Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, [4], 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ] |
| Subject: Allow me to de-lurch for one post... | |
Author: Paddy (Scotland) | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 23:15:23 12/21/04 Tue In reply to: Jim (Canada) 's message, "British Election" on 14:27:51 12/21/04 Tue Hello everyone, Do interfere Jim, you were born a British subject and just because some upstart tells you that you are one no-longer this does not make it true in your heart. You make perfect sense. I have written the following summary. It could be looked at as a dossier of incompetence and deceit from the Labour cabinet. What do people think of the following please? (sorry, I may not have time to reply very soon but I am very interested to hear your views) Paddy Labour Condemned… Stephen Byers: Trade& Industry Minister. LIED about his advance knowledge of BMWs pull-out from the UK. REWARDED for lying by being given Transport. Subsequently, he announced the liquidation of Railtrack and investors were compensated at a reduced price AFTER the shares had been allowed to crash on the market following his announcement. Apart from his gross incompetence in all of the roles given to him he stood by spin doctor Jo Moore after she sent an email on 11 September (2001) saying it was a good day "to bury" bad news. He resigned after too long a period to save his dignity. Peter Mandleson While officially investigating the office of the Paymaster General, Geoffrey Robinson, it was revealed that Geoffrey Robinson had personally loaned him £373,000 (for a house) on a "pay-back without interest and when you can" basis. He resigned after a bit of a fuss. Subsequently REWARDED - Northern Ireland Minister. Also was responsible for running the Millennium Dome, an all-round failure of a Grand Project that has left the UK looking embarrassed ever since. Forced to quit a second time in January 2001 over allegations of misconduct over a passport application for Dome supporters, the Hinduja brothers. REWARDED AGAIN - TB had him put into the EU as Trade Comissioner on a salary of about £140,000. During the fuss before the occupation of Iraq two dossiers were prepared to justify the case for war at the request of the Government (note that they were not presented independently by concerned members of the intelligence community). One was plagiarised (http://www.number-10.gov.uk/files/pdf/Iraq.pdf) largely from an out of date PhD thesis (http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2002/issue3/jv6n3a1.html ) off the internet with phrases such as “monitoring foreign embassies in Iraq” changed to “spying on foreign embassies in Iraq”, and “aiding opposition groups in hostile regimes” turned into “supporting terrorist organisations in hostile regimes”. The other is the one which contained the “45 minute claim”. The original document was ALTERED at the REQUEST of Downing Street so that the fact that the 45 minutes referred only to mortar shells and small-scale battlefield munitions was hidden. Reading the document: (http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Politics/documents/2002/09/24/dossier.pdf) gives the impression that the threat is from much longer range weapons with greater payloads. The government when their key intelligence was exposed as total rubbish followed a legalistic line of thought and commissioned no direct investigation into the intelligence. Dr John Reid – health minister – commented about the flaws in the intelligence that “there are rogue elements in the intelligence services seeking to undermine the UK Government and its relationship with the security services.” This extremely serious charge was supported by the PM although NO INVESTIGATION has been launched into the handling of the intelligence and to date these most serious allegations remain unexamined. Also, under John Reid and all of this Labour government’s Health Ministers the country’s infamous waiting lists have got worse in every area. Their solution is to pour money into the Health Service in the hope that it will somehow work out. The result is utter waste of funds. I could go on and list other failed Ministers: Estelle Morris, ruined the school education system and resigned honourably saying that she had no idea what was going on. She was made Arts Minister – again a REWARD for failure. David Blunkett has just resigned over giving away, at the state’s expense, free first class tickets to his lover and asking for a faster application of a Visa application for her children’s nanny. It is only a matter of time before he is re-appointed to the cabinet. The supposed “successful” ministers are decidedly dodgy too. Peter Hain claimed initially that the EU constitution is merely a “tidying up exercise” while it is actually a drastic transfer of power to an essentially non-democratic institution. Charles Clarke as education secretary has held the Universities to ransom by telling them to discriminate openly in favour of government school candidates over independent school candidates or face a lack of funds, instead of improving the quality of a state education towards matching a private one. Gordon Brown has made some good decisions in the past (such as transferring control of Sterling interest rates to the BoE) but now the OECD and the City believe that Britain is borrowing at too high a rate and that taxes WILL have to rise in future. Taxes are making themselves felt and it is especially bad that a lot of this money that is borrowed is being poured down the drain. Apart from that there are all of the backbenchers who vote completely against their own principles just to stay in power. And of course, Tony Blair. On the night that David Kelly, Britain’s top expert on Biological weapons, killed himself (because his name had been released to the press and he was abandoned by the system) Tony Blair, on a plane from Hong Kong, told journalists that he knew nothing about the incident. He had in fact chaired the committee that decided to release Dr. Kelly’s