New Labour

[Biggles]

Originally posted by lynx+11 June 2004 - 21:47--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (lynx @ 11 June 2004 - 21:47)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Biggles@11 June 2004 - 21:20
I see that Ken&#39;s anti-war, Tony can&#39;t argue with me, stance has proved effective and, despite suggestions that it would be tight, has cruised home quite comfortably.

Strange, now that he is the official Labour candidate and doesn&#39;t have one running against him, the result is still a lot closer than last time. [/b][/quote]
The long shadow of Iraq, Tution Fees, PFI, Foundation Hospitals



amongst things - I suspect.


Ken might be Labour and consequently lost votes, but was not so (New) Labour as to lose the job.

[junkyardking]

Originally posted by lynx@11 June 2004 - 18:53
RF, I like what you said about getting rid of the trash.

Where I live the councillors have generally been Conservatives. But they have been backing a road scheme which will cost a fortune in money, businesses, homes and safety, and at the end of the day won&#39;t really help the traffic situation.

Yesterday those Conservatives were kicked out, two of the replacements being independents (I&#39;m not sure of the other).

I&#39;m beginning to think there is still hope, and that the electorate have finally had enough of politicians who simply want to jump on the gravy train.

I dont know why they dont invest in high speed train and light rail(trams ect) just seems every time roads get congested in the UK they build other freeway on an other freeway ect ect
Building more roads just encourages more cars.

They do this In Australia too but we do have more room, in the end it just costs more to maintain the whole thing and it would be cheaper to invest in public transport and better for the enviroment as a whole.

[aoyv73]

End of the day all the same waste of time bunch of gits

[lynx]

Originally posted by junkyardking+12 June 2004 - 10:37--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (junkyardking &#064; 12 June 2004 - 10:37)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-lynx@11 June 2004 - 18:53
RF, I like what you said about getting rid of the trash.

Where I live the councillors have generally been Conservatives. But they have been backing a road scheme which will cost a fortune in money, businesses, homes and safety, and at the end of the day won&#39;t really help the traffic situation.

Yesterday those Conservatives were kicked out, two of the replacements being independents (I&#39;m not sure of the other).

I&#39;m beginning to think there is still hope, and that the electorate have finally had enough of politicians who simply want to jump on the gravy train.

I dont know why they dont invest in high speed train and light rail(trams ect) just seems every time roads get congested in the UK they build other freeway on an other freeway ect ect
Building more roads just encourages more cars.

They do this In Australia too but we do have more room, in the end it just costs more to maintain the whole thing and it would be cheaper to invest in public transport and better for the enviroment as a whole. [/b][/quote]
Damn, I was misinformed, the gang of three are still in place. You could put a monkey up as a Conservative candidate here and it would get elected. mind you, you would probably get more sense from a monkey.

Those three have proposed opening a new station. But the proposed site is on "green belt" land. So to build a station the green belt status would have to go, which opens the way for development of adjoining land for housing. But the station would have to be funded by a different authority, and they&#39;ve already said they won&#39;t have the funds for such a scheme for several years, if ever. Want to bet that the housing plan goes ahead, but not the railway station?

There is an alternative site for a new station, with better access, and it would cost about half as much to build so it is more likely to get funding from the transport authority. And it isn&#39;t on green belt land. For the life of me I can&#39;t understand why this option is not being pursued. Couldn&#39;t be anything to do with the fact that there is no extra room so no housing project would be forthcoming.

Edit: forgot to mention that there is a motorway less than 3 miles away. But it goes up a steep hill and at the top there&#39;s a Dept of Transport weighbridge. Easy to spot overloaded trucks, so they come off the motorway and straight through our village. A weight limit (except access) would solve all the problems.

[Voetsek]

some things never change labour or tory you will pay and pay and pay just keep repeating i will pay

[lynx]

Well, Tony Blair finally admitted it. Twice.

In his press conference he was trying to explain away Labour&#39;s disastrous results in the European elections, and he finally admitted that he&#39;s not there for the people at all. He said he&#39;s a politician, you need politicians to talk to other politicians, that&#39;s what he will be doing later this week.

If you follow that to it&#39;s logical conclusion, get rid of the politicians and you don&#39;t need politicians because they would have no function.

Someone close the door behind him on his way out please.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by lynx@15 June 2004 - 08:11


If you follow that to it&#39;s logical conclusion, get rid of the politicians and you don&#39;t need politicians because they would have no function.

Nah-

Make &#39;em part-time, like back in the beginning, then term-limit the bastards.

That&#39;d work nicely, I think.