Heres what a hung Parliament will do

[lincstash]

WE have been there before, with both Wilson and Heath.

No one can rule with a minority government. Its an abortion. Nothing radical, nothing decisive can get passed into law. Nothing gets decided, no real advancement can be made, everything is fudge and a compromise.

IF we get a hung parliament, Labour will retain power (as the incumbent governments right to), completely unable to do anything decisive about the economy, and eventually, after being defeated in multiple votes government will collapse with a year, and another election will ensue. You only need a major bill such as the Finance Bill to get destroyed by the opposition, and thats thats.

Meanwhile, the militant left wing unions (UNITE and GMB) will set about ejecting Labours Blairites and Brownites from the party , (as they have promised they can and will), and whilst labour struggles along in the minority in westminster, civil war will rip the party apart as the unions seize control and force the party back to socialist far left. Policy making and decision making will cease within the government

Meanwhile, the worlds financial markets will see the political chaos, pull the plug on our credit rating and that will be it, game set an match. The economy will collapse, and the World Bank will be forced to step in, as it did with the Wilson Government. We will then be a prime target for the EU vultures to take further control of us.

THis is not speculation, this is based on previous times in our history when we have been in this position. We are the 5th largest economy because we always have had majority governments. If you want examples of what happens to countries with minority rules, look at places like Italy, Argentina, Brazil. 3rd rate counties because they cant be ruled decisively.

of course you will, because it garners you yet more attention... dp i don't know what's going on with you and you KNOW i was very fond of you in the past, but i plain don't like you now. you're not nice. there is a big difference between holding strong opinions and riling people with nasty comments. you know that, you're not a stupid person.

but it's not something i'm particularly exercised about, we can't all like each other, but when i see you trolling i will call you on it.

and if i were to see you on here not trolling, just posting normally again, then my view of you would of course revert. but it hasn't happened in months now, sadly.

i see you purposefully needle the mothers of disabled children, mothers of gay children or gay posters, i see you pushing the half-baked racist manifesto of the BNP... you're not debating or seeking understanding, you're not even wanting to bring people round to your way of thinking, because if that were the case you would couch your argument in more sanguine language. you're at it, deliberately provoking and upsetting. you're a troll.

DP I used to be won over by your attempts to divert attention from the evil stuff you were posting with a bit of light hearted flirting.

I can't and won't do it any more...the things you say make me feel sick.

I don't want to discuss anything with you if I can help it, whether or not you are pretending to be nice.

and yes, I consider a lot of your posts to be active trolling.

Aitch, I'm not Nick Griffin, I can't be on here typing out massive posts about the BNPs vision for the future...I am a normal person who just votes for them. I admit I have laughed at jokes about disabled people and I admit I don't want my dc learning about homosexuality at primary school.....and fair enough I mention these things alot...but that's just because I only post on one type of thread.....you are putting 2 & 2 together and coming up with 9....I can't change your mind about me, and I don't really want to if I'm honest...all I will ask of you is to please stop calling me a troll every time you see me...it distracts people and attention is then turned on me...

claig - I think my point about H.G Wells is that he isn't to be considered an intellectual.

I see him as a celebrity. He was afforded prominence in the way that politicians scoop up Hollywood persons now. Think Arnold Scwarzenegger, or George Clooney (though I rather like George).

And yes, he had some completely dreadful ideas. He's not one of my favourites. He was an autodidact and a passionate populiser, rather than a particularly deep or scrupulous thinker. Which, I think, always reminds me "Go slowly; take care; beware passion."

All that nasty stuff was very widespread, though. The thing is, it's discredited by the fact that ... stuff happened.

I think that's why I don't like the sound of that book. It claims to be a historical work, comparing present-day liberalism, and right-wing and doing this by shared points in history BUT takes no account of the fact that history has happened, and that the positions people/groups take today are informed by their stance in relation to that history.

So eugenics is now dropped by most individuals/parties precisely because of what happened when those ideas were actualised.

Positions before it was "explored" as an action of the State are not the same as those taken after it was actualised. Though I generally do quite like the historical persons who always thought it was a bad idea.

Flirting...?...lol

Where's TSH and Alouiseg....?

