Can someone give me some info to help me decide who to vote for at next election?
toatsy...@yahoo.co.uk
election in 2005, however, i have NO CLUE whatsever on who i should
vote for. Can you guys help me? I need some information such as what
each party's policies are etc and what their stances are on certain
topics. Also,i would like o know which newspapaers are right wing/left
wing etc
Thanks,
Chris
Gaz
<toatsy...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1103725326.0...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> My name's Chris and i shall be old enough to vote at the next general
> election in 2005, however, i have NO CLUE whatsever on who i should
> vote for.
Vote how most other people vote, work out who is going to cost you the most,
and vote for somebody else.
Can you guys help me? I need some information such as what
> each party's policies are etc and what their stances are on certain
> topics. Also,i would like o know which newspapaers are right wing/left
> wing etc
All the newspapers have a bias of some kind, for most the bias is based on
financial consideration, Sun and Times, for others the bias is based on
ideology, Mail and Granuiad, and some, purely to chase readers, Express,
Independent, Star.
Gaz
> Thanks,
> Chris
>
MikeinCamden
Joe Hutcheon
news:32temvF...@individual.net...
>
> <toatsy...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1103725326.0...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > My name's Chris and i shall be old enough to vote at the next general
> > election in 2005, however, i have NO CLUE whatsever on who i should
> > vote for.
>
> Vote how most other people vote, work out who is going to cost you the
most,
> and vote for somebody else.
>
>
> Can you guys help me? I need some information such as what
> > each party's policies are etc and what their stances are on certain
> > topics.
Do some research. Visit their websites, but bear in mind they're all liars
to a greater or lesser extent, ie they don't do what it says on the tin.
Also,i would like o know which newspapaers are right wing/left
> > wing etc
>
> All the newspapers have a bias of some kind, for most the bias is based
on
> financial consideration, Sun and Times, for others the bias is based on
> ideology, Mail and Granuiad, and some, purely to chase readers, Express,
> Independent, Star.
Forget left/right, this is no longer a relevant distinguishing factor. For
current purposes assume:
Sun/Times: NuLab
Telegraph/Mail: Tory, though the Mail favours some NuLab policies.
Guardian/Independent/Mirror: Old Labour, with LibDem leanings
Express/Star: if you find yourself reading either, you are still too young
to vote.
Rob
Why bother voting, your insignifant vote won't change anything. But if you
think it might, then if your reasons for voting are purely selfish, ie which
party is best for you, then you're a natural tory so vote that way. Not that
there's anything to differentiate the main parties these days.
As far as newspapers go, it doesn't really matter how you categorise them,
try reading them and if you don't agree with the particular editorial slant
of one, try another one.
--
Rob
uk...@otherdayjob.gravytrain.co.uk
<toatsy...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
If you vote you will only help the whole corrupt kit and kaboodle last
just a little bit longer.
Mark Spacey
THE ONLY OPPOSITION TO CORRUPTION AND WAR
Policies ?
IMMIGRATION - time to say ENOUGH!
On current demographic trends, we, the native British people, will be an
ethnic minority in our own country within sixty years. To ensure that
this does not happen, and that the British people retain their homeland
and identity, we call for an immediate halt to all further immigration,
the immediate deportation of criminal and illegal immigrants, and the
introduction of a system of voluntary resettlement whereby those
immigrants who are legally here will be afforded the opportunity to
return to their lands of ethnic origin assisted by a generous financial
incentives both for individuals and for the countries in question. We
will abolish the 'positive discrimination' schemes that have made white
Britons second-class citizens. We will also clamp down on the flood of
'asylum seekers', all of whom are either bogus or can find refuge much
nearer their home countries.
EUROPE - back to British independence!
We are opposed to the Single European Currency, and support the
overwhelming majority of the British people in their desire to keep the
Pound and our traditional weights and measures. At the same time, we are
for the best possible relationship with our European neighbours and
believe that the nations of Europe should be free to trade and cooperate
whenever it is mutually beneficial, though without being forced into a
political and economic straitjacket - political unification.
Accordingly, we stand for British withdrawal from the European Union. In
place of the EU, we intend to aim towards greater national
self-sufficiency, and to work to restore Britain's family and trading
ties with Australia, Canada and New Zealand, and to trade with the rest
of the world as it suits us. Following our withdrawal from the EU, the
BNP will use the £43 million per day net contribution Britain at present
makes to the European Union to fund many far more useful projects at home.
LAW AND ORDER - crack down on crime!
The BNP will crack down on crime and restore public safety and
confidence. We will free the police and courts from the politically
correct straitjacket that is stopping them from doing their job
properly. The liberal fixation with the 'rights' of criminals must be
replaced by concern for the rights of victims, and the right of innocent
people not to become victims. We support the re-introduction of corporal
punishment for petty criminals and vandals, and the restoration of
capital punishment for paedophiles, terrorists and murderers as an
option for judges in cases where their guilt is proven beyond dispute,
as by DNA evidence or being caught red-handed.
ECONOMY - British workers first!
