On 16 Oct, 00:24, "Basil Jet"
wrote:
John B wrote:
On Oct 15, 1:25 pm, "Basil Jet"
wrote:
asdf wrote:

Cynically, I'd say it's mostly irrelevant, as the revenue is not
hypothecated between transport modes. Rather, Boris is sticking
firmly to his Tory principles: of the fares he controls, the middle
classes are most likely to own Travelcard seasons and least likely
to use buses.

That's a rather baffling use of the words "Tory principles"... if
Boris noticed that bus users were being subsidised by Travelcard
season holders, then ending that subsidy would be an application of
Tory principles, regardless of the class of the people using the
different tickets. If he just wanted to make the rich richer and the
poor poorer, then he is a Tory without principles.

Eh? Tory principles = "enrich the wealthy; enrich the middle class
enough that they vote for us; screw the poor". Anyone who attempts to
suggest Tory principles encompass anything else is either a shill or
an idiot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Tebbit
"Born into a working class family..."-

The Tories are mostly just the snooty servants of the upper classes,
with the job of enriching them of course. New Labour were the
consultants hired in for a while who haven't realised that their
contract is over. Thatcher* was a kind of aberration: representing
jumped-up new money that they had to crawl to for a while but hated.

Principles ... as stated above. Principles don't have to be moral or
ethical.


*or was that Cromwell?

On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 16:57:11 -0700 (PDT)
MIG wrote:
Eh? Tory principles = "enrich the wealthy; enrich the middle class
enough that they vote for us; screw the poor". Anyone who attempts to
suggest Tory principles encompass anything else is either a shill or
an idiot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Tebbit
"Born into a working class family..."-

The Tories are mostly just the snooty servants of the upper classes,
with the job of enriching them of course. New Labour were the

And there was me thinking it was a case of if you work hard you'll get
the rewards, if you're bone idle you get nothing. As opposed to socialists
who seem to think that the feckless should be pampered even if they can't
be bothered to get their fat chavvy arses out of bed.

*or was that Cromwell?

You might want to revisit your history. Cromwell was a religious fundamentalist
, money didn't come into it, and his New Model Army were little more than a
17th century taliban. All the civil war did was replace one dictator with
another equally as bad. But then that sums up world history up until recently.

B2003

On Oct 16, 9:42*am, wrote:
On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 16:57:11 -0700 (PDT)

MIG wrote:
Eh? Tory principles = "enrich the wealthy; enrich the middle class
enough that they vote for us; screw the poor". Anyone who attempts to
suggest Tory principles encompass anything else is either a shill or
an idiot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Tebbit
"Born into a working class family..."-

The Tories are mostly just the snooty servants of the upper classes,
with the job of enriching them of course. *New Labour were the

And there was me thinking it was a case of if you work hard you'll get
the rewards, if you're bone idle you get nothing. As opposed to socialists
who seem to think that the feckless should be pampered even if they can't
be bothered to get their fat chavvy arses out of bed.

*or was that Cromwell?

You might want to revisit your history. Cromwell was a religious fundamentalist
, money didn't come into it, and his New Model Army were little more than a
17th century taliban. All the civil war did was replace one dictator with
another equally as bad. But then that sums up world history up until recently.

I'd query on "until recently". Even WWII's main effect was to replace
Hitler with Stalin in charge of Poland...

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 07:02:54 -0700 (PDT)
John B wrote:
I'd query on "until recently". Even WWII's main effect was to replace
Hitler with Stalin in charge of Poland...

True. In fact probably most of the world if you go by population is still
ruled by a dictator or unelected ruling committee. We're rather lucky in the
west to be able to vote , though the EU commision seems to be doing its
best to roll the clock back by imposing rules thought up by unelected
beaurocrats.

B2003

wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 07:02:54 -0700 (PDT)
John B wrote:
I'd query on "until recently". Even WWII's main effect was to replace
Hitler with Stalin in charge of Poland...