I need them around me If you wanna see some serious flirting in action

Really don't want to see it, sorry.

lol...good decision...I'm pretty crap at that aswell....

animula,
what is interesting is that Coren shows that many of the most influential figures of socialism, thought Wells was great

"Sidney Webb, the Fabian social historian, thought the book his favourite of the year, and Arnold Bennett was quite bowled over: 'I have been absolutely overwhelmed by the sheer intellectual vigour . . . really made me a little afraid of you. Either you have in supreme degree the journalistic trick of seeming omniscience, or you are one of the most remarkable men alive.'

Beatrice Webb, socialist and a founder of the London School of Economics, recorded in her diary that the volume was filled with 'luminous hypotheses', the product of 'a powerful imagination furnished with the data and methods of physical science working on social problems'. Wells himself described Anticipations as 'designed to undermine and destroy the monarch, monogamy and respectability. One has to go quietly in the earlier papers, but the last will be a buster.'"

I don't think that Goldberg's book on 'Liberal Fascism' is without merit.
All of the most terrible tragedies that have been inflicted on humanity have been by political forces of the left e.g. Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao. Even Hitler was a socialist, he was a national socialist, whereas trotsky was an international socialist. Mussolini also started out as a socialist.

On the whole moderate conservatism allows for freedom and is against totalitarianism which sometimes comes in the guise of 'liberal fascism'.

If you look into the early roots of the green movement, you will find some fascist influences. Eugenics and population control are not dead. Jonathon Porrit, a leading green activist has started to call for population control. The ideas of elitist eugenicists like Wells are still alive, dressed in different clothes which camouflage their true intent.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1133316/Call-child-limit-families-Governments-leading-green-adviser .html

'you are putting 2 & 2 together and coming up with 9

do you want to know what 9 is for me? seriosuly?

it's not thhat you vote X or Y: if I am going to ask for equality for all I ahve to include you and otehr people whose views I don't like in that too. Otherwise I become a hypocrite.

What that 9 is for me a simple admission that you don't care when you hurt people. We know that your views are as they are, and you know it hurts the feelings of people when ytou go on about disability or whatever. Yet you do it. You've nothing to gain- bigotry isn't something one is converted to as an adult imo- except notoriety. Which i don't understand: boringa s people see it I quite like ebing nice. Even more, as a Christian if not one in the same mode as you, I honestly beleive that hurting people's feeling for no reason w when avoidable is pretty wrong.

And I think Claig has a point. When you spend time in teh disabled community in fact you fiund out just how alive Eugenics is, albeit masquerading under other names now. Would you like to donate your genes to the ASD research bank? What would it be used for? tests that might allow prenatal diagnosis- what you eman terminations for my children's needs- yes- er no then.

I am not anti choice in any way, but some of the more wished for tests wouldn't be able tonrule out relatively mild disorders (such as those with AS who are simply quirky). I am anything but a fan of Baron-Cohen's motives but he writes interestingly at elast on the potential of such eugenics wiping out our mathematics talent base, for example.

(What I am not a fan of is the underlying notion that it would be OK to have these tests if tonly tehy routed out the not so bright ones- I fully admit this is entirely absed on my emtions as a Mum of two with the DX who visualises her own children every time such a thing is wished for)

Sotrry off topic.

I must admit I'm surprised to hear dp say she isn't trolling. I thought the whole thing was a really deliberate wind-up policy? Am I wrong then? I think, like on this thread, it's the combination of making inflammatory posts followed by saying she doesn't really know anything...will need help with her essays...like me really..I'm quite harmless. On to another day.

I honestly thought dp's sole intention was to annoy people, for the larks. I'm surprised to hear her say this isn't so.

Well, the Webb's adored Wells. He was their great populist. He was their working-class, popular touch poster-boy. but his relations with the Fabian Society were ... difficult. Precisely because, as a political thinker, he was a loose canon. that is why he makes an unlikely test-case for an examination of the historical meaning of socialism, etc.

Well, there are others, far better placed than me, that will argue about the meaning/definition of the word "socialism" wrt to the Nazis, Mussolini and even Mao. And that, really, is what it comes down to.