Globalisation, with its export of jobs to the Third World, is bringing
ruin and unemployment to British industries and the communities that
depend on them. Accordingly, the BNP calls for the selective exclusion
of foreign-made goods from British markets and the reduction of foreign
imports. We will ensure that our manufactured goods are, wherever
possible, produced in British factories, employing British workers. When
this is done, unemployment in this country will be brought to an end,
and secure, well-paid employment will flourish, at last getting our
people back to work and ending the waste and injustice of having more
than 4 million people in a hidden army of the unemployed concealed by
Labour's statistical fiddles. We further believe that British industry,
commerce, land and other economic and natural assets belong in the final
analysis to the British nation and people. To that end we will restore
our economy and land to British ownership. We also call for preference
in the job market to be given to native Britons. We will take active
steps to break up the socially, economically and politically damaging
monopolies now being established by the supermarket giants. Finally we
will seek to give British workers a stake in the success and prosperity
of the enterprises whose profits their labour creates by encouraging
worker shareholder and co-operative schemes.
EDUCATION - discipline, standards, achievement!
We are against the 'trendy' teaching methods that have made Britain one
of the most poorly educated nations in Europe. We will end the practice
of politically correct indoctrination in all its guises and we will
restore discipline in the classroom, give authority back to teachers and
put far greater emphasis on training young people in the industrial and
technological skills necessary in the modern world. We will also seek to
instill in our young people knowledge of and pride in the history,
cultures and heritage of the native peoples of Britain.
AGRICULTURE - quality before quantity!
We see a strong, healthy agriculture sector as vital to the country.
Britain's farming industry will be encouraged to produce a much greater
part of the nation's need in food products. Priority will be switched
from quantity to quality, as we move from competing in a global economy
to maximum self-sufficiency for Britain. We will ensure a major shift to
healthier and more sustainable organic farming. We are pledged to ensure
the restoration of Britain's once great fishing industry with the
reimposition of the former exclusion zones around our coast.
HEALTH - first-class healthcare for all!
We are wholly committed to a free, fully funded National Health Service
for all British citizens. We will revitalise the Health Service by
boosting staff and bed numbers, slashing unnecessary bureaucracy and by
addressing the root cause of low recruitment and retention - low pay. We
will see to it that no money is given in foreign aid while our own
hospitals are short of beds and the staff to run them. More emphasis
must be placed on healthy living with greater understanding of sickness
prevention through physical exercise, a healthier environment and
improved diets.
TRANSPORT - time to invest!
Increased investment is needed in Britain's public transport system to
bring it up to the highest standards in the world. The fiasco of rail
privatisation with different companies running services and track
leading to higher fares and lower safety also needs to be resolved.
Congestion of our towns and cities must be eased by the provision of
greater incentives to use rail and bus transport instead of private
cars. The first step is to end the crime and squalor that puts so many
people off public transport. Motorists must not be made the scapegoats
for government failure. Fuel tax should be cut, motorway speed limits
raised, and hidden speed cameras should be banned. Far more must be done
to encourage the development and use of cleaner fuels.
ENVIRONMENT - a cleaner, greener future!
Our ideal for Britain is that of a clean, beautiful country, free of
pollution in all its forms. We will enforce standards to curb those
practices, whether by business or the individual, which cause
environmental damage. "The polluter pays to clean up the mess" must
become a fact of life, not an electioneering slogan. In towns we would
work to replace the brutalist modernism of 1960s-style-architecture with
a blend of traditional local styles and materials and ensure that
developments take place on a more human scale.
FOREIGN AID - time to spend our money on our own people!
We reject the idea that Britain must forever be obliged to subsidise the
incompetence and corruption of Third World states by supplying them with
financial aid. We will link foreign aid with our voluntary resettlement
policy, whereby those nations taking significant numbers of people back
to their homelands will need cash to help absorb those returning. The
billions of pounds saved every year by this policy will also be
reallocated to vital services in Britain.
PENSIONERS - pensioners before asylum seekers!
The conditions in which many of Britain's old people are forced to live
are a national disgrace. We are pledged to ensure that all our old folk
are able to live in comfortable homes, and will restore the earnings
link with pensions. Elderly people who have paid a lifetime of taxes and
reared families should not have to sell their homes to pay for care.
NORTHERN IRELAND - an end to sectarianism!
Britain has shamefully allowed the terrorists in N.I. to come close to
winning when the IRA could have been destroyed years ago. Government
weakness has led to hundreds of deaths and given those same terrorists a
share in government. We would end all attempts to force the people of
Northern Ireland to accept foreign interference in their affairs and
deal with terrorism - from whatever side - once and for all. No one with
links to a terrorist organisation that refuses to lay down its arms
should be allowed to enter government. We would abolish state-supported
segregation in education. In the long run, we wish to end the conflict
in Ireland by welcoming Eire as well as Ulster as equal partners in a
federation of the nations of the British Isles.
DEFENCE - no more cuts!
Successive cuts in defence spending have left Britain's armed forces
perilously weak. We will boost Britain's armed forces to ensure that
they are able to deal with any emergency, and defend our homeland and
our independence. We will bring our troops back from Germany and
withdraw from NATO, since recent political developments make both
commitments obsolete. We will close all foreign military bases on
British soil, and refuse to risk British lives in meddling
'peace-keeping' missions in parts of the world where no British
interests are at stake - a position of armed neutrality. We will also
restore national service for our young with the option of civil or
military service.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS - Britain's interests first!