True. In fact probably most of the world if you go by population is still
ruled by a dictator or unelected ruling committee. We're rather lucky in the
west to be able to vote , though the EU commision seems to be doing its
best to roll the clock back by imposing rules thought up by unelected
beaurocrats.


Rule by butter, again?

Anyway, we're quite happy to have unelected heads of state, QUANGOs, a
powerful civil service, councils elected on tiny shares of the vote, a
government quite legally ruling for five years with the support of 22%
of the electorate and an entire chamber of Parliament based on patronage
and birth, so I'm not sure we can really lecture the rest of Europe on
democracy unless we're willing to stand up for it at home.

Tom

On Oct 16, 3:40*pm, Tom Barry wrote:
I'd query on "until recently". Even WWII's main effect was to replace
Hitler with Stalin in charge of Poland...

True. In fact probably most of the world if you go by population is still
ruled by a dictator or unelected ruling committee. We're rather lucky in the
west to be able to vote , though the EU commision seems to be doing its
best to roll the clock back by imposing rules thought up by unelected
beaurocrats.

Rule by butter, again?

Nah, it's clearly rule by handsome Frenchmen

Anyway, we're quite happy to have unelected heads of state, QUANGOs, a
powerful civil service, councils elected on tiny shares of the vote, a
government quite legally ruling for five years with the support of 22%
of the electorate and an entire chamber of Parliament based on patronage
and birth, so I'm not sure we can really lecture the rest of Europe on
democracy unless we're willing to stand up for it at home.

This is true. The European Parliament is as democratic as the House of
Commons. The Council of Ministers is a hell of a lot more democratic
than the Lords (each member is nominated by a country's elected
government, for the duration of that council only). And the European
Commission [executive] is as democratic as the UK Government (members
are nominated by the CoM and confirmed or rejected by Parliament).

The myth that the EU is unelected or unaccountable, when everything is
either handled by direct election or by voting among democratically
elected governments, is frankly peculiar.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

On 16 Oct, 09:42, wrote:
On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 16:57:11 -0700 (PDT)

MIG wrote:
Eh? Tory principles = "enrich the wealthy; enrich the middle class
enough that they vote for us; screw the poor". Anyone who attempts to
suggest Tory principles encompass anything else is either a shill or
an idiot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Tebbit
"Born into a working class family..."-

The Tories are mostly just the snooty servants of the upper classes,
with the job of enriching them of course. *New Labour were the

And there was me thinking it was a case of if you work hard you'll get
the rewards, if you're bone idle you get nothing. As opposed to socialists
who seem to think that the feckless should be pampered even if they can't
be bothered to get their fat chavvy arses out of bed.

*or was that Cromwell?

You might want to revisit your history. Cromwell was a religious fundamentalist
, money didn't come into it, and his New Model Army were little more than a
17th century taliban. All the civil war did was replace one dictator with
another equally as bad. But then that sums up world history up until recently.

B2003

I don't think his religion had much to do with the support he had from
those who wanted to be free to exploit whatever they could without
government (aristocratic) restriction. Religious labels are handy,
but don't generally describe the roots of the conflict.

On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 08:17:04 -0700 (PDT)
MIG wrote:
You might want to revisit your history. Cromwell was a religious fundamen=
talist
, money didn't come into it, and his New Model Army were little more than=
a
17th century taliban. All the civil war did was replace one dictator with
another equally as bad. But then that sums up world history up until rece=
ntly.

B2003

I don't think his religion had much to do with the support he had from
those who wanted to be free to exploit whatever they could without
government (aristocratic) restriction. Religious labels are handy,
but don't generally describe the roots of the conflict.

Most dictators start with popular support as they oppose the incumbent
regime. Its only when they get in their true colours show. I doubt the same
populace that supported him were quite so happy when the statues in their
churches were smashed up and christmas and various other holy day celebrations
were banned by his cronies in parliament.

B2003