details to the press. This was every bit as cynical as “burying bad news” on the eleventh of September – cold and calculated to deflect bad press on the government. He has consistently lied for years. A quotation from a speech by William Hague, Leader of the Opposition in the first of Blair’s two terms: ‘The Prime Minister finds it difficult to tell the truth about many matters, however trivial. Three years ago, he confided to Des O'Connor that when he was 14, he stowed away on a plane from Newcastle to the Bahamas. In Newcastle airport's 61-year history, there has never been a flight to the Bahamas. In 1969, the only exotic destinations served by Newcastle were Jersey and the Isle of Man. ‘In an interview with a local radio station in 1997, the Prime Minister spoke of his passion for football and reminisced about watching his favourite Newcastle player, centre forward Jackie Milburn, from a seat behind one of the goals at St. James' Park. There are two problems with that statement: seats were not installed behind the goals until the 1990s and Jackie Milburn left the club when the Prime Minister was four years old. [There’s a third problem – Mr. Blair was in Australia between the ages of 18 months to six years.] ‘The Prime Minister was at it again last week when he told listeners of the rock station Heart FM that his favourite tune was "Where the Streets Have No Name" by U2; when he appeared on [the high-brow radio programme] "Desert Island Discs", it was Samuel Barber's 'Adagio for Strings' and Francisco Tarrega's 'Recuerdos de la Alhambra.’ It is almost certain that the PM had a private agreement with the President of the United States that they would go to war against the regime of Saddam Hussein. This man has signed the proposed European Constitution and forced demoralising cuts upon the armed forces in time of conflict by partially funding the occupation of Iraq through the ordinary military budget. So, in summary, we have a government that seems to have no backbone. If a minister is CAUGHT acting dishonourably they will grudgingly apologise (while saying that they didn’t really do anything wrong at all) and then wait a few months before being rewarded for failure with a new position in Blair’s inner circle. It is not too surprising that they act like this as many pets follow the behaviour of their master. Their lack of respect for the second house is understandable since most of them are upstarts appointed by the PM now. He described the idea of an hereditary Upper House as an anacronism. Surely it is stranger (not to say dangerous) that most of the upper house now owe their place there directly to HIM. At least the previous system resulted in people who owed no LIVING soul any possible returned favours. The question is whether we wish for this corrupt government to represent us? Looking at the Tories now they have sane policies and would not be a radical government. Allegations of Tory sleaze under John Major pushed so hard by Tony Blair before he was in power are now insignificant when compared to the current Labour party. (In character, although Tony Blair blasted the way that some Tory MPs under John Major chose to lead their private lives, when his Home Secretary makes someone’s wife pregnant and then treats her using government money he becomes one of the school that believes that a man’s private life should be sacred.) The old sleaze-balls have been thrown out of the Tory party and they are now a very serious option. The key issue is not “do I like the Tories?” but “could I bear for my nation to be ruled by Tony Blair again?” If you believe that the Labour government should be punished for their pathetic record then the ONLY way to vote is to vote for the CONSERVATIVE party. Voting for anybody else is a waste as it WILL NOT reduce the Labour majority in the House. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: I agree (Quel Surprise) | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 10:00:02 12/22/04 Wed Yes Paddy: an accurate critique of their seven year record. What really gets me about Blair, is the fact that he portrays himself as a great reformer, who has achieved so much, yet he has still much to do. In fact, he has achieved very little, apart from turning a great many of the electorate off politics. The only real reform he has achieved is within his own party. I am outraged that someone Peter Mandelson, who has become something of a domestic liability, should end up in the position he is in, accountable to no-one. I think you also missed a critique on Blair’s attitude to our system of Government, and his contempt for such ridiculous notions such as Parliamentary accountability, Cabinet Government and an independent Civil Service. This is the most “presidential” Government we have ever had, even since Margaret Thatcher. Thatcher at least had clever people surrounding her, who has Blair got? This goes some way towards explaining the unwillingness of Labour Ministers to resign following any misdemeanour. They are so devoid of talent in their party, that they are left with no option but to recycle the same ministerial pygmies. On the issue of Parliament, has anyone seen Blair bother to turn up regularly, apart from his mandatory weekly appearances at Prime Minister’s Questions, which he immediately reduced from twice a week to once a week when he assumed power. He is clearly more interested in talking to the world’s TV cameras, than members of the opposition. On the civil service, it is disgraceful how he has betrayed their independence, and transformed them from “implementers of Government policy” to “spokesmen for Government policy”. All this in combination to the deliberate leaks, briefings to the press before Parliament, and the generally undignified modus operandi of this Government, has reinforced my notion that this regime is rotten to the core. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: But hasn't he helped to make the world a safer place ... | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:45:45 12/22/04 Wed ... for foxes? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: He he.. | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:34:12 12/22/04 Wed Well indeed you would think so, but sadly he has failed on this count too. Since the hunting ban came into force in Scotland, more of the blighters have succumbed to shotguns than foxhounds... [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Ah, so it's okay to massacre them, just not to enjoy it? | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:45:55 12/22/04 Wed If that approach was applied in Australia, we'd have to give up cricket. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Another Analogy... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:06:42 12/22/04 Wed ...or you have to start batting with a golf club... [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: Not to mention... | |