Britain's foreign relations should be determined by the protection of
our own national interest and not by our like or dislike of other
nations' internal politics. We would have no quarrel with any nation
that does not threaten British interests. We will maintain an
independent foreign policy of our own, and not a spineless subservience
to the USA, the 'international community', or any other country.
DEMOCRACY - letting the people decide!
The British people invented modern Parliamentary democracy. Yet in
recent years the British people have been denied their democratic
rights. On issue after issue, the views of the majority of British
people have been ignored and overridden by a Politically Correct 'élite'
which thinks it knows best. On immigration, on Capital Punishment, on
the surrender of British sovereignty to the EU and in numerous other
areas, democracy has been absent as Labour, Tories and Lib-Dems conspire
in election after election to offer the British people no real choice on
such vital issues. The BNP exists to give the British people, that
choice, and thus to restore and defend the basic democratic rights we
have all been denied. We favour more democracy, not less, not just at
national but at regional and local level. Power should be devolved to
the lowest level possible so that local communities can make decisions
which affect them. We will remove legal curbs on freedom of speech
imposed by successive Governments over the last 40 years. We will
implement a Bill of Rights guaranteeing fundamental freedoms to the
British people. We will ensure that ordinary British people have real
democratic power over their own lives and that Government, local and
national, is truly accountable to the people who elect it.
Stephen Glynn
>
> toatsy...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>
>> My name's Chris and i shall be old enough to vote at the next general
>> election in 2005, however, i have NO CLUE whatsever on who i should
>> vote for. Can you guys help me? I need some information such as what
>> each party's policies are etc and what their stances are on certain
>> topics. Also,i would like o know which newspapaers are right wing/left
>> wing etc
>> Thanks, Chris
>>
Mark Spacey wrote:
> VOTE BNP
> THE ONLY OPPOSITION TO CORRUPTION AND WAR
> Policies ?
<snip>
No, Mark, I don't think that's what he meant when he said he 'hadn't got
a clue'.
Steve
abelard
<rsvptorob-u...@yahoo.com>
typed:
>toatsy...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>|| My name's Chris and i shall be old enough to vote at the next general
>|| election in 2005, however, i have NO CLUE whatsever on who i should
>|| vote for. Can you guys help me? I need some information such as what
>|| each party's policies are etc and what their stances are on certain
>|| topics. Also,i would like o know which newspapaers are right
>|| wing/left wing etc
>
>Why bother voting, your insignifant vote won't change anything.
you do have an irresponsible approach....
> But if you
>think it might, then if your reasons for voting are purely selfish, ie which
>party is best for you, then you're a natural tory so vote that way. Not that
>there's anything to differentiate the main parties these days.
so...the tories are 'selfish'...and all the rest are the same...
that's enlightening....
>As far as newspapers go, it doesn't really matter how you categorise them,
>try reading them and if you don't agree with the particular editorial slant
>of one, try another one.
in other words...buy a paper that tells you what you want to hear....
that way you will learn nothing.....
it this your 'philosophy'?
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news and comment service, logic,
energy, education, politics, etc 1,009,080 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
librar...@*nospam*btinternet.com
Not Labour, because their stance on civil liberties is nuts. (and
they're botching tax and the economy over time)
Not the Tories, because we need them to be defeated badly enough to
get rid of Howard next time around
Not the LDs, because they're economic ignoramuses and in favour of
both the European constitution, and the euro, neither of which are
even remotely serious
Not the BNP, because they're hopeless from A-Z. But enough to say that
they have the sorts of economic policies that brought in the IMF
Not UKIP, because they're not a serious party, ditto the Greens etc
I'll probably vote Tory, because my MP isn't a moron, or hold my nose
and vote Lib Dem. 50:50 at this stage
None of the papers are much good - easily the single best source of
information on the world is the Economist. It has its biases, but it
also reports *data*.
--
cheers
www.libraryofalex.com
Wherever book may be burned, men also, in the end, are burned
Alan G
>My name's Chris and i shall be old enough to vote at the next general
>election in 2005, however, i have NO CLUE whatsever on who i should
>vote for. Can you guys help me?
Easily.
Of the three main parties only theLibdems are against ID cards.
> I need some information such as what
>each party's policies are etc and what their stances are on certain
>topics.
They all have web sites but you need to remember that politicians lie.
>Also,i would like o know which newspapaers are right wing/left
>wing etc
The terms don't really apply anymore since every party is socialist to
some extent. The difference is in libertarian and authoritarian now.
Most newspapers seem to support the authoritarians. Local press are
probably more guilty of this than nationals. Hardly suprising since
journalists are the lowest life form in the entire cosmos. Far better
to dig into the web. Most new laws and proposals are on line now so
you can read direct rather than get the biased precis from the press.