I, personally, just don't think the argument about comparing liberals now, to the National Socialists of Germany, premissed on the Nazis seizure of the term socialist, can be made.

As for the v. odd roots of the Green movement - yes, I'm aware of that. Again, so many political people and ideologies did. It's interesting. I sometimes look at all that and ponder on why there seems to have been more irratinality in politics then. Was it less professional? Is it democracy that has made it less off-the-wall and idiosyncratic? Or are we breeding our own irrationalities (to be considered by future people as such) now?

I , personally, think that, actually, it serves as a strong reminder and a warning. and that is how it's best used.

Daftpunk is well in the closet. Spends all her time imagining what goes on between lesbians. Like, could she be more obvious.

Why is it so many fash are closet gays and paedophiles though? Paedos are almost universally right wing.
Better check Daftpunk's basement to see if she's got another family locked away in a dungeon Maybe she's got Austrian relatives.

excellent point Clarissimo about prenatal diagnosis for terminations. Would you trust the results of these tests if men like HG Wells and socialists, prone to social engineering, like Sidney and Beatrice Webb had any say in policy?

Elitists come in all guises, the most effective come dressed as friendly socialists. That way you would never suspect their motives. HG Wells was one of them, there are probably still a few others.

God DP you never ever learn.repatedly people engage with you and try and educate you and it gets nowhere.Insults galore.I would just like to know what sort of uni you are doing your degree at?As most universities are a melting point of class sexuality ethnicity etc.You better be careful you might catch something like a huge dose of compassion or understanding.You should read back over some of this shit you should be ashamed.You have even resorted to insulting the appearance of gay women!

LG;

we used to get on ok didn't we, remember..?

I don't really know what's happened lately..to you I mean, because I'm not saying anything I wasn't saying a year ago. I was really taken in by you actually, when you used to come on my threads and smile and say you wanted to find out what makes me tick..(kinda thing)....you seemed too good to be true, and anything that seems too good to be true usually is isn't it.

I'm glad I didn't take my conversation to a another level with you, I was on the verge of that....

It is best if we stop talking to each other, (I know I said that last week)...but after seeing some of your posts last night, it's more than obvious what you really think of me.....and in a pathetic kinda way...it's all a bit ...

..for me I mean....as I'll miss talking to you more than you'll miss me..

And (I know departure sory) there' already another problem with current testing- with ds3 we were given a high chance (1 / 175 at 30 ) of Downs Syndrome; we refused amnio which was our choice. He didn't have DS- he ahs Autism whcih cannot be tested for (and probably won't ever be as a lone dx, just different causations iyswim).

I thhink its a bad thing to let people think they have a complete choice about a disabled child- and so many women do, test if you will but any women who conceives needs to know that there are no guarantees no matter how many tests you take.

Coolfonz - whilst your observation of the nexus of sexuality-political belief-power is, points in the direction of a potentially interesting hypothesis, I am afraid I am going to be a bit stick-up-the-arse about it.

It comes close to just repeating the name-calling nonsense, and feeds the craziness. Please don't do it. It diminishes the over all level and creates an environment for the nasties.

Claig - I think the most effective ones are those that gain access to power - whatever they're dressed up as.

So the answer is to think v. carefully, and make sure one does what one can to prevent any of these ideas, or their modern counter-parts, gaining access to power,

animula,
"I sometimes look at all that and ponder on why there seems to have been more irratinality in politics then. Was it less professional? Is it democracy that has made it less off-the-wall and idiosyncratic?"

I don't think anything has changed since those days. The underlying ideas and values that were argued about then, still exert influence now. Mandelson was a member of the Communist party, our current Chancellor, Darling, was a young Trotskyite. Even the socialist ex-Prime Minister of France, Lionel Jospin, was outed as being a member of a secret cell of Trotskyites. Blair used to espouse the "third way". The "third way" was a term used by Mussolini. Fascism was the "third way" between communism and capitalism.

The ideas are all the same, except they have been disguised and are doctored with spin. The media is now far more powerful than it was in Well's day, and it influences us to accept certain ideas without really understanding where their roots lie, and where these ideas may lead in the future.

And here we go with the Poor me's!Whoever said NPD might be onto something.