Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

Head To Head
Log In
Register
U-Know! Forum »
I'm sorry
Log In to post a reply

134 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
Merrick
Merrick
2148 posts

Re: I'm sorry
May 21, 2009, 13:21
geoffrey_prime wrote:
It does end here, because you will always disagree with my position.


I won't if you can satisfactorily explain why your position is justified. I will disagree with something I see as unjust or unsubstantiated, and I will explain why. I expect anyone else expressing an opinion to do the same.

geoffrey_prime wrote:
I value the traditional and historical position of the UK as a monarchy


What does that mean? How has it been a good thing to have people given a position of wealth, power and influence based on who their parents are rather than any merit?

geoffrey_prime wrote:
the democratic requirements of governance have been achieved through the evolution of a constutional monarchy.


Where we've achieved democracy it's been in spite of, not due to, those who believe in rule of the people's will rather than rule of those with most money.

In what way has the monarchy assisted the evolution of democracy rather than been a bar (or, at best, an irrelevance) to it?

geoffrey_prime wrote:
its a perfectly valid expense claim for the running of a second home


Surely the second home should belong to the job. instead, we buy a second home for the individual doing the job, then when they leave we buy another one for their successor. whilst this may be 'valid' in terms of the rules the MPs invented for themselves, it is clearly unjust.

If you ran a company, would you be happy buying your travelling employees second homes to keep?

Do you think the MPs of all parties who refused second home allowance on principle are wrong?

geoffrey_prime wrote:
I can only think that your clear predjucice against Cameron is based on class and wealth.


In part, yes. I resent it more because he clearly doesn't need that money. Sat amidst his millions, he could set an example (or, more accurately, follow the example of a poorer backbencher of his own party) and not squeeze the public for what is, to him, a piffling amount of money.

Do you really think there's no hypocrisy in saying public money is being squandered whilst taking money you don't need for your own personal benefit?

geoffrey_prime wrote:
haven't you twigged yet that money is not the key factor in respect of hospital waiting lists


It is certainly a factor. But it's also clear that the hospital thing is a kind of short hand in this discussion. Whilst there are people suffering for want of paltry sums, is it not galling to have a millionaire taking tens of thousands of pounds of public money to buy him a second home to keep?

geoffrey_prime wrote:
Labour have been throwing money at public services, like there is no tomorrow, hoping that things will improve


Dunno where you live, but it's not like that in a lot of places. They've been putting some PFI money in (our children won't have basic services as they'll have spent the NHS budget paying today's overpriced contract holders).

geoffrey_prime wrote:
Realistically, whether you like it or not, only the Tories can get us out of the current mess


They still favour PFI for public services. That is a giveaway of inflated sums to private hands.

But I think we've clearly bigger problems than MPs on the take or the economic crisis. Resource depletion and climate change tower over these. The Conservatives plan is to stick their fingers in their ears and go lalalala at those. Their plan is to keep accelerating toward the precipice.
Topic Outline:

U-Know! Forum Index