Check out statewatch, privacy international, The Register. All good
sources except the latter is generally concerned with IT industry
reporting.
abelard
typed:
you'll learn far more here than from the fossil media....
also read the better blogs and independent news services on the web...
independent does not mean 'unbiased'.....every person has their own
agenda....so read different points of view...
read books....
read some weeklies now and again....choose them off the shelves when
sommat interests you....
trust your instincts and follow your curiosity.....
the fossil media is mostly tripe...it'll tell you if a plane has crashed,
who won some footer game.....and little else....
i am somewhat to the right of most of the commies posting here....
here are some useful and thoughtful sources which i read fairly
regularly......they will get you started....
http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com/
http://www.belgraviadispatch.com/
http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/
http://jameshammerton.blogspot.com/
most of the lefties just moan a lot, and i get to read plenty of that
stuff here.
believe just about nothing you are told about 'economics'....it is mostly
disguised politics...and worse than that, it isn't even sound
economics....that includes much of what you will get from books
and uni.....
there is one hell of a lot to learn.....
and do vote, whatever the cynical old fogies here tell you.....
regards...
abelard
libraryofalex@*nospam*btinternet.com
typed:
>On 22 Dec 2004 06:22:06 -0800, "toatsy...@yahoo.co.uk"
><toatsy...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>My name's Chris and i shall be old enough to vote at the next general
>>election in 2005, however, i have NO CLUE whatsever on who i should
>>vote for. Can you guys help me? I need some information such as what
>>each party's policies are etc and what their stances are on certain
>>topics. Also,i would like o know which newspapaers are right wing/left
>>wing etc
>
>Not Labour, because their stance on civil liberties is nuts. (and
>they're botching tax and the economy over time)
>
>Not the Tories, because we need them to be defeated badly enough to
>get rid of Howard next time around
>
>Not the LDs, because they're economic ignoramuses and in favour of
>both the European constitution, and the euro, neither of which are
>even remotely serious
>
>Not the BNP, because they're hopeless from A-Z. But enough to say that
>they have the sorts of economic policies that brought in the IMF
>
>Not UKIP, because they're not a serious party, ditto the Greens etc
>
>I'll probably vote Tory, because my MP isn't a moron, or hold my nose
>and vote Lib Dem. 50:50 at this stage
no probs with this lot...
>None of the papers are much good - easily the single best source of
>information on the world is the Economist. It has its biases, but it
>also reports *data*.
but not convinced by this....it's a reasonable source but not highly
reliable....it tends to hoe to an economic fundamentalist' line
which is often very unsound....
i read it among other sources....but i also read 'fortune' and often
'forbes'....both of which imv are, if anything, more down to earth...
a good balance also can be had from the national geographic which
is lately becoming increasingly useful......
regards....
abelard
typed:
>My name's Chris and i shall be old enough to vote at the next general
>election in 2005, however, i have NO CLUE whatsever on who i should
>vote for.
should have mentioned...
one way of voting is to write on your voting slip....
'none of the above'
Gaz
<libraryofalex@*nospam*btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:2c9js0leg03t51ma3...@4ax.com...
> On 22 Dec 2004 06:22:06 -0800, "toatsy...@yahoo.co.uk"
> <toatsy...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>My name's Chris and i shall be old enough to vote at the next general
>>election in 2005, however, i have NO CLUE whatsever on who i should
>>vote for. Can you guys help me? I need some information such as what
>>each party's policies are etc and what their stances are on certain
>>topics. Also,i would like o know which newspapaers are right wing/left
>>wing etc
>
> I'll probably vote Tory, because my MP isn't a moron, or hold my nose
> and vote Lib Dem. 50:50 at this stage
If you cant decide on 'parties', then look to the individual. All the major
parties will have selected their candidates in your area by now, write to
each of the candidates at their local association HQ, should be in the
yellow pages, explain what you have wrote here, and see what you get..
Subtract points from the sitting candidate, as they have probably been doing
the job a long time and are far to polished, also, it can be very impressive
the first time you recieve a letter on House of Commons headed paper,
remember that the other contenders dont have access to this.
In the replys you recieve, look for the following:
i) An unsigned letter.
ii) A misspelling of your name or address
iii) Bland party bashing, 'we would do this', and 'they did that'.
Any of the above three would be good enough reason to not vote for that
candidate.
You will also, in your local press, once the election has been called, will
find notice of a 'husting' or series of 'hustings', this is usually a good
knockabout between the candidates with some local well known person chairing
it. It will be a free public meeting, where you will get to ask a question.
Watch out for the slime ball, who on asking him a question you want to know
the answer to, he gives you the answer to the question he wanted you to
ask..... They do it on Question Time, an experienced chairman will pick up
on it...........
Gaz
Rob
|| On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 14:53:49 -0000, "Rob"
|| <rsvptorob-u...@yahoo.com>
||
|| typed:
||
||| toatsy...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
||||| My name's Chris and i shall be old enough to vote at the next
||||| general election in 2005, however, i have NO CLUE whatsever on
||||| who i should vote for. Can you guys help me? I need some
||||| information such as what each party's policies are etc and what
||||| their stances are on certain topics. Also,i would like o know
||||| which newspapaers are right wing/left wing etc
|||
||| Why bother voting, your insignifant vote won't change anything.
||
|| you do have an irresponsible approach....
Why irresponsible? If one believes the electoral system is unrepresentative,
corrupt and futile, then participation is unlikely to alter the status quo.
||| But if you
||| think it might, then if your reasons for voting are purely selfish,
||| ie which party is best for you, then you're a natural tory so vote
||| that way. Not that there's anything to differentiate the main
||| parties these days.
||
|| so...the tories are 'selfish'...and all the rest are the same...
|| that's enlightening....
No that's not what I meant. The natural party for those that do care about
no one but themselves is the tories (imo obviously), but that doesn't mean
that all tory voters are that way inclined, many will be otherwise decent
people who can't bring themselves to vote for the labour shower. As for
being the same I'm referring to the parliamentary parties, not the voters.
||| As far as newspapers go, it doesn't really matter how you
||| categorise them, try reading them and if you don't agree with the
||| particular editorial slant of one, try another one.
||
|| in other words...buy a paper that tells you what you want to hear....
|| that way you will learn nothing.....
||
|| it this your 'philosophy'?
No quite the opposite. The OP was asking about the political leanings of
individual newspapers. My advice is not to rely on others to tell him, but
to find out for himself, but more than that not to attatch labels too
readily.
--
Rob
Ian Bailey
Gaz wrote:
> <toatsy...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1103725326.0...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > My name's Chris and i shall be old enough to vote at the next
general
> > election in 2005, however, i have NO CLUE whatsever on who i should
> > vote for.
>
> Vote how most other people vote, work out who is going to cost you
the most,
> and vote for somebody else.
Still no such thing as society eh? I'm alright jack and fuck everybody
else?
Ian
Alan G
Any public meetings addressed by either tory or labour candidates in
this area are usually guarded by police and are invitation only.
Anyone getting in and daring to ask embarassing questions will be
quickly and posssibly violently ejected. Can't speak for the Libdems
or the BNP cos they never have any public meetings. The last time I
spoke to a prospective MP it was to David Sutch and he wasn't having
any public meetings. Just getting pissed in the Brown Cow. .
>
Chris X
"abelard" <abel...@abelard.org> wrote in message
news:eecjs01k4uqh49e27...@4ax.com...
> On 22 Dec 2004 06:22:06 -0800, "toatsy...@yahoo.co.uk"
> <toatsy...@yahoo.co.uk>
>
> typed:
>
>>My name's Chris and i shall be old enough to vote at the next general
>>election in 2005, however, i have NO CLUE whatsever on who i should
>>vote for.
>
> should have mentioned...
> one way of voting is to write on your voting slip....
> 'none of the above'
Which changes absolutely nothing and does nobody any good whatsoever.
Chris, let me refer you to the good advice given earlier by Mr Spacey - Vote
BNP.
"They like to pretend the coming elections are a fight between several
parties of the British people - It's NOTHING OF THE KIND! Merely a fight
betwen two, maybe three big money combines, that and nothing else! When they
speak of 'democracy' they don't mean democracy by the people or of the
people, they mean FINANCIAL democracy in which money counts, and nothing but
money!"
http://www.bnp.org.uk
http://www.bnp.org.uk/policies/policies.htm
http://www.boycottisrael.org/Is_goods.htm
http://www.boycottusa.org/usa_goods.htm
http://www.nowarforisrael.com
Chris X
Well, there is no such thing as "left" or "right" any longer in British
politics. What we have today is a clear choice between, on one hand,
regaining control of our own country, our own sovereignty and borders,
preserving and enhancing our civil liberties and putting people first - or
on the other hand,
becoming more of a minimum-waged, shallow, culturally bankrupt 51st State of
Moronica, embroiled as time goes by in ever more illegal wars as our budding
police state erupts into full bloom with constant, 24/7 computerised
surveillance of everyone.
As for newspapers, I wouldn't bother. They are there only to disseminate the
message of their masters in the OPWTN (One Party With Three Names), who, in
turn, are given their orders (and bribes) by their masters in Washington and
Tel Aviv. I urge you to take a long hard look at just *who* owns the media
in this country - one of the most important things that a nationalist
government will do is pass legislation to ensure that the media will never
again fall into the hands of the foreign parasites who own it now.
Start your research with these articles;
http://www.bnp.org.uk/columnists/docdiary2.php?docId=9
http://www.bnp.org.uk/columnists/docdiary2.php?docId=11
http://www.bnp.org.uk/columnists/docdiary2.php?docId=10
Who owns your local "newspaper" - check here !
http://www.bnp.org.uk/articles/gannet_grouplist.htm
Frank Booth Snr
no longer have a clue who to vote for. Quite honestly, politics in this
country is finished. Of the major parties, whoever you vote for, it will
make little difference. All you do know is that whichever party gets into
government, they will unashamedly lie and deceive the public, and the
current government has been setting new standards in doing just that. And
they will get away with it. If you vote for a minor party, they won't get
in. So I would not lose too much sleep wondering who to vote for. Until an
honest and tough party leader with specific policies with which you agree,
emerges in one of the major parties, best to stay away from polling booths.
Alan G
wrote:
That is the reasoning behind democracy as practised in the UK.
Greatest benefit for the greatest number. The only way to get that is
to vote in self interest. If the majority want fluffy pink pussy cats
in every home then that's what you'll get. Even if you're taxed to the
hilt to buy and dye them.
Gaz
"Ian Bailey" <ianjb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1103740356.4...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
People nearly always vote for who they think will make them better off,
either through better social benefits, higher paid public sector employment,
increased minimum wage etc etc etc.
Gaz
> Ian
>
librar...@*nospam*btinternet.com
wrote:
>>None of the papers are much good - easily the single best source of
>>information on the world is the Economist. It has its biases, but it
>>also reports *data*.
>
>but not convinced by this....it's a reasonable source but not highly
> reliable....it tends to hoe to an economic fundamentalist' line
> which is often very unsound....
Sure. But then who doesn't?
>i read it among other sources....but i also read 'fortune' and often
> 'forbes'....both of which imv are, if anything, more down to earth...
But near comic-book in their lack of depth
>a good balance also can be had from the national geographic which
> is lately becoming increasingly useful......
Agreed. Similar New Scientist, but they are very limited in scope.
The Spectator seems to have found its legs after more than a decade of
drivel
abelard
libraryofalex@*nospam*btinternet.com
typed:
>On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 18:39:44 +0100, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
>wrote:
>
>>>None of the papers are much good - easily the single best source of
>>>information on the world is the Economist. It has its biases, but it
>>>also reports *data*.
>>
>>but not convinced by this....it's a reasonable source but not highly
>> reliable....it tends to hoe to an economic fundamentalist' line
>> which is often very unsound....
>
>Sure. But then who doesn't?
sigh....yes....
see my latest fred on oil....
>>i read it among other sources....but i also read 'fortune' and often
>> 'forbes'....both of which imv are, if anything, more down to earth...
>
>But near comic-book in their lack of depth
i think that would be nearly fair but a mite overstated!
>>a good balance also can be had from the national geographic which
>> is lately becoming increasingly useful......
>
>Agreed. Similar New Scientist, but they are very limited in scope.
useful, but i trust them as far as i can spit.....
>The Spectator seems to have found its legs after more than a decade of
>drivel
certainly useful of late....
i see they'r giving less away in recent weeks...
Chris X
> On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 18:59:46 -0000, "Chris X" <Chr...@postmaster.co.uk>
>
> typed:
> this was item 23 on the 25 points of the national socialist party
> of germany....better know as the nazi party...
>
> 23 We demand that there be a legal campaign against those who propagate
> deliberate political lies and disseminate them through the press. In order
> to make possible the creation of a German press, we demand:
>
> (a) All editors and their assistants on newspapers published in the German
> language shall be German citizens.
Nothing wrong with that.
> (c) All financial interests in or in any way affecting German newspapers
> shall be forbidden to non-Germans by law
Nor with that.
> while our tame national socialist is correct to claim that all main uk
> parties are now socialist....
LOL ! I don't remember typing that ....
> he accidentally omitted to tell you that
> his was the most extreme version....
> doubtless he will thank me copiously for my assistance in correcting
> his understandable oversight....
That's Uncle Abie, our resident rabid 51st stater. He detests the idea of
the sovereign, nation state and is a vehement cheerleader for Moronican
imperialism, or as he prefers to call it, the "police action in Irak" !
abelard
typed:
><toatsy...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
this was a message from our resident national socialist....
this was item 23 on the 25 points of the national socialist party
of germany....better know as the nazi party...
23 We demand that there be a legal campaign against those who propagate
deliberate political lies and disseminate them through the press. In order
to make possible the creation of a German press, we demand:
(a) All editors and their assistants on newspapers published in the German
language shall be German citizens.
(b) Non-German newspapers shall only be published with the express
permission of the State. They must not be published in the German
language.
(c) All financial interests in or in any way affecting German newspapers
shall be forbidden to non-Germans by law, and we demand that the
punishment for transgressing this law be the immediate suppression of the
newspaper and the expulsion of the non-Germans from the Reich.
Newspapers transgressing against the common welfare shall be suppressed.
We demand legal action against those tendencies in art and literature that
have a disruptive influence upon the life of our folk, and that any
organizations that offend against the foregoing demands shall be
dissolved.
you may read the rest here..
http://www.abelard.org/hitler/hitler.htm#manifesto
while our tame national socialist is correct to claim that all main uk
parties are now socialist....he accidentally omitted to tell you that
his was the most extreme version....
doubtless he will thank me copiously for my assistance in correcting
his understandable oversight....
regards....
abelard
typed:
i 'forgot' to point out that hakenkreuz is not exactly british.....
>> (c) All financial interests in or in any way affecting German newspapers
>> shall be forbidden to non-Germans by law
>
>Nor with that.
i know you believe that....i can't see why you don't just post it
untouched on your daft site....
>> while our tame national socialist is correct to claim that all main uk
>> parties are now socialist....
>
>LOL ! I don't remember typing that ....
you would have if you'd thought of it....
>> he accidentally omitted to tell you that
>> his was the most extreme version....
>> doubtless he will thank me copiously for my assistance in correcting
>> his understandable oversight....
>
>That's Uncle Abie, our resident rabid 51st stater. He detests the idea of
>the sovereign, nation state
not at all....i just don't have your socialist ambitions to build a wall
around states...to keep all your slaves in....
>and is a vehement cheerleader for Moronican
>imperialism, or as he prefers to call it, the "police action in Irak" !
you are confusing issues again hakenkreuz....
you going out to support your ba'athist socialist hero in his
coming travails?
abelard
typed:
i never can tell whether you socialists lie purposefully....
or if you are just plain ignorant 'cos you don't read....
http://www.abelard.org/briefings/socialist_religion.htm
"I think we’ve been through a period where too many people have been given
to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to
cope with it. ‘I have a problem, I’ll get a grant.’ ‘I’m homeless, the
government must house me.’ They’re casting their problem on society. And,
you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and
women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except
through people, and people must look to themselves first. It’s our duty to
look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People
have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations.
There’s no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an
obligation."
Margaret Thatcher, 3 October 1987
>I'm alright jack and fuck everybody
>else?
if you're alright jack...shouldn't you start considering looking after
your neighbours as maggie suggested?
Alan G
wrote:
>On 22 Dec 2004 10:32:36 -0800, "Ian Bailey" <ianjb...@gmail.com>
>
> typed:
>
>>
>>Gaz wrote:
>>> <toatsy...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:1103725326.0...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>> > My name's Chris and i shall be old enough to vote at the next
>>general
>>> > election in 2005, however, i have NO CLUE whatsever on who i should
>>> > vote for.
>>>
>>> Vote how most other people vote, work out who is going to cost you
>>the most,
>>> and vote for somebody else.
>>
>>Still no such thing as society eh?
>
>i never can tell whether you socialists lie purposefully....
> or if you are just plain ignorant 'cos you don't read....
>
>http://www.abelard.org/briefings/socialist_religion.htm
>"I think we’ve been through a period where too many people have been given
>to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to
>cope with it. ‘I have a problem, I’ll get a grant.’ ‘I’m homeless, the
>government must house me.’
Since the government controls housing he has a point. In a free market
economy he would have more choice.
Of course that free market economy would let people, burn wood and
coal to keep warm in winter.
Ian Bailey
So she did say "there is no such thing as society". So precicely where
did I lie when I said that she'd said that?
> >I'm alright jack and fuck everybody
> >else?
>
> if you're alright jack...shouldn't you start considering looking
after
> your neighbours as maggie suggested?
Isn't the point that Maggie DIDN'T do as she suggested and didn't look
after those who needed help - even added another few million to the
pile for good measure?
Ian
Paul Hyett
toatsy...@yahoo.co.uk wrote :
>My name's Chris and i shall be old enough to vote at the next general
>election in 2005, however, i have NO CLUE whatsever on who i should
>each party's policies are etc and what their stances are on certain
>topics. Also,i would like o know which newspapaers are right wing/left
>wing etc
Well, first of all it seems like a good idea to list what *you* want the
gov't to be doing.
Then visit various party websites, to see what they claim they want to
do. It really depends on how much research you want to do.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
Claire Easthope
> My name's Chris and i shall be old enough to vote at the next general
> election in 2005, however, i have NO CLUE whatsever on who i should
> vote for. Can you guys help me? I need some information such as what
> each party's policies are etc and what their stances are on certain
> topics.
That could take a while. Let’s narrow it down a bit shall we. Firstly
let's start with what matters to you? What do you care about?
> Also,i would like o know which newspapaers are right wing/left
> wing etc
Left Wing (liberal):
The Guardian
The Independant
The Mirror
Right Wing:
The Telegraph
The Mail
Right Wing but back Tony Blair's Government:
The Times
The Sun
> Thanks,
> Chris
>
librar...@*nospam*btinternet.com
wrote:
>>Still no such thing as society eh?
>
>i never can tell whether you socialists lie purposefully....
> or if you are just plain ignorant 'cos you don't read....
>
>http://www.abelard.org/briefings/socialist_religion.htm
>"I think we’ve been through a period where too many people have been given
>to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to
>cope with it. ‘I have a problem, I’ll get a grant.’ ‘I’m homeless, the
>government must house me.’ They’re casting their problem on society. And,
>you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and
>women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except
>through people, and people must look to themselves first. It’s our duty to
>look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People
>have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations.
>There’s no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an
>obligation."
>Margaret Thatcher, 3 October 1987
Despite this additional context, it's still an extraordinarily daft
thing to say. National insurance for healthcare is a different
proposition than individual and family healthcare
librar...@*nospam*btinternet.com
wrote:
>>>>None of the papers are much good - easily the single best source of
>>>>information on the world is the Economist. It has its biases, but it
>>>>also reports *data*.
>>>
>>>but not convinced by this....it's a reasonable source but not highly
>>> reliable....it tends to hoe to an economic fundamentalist' line
>>> which is often very unsound....
>>
>>Sure. But then who doesn't?
>
>sigh....yes....
The advantage is the clarity of the statement of orthodoxy - you can
challenge it much better than the mush that usually arrives
>see my latest fred on oil....
OK
>>>i read it among other sources....but i also read 'fortune' and often
>>> 'forbes'....both of which imv are, if anything, more down to earth...
>>
>>But near comic-book in their lack of depth
>
>i think that would be nearly fair but a mite overstated!
Indeed
>>>a good balance also can be had from the national geographic which
>>> is lately becoming increasingly useful......
>>
>>Agreed. Similar New Scientist, but they are very limited in scope.
>
>useful, but i trust them as far as i can spit.....
>
>>The Spectator seems to have found its legs after more than a decade of
>>drivel
>
>certainly useful of late....
>i see they'r giving less away in recent weeks...
May?
Harold
>
> if you're alright jack...shouldn't you start considering looking after
> your neighbours as maggie suggested?
>
"goebbels, goebbels, goebbels, goebbels, goebbels, ...".
I think they'll be back tomorrow for their Christmas dinner.
Joe Hutcheon
>
> i never can tell whether you socialists lie purposefully....
> or if you are just plain ignorant 'cos you don't read....
>
> http://www.abelard.org/briefings/socialist_religion.htm
> you know, there is no such thing as society. Margaret Thatcher, 3 October
1987
Looks like a proof that Ian's statement was correct.
abelard
typed:
you're a socialist....to be a socialist you need to have forgotten what
truth means...
you appear to be managing that qualification with aplomb...