|
Author: Roberdin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:16:52 12/22/04 Wed Not to mention how his party has had the brilliant stroke of discouraging smoking..... and then instead encouraging drinking all night and large US-style casinos instead. Great. Those two will sure solve the crime problem. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: I can't see the Tories being any better! Howard seems content to follow Tony on a number of issues! | |
|
Author: Matt(UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:12:17 12/22/04 Wed [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: Infandum... iubes renovare dolorem | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 11:10:46 12/23/04 Thu I am coming out of the closet, and admitting something which, perhaps unconsciously, you all knew all along: I am a Tory. Ever since the vote was extended to Jews in the 1840s, every member of my family who has ever had a vote has voted for the Tories, and many will follow in this tradition next May (or whenever Mr Blair deigns to let us vote against him). But I am becoming increasingly angry about the fact that I shall have to vote for the blighters if I've had enough of Anthony Blair. Every time I start to feel good about being a Tory, something happens which screws it all up. Their refusal to be honest about Europe, the sacking of Boris, and now, appalingly, Howard's decision to support the government's line on compulsory identity papers. These things will not combat terrorism (see 'Madrid'), fight crime (see 'Paris'), or even work (see 'NHS National Database'). David Blunkett (may his career rest in peace) admitted as much in the Commons. This Bill is not about this or that particular practical measure, it is about our whole conception of government. On the one hand, there is the socialist conception that citizens are there to service the state, and on the other there is the British conception that the State's only role is to service its citizens. There used to be a party which would always fight for that distinction to the hilt. They were called the Tories, but you don't hear much about them any more. They have been taken over by a moron who thinks that he can win an election by mimicking a very unpopular government, and wonders why everyone is voting for a third party. Still, I suppose we'd better give them one more shot... damned if I'm voting Lib Dem. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: Indeed... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 12:19:37 12/23/04 Thu The Conservatives need to come off the fence and return to the values that brought them success in the past. Oliver Letwin (alias the Scarlet Pimpernel) needs to remove the skelves from his posterior, and promise wholesale tax cuts and a reduction of the power of the state. The Conservatives need to stop imitating New Labour rhetoric on public services. A radical agenda, based on traditional Conservative principles might tempt the people back to the fold, if the amorality and incompetence of the incumbents does not. I propose radical policies such as: 1. Immediate repeal of all New Labour legislation that is either politically correct, discriminatory, bureaucratic, or otherwise pointless. 2. A Written constitution limiting the powers of the state. 3. Withdrawal from the EU, becoming an “associate” member with a free trade agreement that we voted for in the 70s. (This would put UKIP out of business). 4. An equitable and workable federal arrangement for the UK. In addition to the not-so-radical policy of: 5. Punishing criminals, and building the prisons necessary to make the work, along with mandatory minimum sentencing to curtail the senile judges. I will not publish my whole program just yet – I’ll save that one for Government… [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: 6 - Closer ties with the Commonwealth (particularly the Crown Commonwealth) | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 12:36:46 12/23/04 Thu [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: That goes without saying... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:28:59 12/23/04 Thu but I doubt Howard will be brave enough to embrace points 1 to 5... [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: Elections | |
|
