Is there no depth to which Bliar won't sink?
Excellent points particularly Ernie and dannyh, and I would proffer that whilst the ‘corrupt liar’s’ continue to enjoy the fruits of their cynical realities, the system will not change.
The system needs to change to reflect the disenchantment, the turn out’s are reducing because we, the voter’s, the populous, the masses are given only the option to vote for them. Ballot slips need to have the additional option of ‘ None of the above’. I would like to see how many of the voting public turned out if that were the case, many more I feel.
And yet, the masses are reluctant to disturb the status quo. Why is this? Is it fear? Fear that if we make a fuss we might have to do something about it and leave the relative security of our relatively safe existences? Do we feel so constrained by the state administration, the regulatory society that seeks to control the masses, through divide and conquer? It’s been going on since humankind got itself a society ( with one or two exceptions ).
As for Bliar and the media and the police. They are all at it. All of them corrupt at various levels to various extremes, but they were and still are thick as thieves, as bad and yet as good as they need to be to maintain their power, influence and personal wealth. So typified by the knee jerk reaction to bail out the banks that hold their assets, at the expense of the masses. Extracting more control, creating more division and securing their own ‘security’.
Remarkably, I regard this not as conspiracy on a national or global level. Just many like-minded, self serving people who work the system to their own gains. Maybe the internet can provide a voice for the masses? I hoped it would. However, it seems that much of that is either monitored or used to fuel certain situations.
People need to vote with their feet and walk away from the polling stations, en masse. Is there anything in our constitution that makes an election void with a less than x% turnout?Posted 4 years agoteamhurtmoreSubscriber
Slack Alice, interesting points but I lose the argument with the penultimate sentance. How does walking away en masse help? Don’t people need to engage more, actively contact their MPs, be demanding, ask them questions, make them be part of the political process. How can we complain, if we don’t participate? It’s like arguing that the coalition should not be able to do XYZ because they don’t have a mandate. Well oK, they do not have the support of the majority of the voters, but they still have a job to do. They cannot do nothing, The more that voters get involved, the more active their engagement with their MPs, the more likely that they will behave in the way that we expect and deserve (IMO). We are too passive, time to engage and make these people remember that they are there to serve us not themselves.Posted 4 years agonick1962Member
nick1962 – Member
Boo hoo. You voted for him and made him what he is. Deal with it.
Or a bankrupt politcal system did morelike.
Setting aside almost 40% of the electorate who didn’t vote in either of the general elections he won, the majority who did vote, voted against Tony Blair, twice.
Three times not twice 😳Posted 4 years agoslackaliceMember
Yes thm, I concur, to a point. My reluctance to fully embrace your point is that I’m not sure how we actively participate and engage and challenge the incumbents, given their very nature and personal interests?
I’m of no doubt that many politicians enter the fray with all the good altruistic intent. I wonder how many of them are able to realise their initial goals once they themselves get caught up in a system that is not quite so altruistic.
My thought of not going to the polls doesn’t feed their ego’s. I would like to think the message from the voting populous becomes a more forceful one, without the use of force.
And zippykona, if spoilt ballots are counted, are their numbers revealed in the same way as the candidate’s are? If so, spoil away!Posted 4 years agojulianwilsonMember
The more that voters get involved, the more active their engagement with their MPs, the more likely that they will behave in the way that we expect and deserve (IMO).
I would love it to be like this.
But risk of being ‘whipped’, deselected and plain old “I got my seat on my party’s policies, not my own reputation” apathy seems to paralyse most into trotting out (or getting their interns to cut and paste!) party memo’s and approved ‘lines’ in response to requests over and above intervening for individual consituents. Sarah Woolaston being a local exception to this; though she will be a fun one to watch closer to election time!
The amount of my very educated colleagues who have never written to an mp about something is a real shame. 🙁
 Moreso if the transparency of lobbying act is actually enforced in the way the charities are fearing it will be.Posted 4 years agojambalayaSubscriber
If you cannot be bothered with your MP consider the following told to me by a friend who does a lot of work with local government “if you think the prime minister is a bit clueless just imagine what a rank and file mo is like and then think about quite how incompetant and corrupt are those in local government”Posted 4 years agochickenmanSubscriber
Blair doesn’t do much for me but I’m not sure that integrity is the sole quality required of a leader; if you put you hands up, admit your mistakes and resign at the slightest misjudgement, then you’d have a change in government every two weeks (think of Carter resigning after the Tehran fiasco where half a dozen American service personnel died)Posted 4 years ago
New Labour was created to be media proof after their nice, decent and honest leaders during the ’80s were systematically ripped apart by the media for being lefty socialists. The fact is that it is not poor people who vote and for all us nice middle class people complaining about looking after the less well off, when it comes to the crunch of voting in a government that will take some of our wealth from us and give it to the (potentially) undeserving poor, we haven’t shown much enthusiasm for this in the past!
labour were elected in 97 on the strength of what we, the public said we wanted: Better healthcare, better schools and more money for the less well off in society. We also said we didn’t want to pay more taxes for these improvements. Labour more or less delivered on these pledges and brought in the right to roam; there would certainly be no trail centres for us lot to mosey round without Blair’s government’s attitude to public use of publicly owned land.
bankrupting the country and the Iraq war are of course a massive legacy that have wiped out in people’s minds the good things that were achieved.
I’d still rather have a Blair than a Cameron.CountZeroMember
crankboy – Member
“Is there no depth to which Bliar won’t sink?”
A question that really requires an answer based on experimentation.
I am willing to give it a go, i can supply some rope and concrete if someone else can get a boat and Blair.
Now, if I can just get hold of a boat…
Oh, and I like the edit:
ChubbyBlokeInLycra – Member
My ideal afternoon: Blair’s Balls, and me with a hickory baseball bat. Or pickaxe handle, not fussed which.
😆Posted 4 years ago
The topic ‘Is there no depth to which Bliar won't sink?’ is closed to new replies.