>> >I'm alright jack and fuck everybody
>> >else?
>>
>> if you're alright jack...shouldn't you start considering looking
>after
>> your neighbours as maggie suggested?
>
>Isn't the point that Maggie DIDN'T do as she suggested and didn't look
>after those who needed help - even added another few million to the
>pile for good measure?
no, the point is that it is not the job of government to do that...
it is your job....
you have no idea of what a free society means.....
you have been raised as a sheep in a sheep pen...
and you baaaaaaa beautifully....
regards...
abelard
typed:
see the answer i gave to a previous questioner....
regards..
abelard
libraryofalex@*nospam*btinternet.com
typed:
national insurance is not insurance....there is no fund....
it is tax....
or am i misreading your intent...
regards....
abelard
libraryofalex@*nospam*btinternet.com
typed:
>On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 00:00:33 +0100, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
>wrote:
>
>>>>>None of the papers are much good - easily the single best source of
>>>>>information on the world is the Economist. It has its biases, but it
>>>>>also reports *data*.
>>>>
>>>>but not convinced by this....it's a reasonable source but not highly
>>>> reliable....it tends to hoe to an economic fundamentalist' line
>>>> which is often very unsound....
>>>
>>>Sure. But then who doesn't?
>>
>>sigh....yes....
>
>The advantage is the clarity of the statement of orthodoxy - you can
>challenge it much better than the mush that usually arrives
ok....i did think later that the american offerings tend to be better on
the micro level...
>>see my latest fred on oil....
>
>OK
>
>>>>i read it among other sources....but i also read 'fortune' and often
>>>> 'forbes'....both of which imv are, if anything, more down to earth...
>>>
>>>But near comic-book in their lack of depth
>>
>>i think that would be nearly fair but a mite overstated!
>
>Indeed
>
>>>>a good balance also can be had from the national geographic which
>>>> is lately becoming increasingly useful......
>>>
>>>Agreed. Similar New Scientist, but they are very limited in scope.
>>
>>useful, but i trust them as far as i can spit.....
>>
>>>The Spectator seems to have found its legs after more than a decade of
>>>drivel
>>
>>certainly useful of late....
>>i see they'r giving less away in recent weeks...
>
>May?
you may....
no i meant their site...~3 weeks....
Harold
But you aren't using abelard's 'logic'.
Alan G
wrote:
>On 23 Dec 2004 00:20:55 -0800, "Ian Bailey" <ianjb...@gmail.com>
>
> typed:
>>Isn't the point that Maggie DIDN'T do as she suggested and didn't look
>>after those who needed help - even added another few million to the
>>pile for good measure?
>
>no, the point is that it is not the job of government to do that...
> it is your job....
Only if the government doesn't have you arrested for trying.
>you have no idea of what a free society means.....
I do and what we got under the Tory Bitch Goddess and her goblins was
a less free society.
Anubis
wrote:
>>you have no idea of what a free society means.....
>I do and what we got under the Tory Bitch Goddess and her goblins was
>a less free society.
Just like the sheep in line to the slaughter house, the British are
not aware that they live in a totalitarian dictatorship.
Once you become an unarmed wimp peasant from having your guns
confiscated, you enter into a slave relationship with the criminal
ruling class.
--
Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/vrwc.html
"Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future."
--Niels Bohr
librar...@*nospam*btinternet.com
wrote:
>>>>>but not convinced by this....it's a reasonable source but not highly
>>>>> reliable....it tends to hoe to an economic fundamentalist' line
>>>>> which is often very unsound....
>>>>
>>>>Sure. But then who doesn't?
>>>
>>>sigh....yes....
>>
>>The advantage is the clarity of the statement of orthodoxy - you can
>>challenge it much better than the mush that usually arrives
>
>ok....i did think later that the american offerings tend to be better on
> the micro level...
Often
>>>>The Spectator seems to have found its legs after more than a decade of
>>>>drivel
>>>
>>>certainly useful of late....
>>>i see they'r giving less away in recent weeks...
>>
>>May?
>
>you may....
>no i meant their site...~3 weeks....
:) Right
Ian Bailey
Anubis wrote:
> Just like the sheep in line to the slaughter house, the British are
> not aware that they live in a totalitarian dictatorship.
>
> Once you become an unarmed wimp peasant from having your guns
> confiscated, you enter into a slave relationship with the criminal
> ruling class.
This must be an interesting new definition of "totalitarian
dictatorship" - one in which the "unarmed wimp peasants" are not only
allowed a vote but keep being offered more and more opportunities to do
so......
Ian
Anubis
wrote:
>> Once you become an unarmed wimp peasant from having your guns
>> confiscated, you enter into a slave relationship with the criminal
>> ruling class.
>This must be an interesting new definition of "totalitarian
>dictatorship" - one in which the "unarmed wimp peasants" are not only
>allowed a vote but keep being offered more and more opportunities to do
>so......
Since when did being allowed to vote serve as the criterion for not
having a totalitarian dictatorship?
Alan G
wrote:
>
You think a representative democracy where the government can have
overwhelming power despite having a minority of the votes a *good
thing*?
Further do you consider a representative democracy where there is no
constitutional protection for individuals and minorities a *good
thing*?