Author: David (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:22:07 12/23/04 Thu Well, I am also a Tory (or Liberal in Australia), I believe strongly in the power of the free market and also institutions such as the Monarchy. There are a number of policy issues where I disagree with our government, however, particulary over our relationship with the US and climate change. If I lived in the UK, I imagine I would vote Tory. My preferred party would be UKIP but under your absurd voting system you are essentially wasting your vote or giving it to Tony Blair by voting for such as party. The UK needs to adopt preferential voting as is used in Australia. I don't have anything against your non-compulsary voting though. I find the idea of identity cards disturbing. In my opinion the Tory party should be looking to protect the freedom of the individual in society rather than allowing greater government control over our lives. I see fail to see how identity cards would reduce crime or terrorism. They are the type of action that should only be used in extreme circumstances such as World War II. The idea of an opposition mimicking an government just wins support for the government. It is all, of course, about 'moving to the middle', a recipe inflicted on all losing parties. Before October 9 here everyone agreed that the heroic Latham had dragged his party to the 'middle'. No, he spoke over the heads of the political class direct to those living in marginal constituencies in the same way of the government. When that failed disastrously, it turned out he hadn't found the 'middle' after all. Personally, I am a fan of the two-party system we have in Australia and elsewhere. Three party politics would likely be far less stable and democratic. If you are very unhappy with Labour you should vote for the Tories (or vice-versa). There is an interesting quote on the Liberal Democrat's website: "We Liberal Democrats prize freedom of the individual, underpinned by a safety net for the vulnerable, in our society. We are defenders of the public services, free at the point of use. We are internationalist in outlook – pro UN, pro Commonwealth and pro Europe. Our Liberal background makes us wary of an over-mighty state and dedicated to civil liberties. We are enthusiasts for the green agenda." If you take out the pro-Europe and free public services nonsense, they almost seem like a party I would consider voting for. Although in practice they are probably similar to a bunch of lunatics known here as the "Australian Democrats" who will do or say anything other than their beliefs to get elected rather than be motivated by ideology, vision or genuine belief. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Depends on which services you are talking about | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:44:50 12/23/04 Thu Basic health? Decent education? Legal aid? I have no problem at all with funding those out of our taxes. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: The voting system in Canada is the same as in the UK and yes, I vote Tory | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:52:43 12/23/04 Thu [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Democratic services... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:33:42 12/23/04 Thu The only state-funded services which I use are the roads and the military (well, the latter I 'use' in the sense that I benefit from it along with everyone else). Even in state television, the government is cut out of the equation since we pay our license fee directly to Auntie. But about political parties - David's assessment of the Lib Dems is quite right. Their rhetoric differs according to whether they are pitching for disaffected socialists or disaffected Tories. At the moment, they're going for the Tories' jugular, which means a lot of rhetoric about free individuals, a limited State etc. A couple of years back, they were after Labour marginals, which meant a lot of garbage about massive public sector spending financed by taxing those rich bastards, along with the usual peacenik nonsense and anti-Toff gestures which for some reason they associate with 'ordinary people'. This is a luxury which they can afford, since, as a third party, they have never been in government, and are not likely to be in the near or medium future, so none of us can hold their record up against their rhetoric. I, also, am a great fan of two-party politics. I have seen what a parliament full of dozens of medium-sized parties can do to a country: total political paralysis, economic meltdown, social chaos. Not fun - Forza Berlusconi. There should be two parties, each of which embodying a certain particular political attitude (or 'philosophy' if we're being grandiose) rather than this or that particular set of policies. In the 19th Century, this meant anarcho-capitalist (Liberal) as against paternalist-protectivist (Conservative). Through the 20th Century, this has shifted to collectivist (Socialist) as against individualist (Tory). The individual voter choses between which of these attitudes he would like to see prevalent in Westminster, and votes accordingly. The particular policies will change over time according to transient circumstances, but this need not affect one's political allegiance, and removes the need for a 3rd party. It also allows for the existence of single-issue protest-vote parties, such as the SNP or UKIP. The problem at the moment is that, whereas Labour has kept its 'attitude' whilst effecting to conceal it, the Tories have lost theirs in a feeble attempt to widen their support base. Natural Conservatives like me and millions of others have nowhere to go except UKIP, which, as you rightly point out, is making a third Blair term more rather than less likely. Still, the hope is that Howard, Letwin and Co will be less diffident about having proper Conservative policies if they are actually elected. I'll drink to that... As for our 'absurd' voting system... the party which would benefit most electorally would be the Tories (at the moment Labour needs something like 43% to get a majority, whereas the Tories need almost 49%, because of seat distribution - note that we have Proportional Representation in Euro Elections and the Conservatives wiped the floor with everyone), but the Tories are the most allergic to electoral reform in spite of this. We are deeply uncomfortable about two things: firstly, we hate coalitions, which would be the inevitable result of abandoning First Past the Post voting; secondly, we like to think that we are voting for the person not the party, which would be impossible under Proportional or even Preferential Voting, and our representatives would be forced upon us by corrupt party executives (not least our own, since Conservative Central Office is one of the greatest impediments to the Tories' electoral prospects, although hopefully Lynton Crosby will do something about that. Also, its bickering, nepotism and corruption makes the Labour Party machine look like a vicar's tea party). There's always hope - under the current system, we've been the most successful party in our history, even in the great age of socialism. Presumably it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that we do it again. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: abandoning FPTP does not result in coalitions or loss of the "personal" vote! | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:30:13 12/23/04 Thu Australia gets clear results every time, and of course we vote for a person. What are you talking about? Preferential voting gives you the best of both worlds. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: But... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:47:23 12/23/04 Thu ... you still won't sell it to the Tories. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Isn't the Australian Government a coalition? | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:46:17 12/23/04 Thu [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Coalition | |
|
Author: David (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 01:19:36 12/24/04 Fri Yes, but our Liberal/National Party coalition is nothing like what a Labour/Lib Dem coalition would be like in Britain. Both parties here are essentially the same thing, they work together in both opposition and government and these days they never really have any disagreements. Their policy going into elections are exactly the same. Neither party would ever form a coalition with the ALP or another party, it is really just one party under two different names. Our preferential system was originally introduced to prevent conservative candidates splitting the Tory vote and allowing electorates to go to Labor where this would otherwise not be the case. It still comes into effect sometimes, however most electorates at the last election were decided on primary vote alone. The National party is slowly dying anyway and will probably be absorbed by the Liberals over the next 20-30 years. The electorates held by all its past leaders over the past 20-30 years have been lost. http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2004/guide/howpreferenceswork.htm http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2004/guide/prefhistory.htm [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: The Liberal / National coalition | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 01:40:11 12/24/04 Fri I said that our voting system always gives a clear result, and it does, because voters always know that the Liberals and Nationals will work together. It is never a matter of seeing how the numbers fall out then trying to form a coalition: the coalition is always there in advance. Even when the Libs have a majority in their own right, they form governemnt with the Nationals, just out of habit. Nothing could be more stable. There have been three Prime Ministers from the National Party (or Country Party, as it then was), because the leader of the Nats is always deputy PM, so if the boss dies or quits, the Nat gets a month or so of glory before the Libs sort themselves out and choose a new leader. In fact, it is not just the Libs and the Nats: there is also the Country Liberal Party, which only exists in the Northern Territory. They are always part of the coalition too. In fact, given the stat-based nature of the Liberal Party, you could say that they are in fact separate parties for each state, so even if you had a purely "Liberal" government, it would still be a coalition of sorts in practice, because the Liberal Party of Victoria would be working together with the Liberal Party of New South Wales, the Liberal Party of Tasmania, and so on. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: Most free public services (health, education) are not nonsense... | |
|
Author: Roberdin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:57:48 12/23/04 Thu [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: They are in the sense that they are not free! | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:35:25 12/23/04 Thu [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Public Services | |
|
Author: David (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 01:33:25 12/24/04 Fri What I was saying was that I believe if a person uses a public service, if possible, they should make a small contribution to that service when using it. I do not accept, for example, that a person should be allowed to hop onto a bus or train for free without making a small contribution to the service. Not everything can be completely funded by the tax payer. If a small contribution is not made, people will use these services unecessarily and wastefully, placing an unecessary burden on the taxpayer and the economy. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I agree - I would have used my public school far less if I had had to pay at the gate | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 01:42:51 12/24/04 Fri [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: OK.....conceded | |
|
Author: David (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 02:47:09 12/24/04 Fri [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Why? | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:11:08 12/24/04 Fri My parents had to pay for my schooling, and that didn't make them decide that, every now and again, I should just skip a term or two because they wanted a new tumble-drier. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Fine, but the choice isn't always so flippant | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:36:29 12/24/04 Fri If a family has to choose between paying the mortgage, adequate nutrition and sending the kids to school, the whole society ends up suffering, because people who could be educated and productive will end up being marginalised. I am more than prepared to pay taxes to fund a decent education for everyone. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |