that the government was brought down by what she described as \"terrorists demands\" in her speech some years later in Brighton when the hotel was bombed hours earlier.

Thatcher was smart in that the UK had just found oil on the shores of Scotland, and coal supplies were much more than that under Heath in that she could afford (only just) to let the miners strike again, it was one battle she would not lose, and Scargill knew this would require the backing of all miners which he why he called a strike without asking the members to vote.

The British people were in truth fed up of this saga, and many were relieved when Thatcher 'won', what brought about this 'myth' is the scenes you all witnessed on the evening news with rioting between ordinary working class men and police officers, she didn't help her self by calling these people criminals when they were only trying to do what is best for their family.

As for Scargill, he was a very good public speaker, but taking in mind that he has recently sued the NUM over a legal dispute shows you where his heart his. He named his office in Barnsley King Arthur's castle and had a portrait of himself Stallin like on the back of the wagon issuing to follow him. As good as he was speaking he underestimated Thatcher and that made her victory that much sweeter.

Politics from the text book seldom reflect the realities of the situation at the time, we were in an unofficial state of marshall law in Yorkshire during the strike, people were prevented from travelling out of Yorkshire at a checkpoint just the other side of Bawtry, I know this for a fact, I was prevented from going fishing on the Trent by the militia masquerading as police officers, ask one of your uncles Lee, TC, he was in the same car! So who was the Soviet style leader? Scargill? or Thatcher?

I was hinting at this above, Thatcher couldn't lose so there was no need for how she treated ordinary family men that exist in both our families the way she did.

[washyrover]

I think we all need to remember the 1970-74 Conservative Government under Ted Heath, the unions decided that they would demand pay rise after pay rise and the UK was so low on coal supplies that many of you will remember Ted Heath imposing that 3 day week on your television sets. This ultimately lead to Heath saying \"Who Governs Britain?\" and the Voting public said \"Not you Ted\".

The Education secretary of that time was Margaret Thatcher, and she was dubbed Milk Snatcher after her policy to stop milk for certain ages of primary school children. She ultimately would not let that drop that the government was brought down by what she described as \"terrorists demands\" in her speech some years later in Brighton when the hotel was bombed hours earlier.

Thatcher was smart in that the UK had just found oil on the shores of Scotland, and coal supplies were much more than that under Heath in that she could afford (only just) to let the miners strike again, it was one battle she would not lose, and Scargill knew this would require the backing of all miners which he why he called a strike without asking the members to vote.

The British people were in truth fed up of this saga, and many were relieved when Thatcher 'won', what brought about this 'myth' is the scenes you all witnessed on the evening news with rioting between ordinary working class men and police officers, she didn't help her self by calling these people criminals when they were only trying to do what is best for their family.

As for Scargill, he was a very good public speaker, but taking in mind that he has recently sued the NUM over a legal dispute shows you where his heart his. He named his office in Barnsley King Arthur's castle and had a portrait of himself Stallin like on the back of the wagon issuing to follow him. As good as he was speaking he underestimated Thatcher and that made her victory that much sweeter.

Scargill like most union leaders is and does take the piss out of their members true union is the members.