Leftists vs Rightists

mjones · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Gary Askwith
...
With due respect( and I wish I had more time) this is patronising simple minded drivel
In the global Capitalist world we inhabit economic growth IS resource consumption.....technological growth of electronic culture in the developed west is far less consumptive but current global growth is hideously resourse heavy...how could it be otherwise for developing countries?
Mjones a simple question: do you believe the world is heading for ecological catastrophy yes or no
If no sorry, but 95% are scientists against you
The sacred cows of Capitalism democracy and pluralism have and are therefore contributing to the decay and fall of global industrial human society are they not?
Ever thought well., hmmmmm its not working maybe we should start thinking where it went wrong and what about considering a few radical alternatives?

Economic Growth; as dead as a Yangtze River dolphin....

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
bollox Gary. The '95% of scientists are against you' argument is quite silly. You know fully well from the endless arguments I've had with the climate change deniers on this forum that I go along with the scientific consensus on climate change. Nonetheless, I maintain the obsession many have with economic growth is a red herring; it is too crude a measure of CO2 emissions to be the focus of our concern. Please read the Stern review. The whole point of that was that the cost, in reduced growth, of climate change is greater than the cost, in growth, of doing somethign about it. In other words, growth in the 'do nothing' scenario ends up lower than growth in the 'do something scenario'. How do you square that with your simplistic 'growth is the root of all evil and must be stopped position?

The most worrying aspect of your post however is your dismissive reference to democracy as a 'sacred cow'. ffs gary, democracy protects your freedom as much as anyones- it permits you to spout your naive anti-captitalism views for a start! What do you want- a benign dictator? Yet another example of how repression can follow from idealism.

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by mjones

. ffs gary, democracy protects your freedom as much as anyones- it permits you to spout your naive anti-captitalism views for a start! What do you want- a benign dictator? Yet another example of how repression can follow from idealism.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I suspect that many on the extreme left are dismissive of democracy because they don't get anywhere when they stand for election.

Joe Sacco · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by NickM

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by bof

A member of a master race, are we?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">I have no desire to be anybody's master, thank you; nor do I see why the elected representatives of the thick majority should be mine.

If you're happy as a sheep, that's up to you.

So you voted, and now you've got a government. I just hope YOU like it.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Do you actually know what you want?

Can you give me an insight into your ideal setup as it really isn't clear.

spire · June 2007

Well put, Joe.

Unknown · June 2007

I've explained before how we get from where we are to where we ought to be; obviously few of you absorbed the words of wisdom; I can't be arsed repeating them.

Anyway, I've decided since then that it would be far better if the human race just died out as soon as possible, and that steps really ought to be taken to achieve that outcome [:)]

So you voted, and now you've got a government. I just hope YOU like it.

Unknown · June 2007

Yes, I'd be interested to see NickM's vision for governing Britain. Problems might arise if Nick Griffin was in charge of deciding who was bright enough to be allowed a vote.

Unknown · June 2007

Oh, all right, you talked me into it... As should be apparent by now, <sigh> I don't want Britain governed as a unit (not any more than is avoidable, anyway). The difficulty is getting from the present model of political life to a better one, because it requires that the political class which currently wields power on behalf of its sponsors be dislodged.

Q: How do we get from nation state democracy to a more advanced system?

A: Those of us who deny the legitimacy of the way in which we are currently governed might start by making ourselves more visible. To do this, we could set up an organisation - for the sake of argument, let's say it's called the Campaign for Real Democracy, or CReD. Anybody who wishes to join pledges that they will not vote in a parliamentary election until there is an electable "None of the Above" option on the ballot paper. That's all there is to CReD (although I suppose it might also become a forum for the discussion of how to organise society when we get rid of nation state democracy).

I don't imagine for one moment that the political class will want to concede CReD's demand, but if millions of people sign up they may have no choice but to do so.

The acid test comes when the first constituency elects the "None of the Above" option and attempts to secede from Westminster government. I imagine this taking something like the following form. Tax revenue is retained within the constituency. A small donation is made to Westminster to go towards the maintenance of the few necessary national services (perhaps air traffic control, coastguard and a national police body rather like the FBI; possibly a navy; I can't think of any others). Existing Westminster and EU laws remain in force initially, but can be repealed. New Westminster and EU laws do not apply in seceded constituencies. Policemen, doctors, teachers, binmen and everybody else continues to go to work just as they did before; the only difference is that the taxes which pay for services don't go via Westminster. All Westminster political party organisations within the constituency are disbanded the day after the election, and public meetings take place in every local government ward at which a Representative is appointed (by consensus, not election). His/her function is to express the views of the ward, not his/her own. S/he can be dismissed and replaced at any meeting of the ward if confidence in him/her is lost. In each ward, a Monitor is also appointed, whose function is purely to ensure that the Representative accurately reports the views of the ward at the regular meetings of Representatives which (by consensus, not voting) manage the public services of the constituency.

Secession from the nation state is not irreversible; after 5 years, an election is held within the constituency in which nationally organised political parties are permitted to field candidates. If the None of the Above option wins again, nothing changes; if people are dissatisfied with the way the affairs of the constituency are being conducted they can elect an MP and rejoin the nation state.

Of course, I don't suppose the Westminster government will permit constituencies to secede; it will probably use the armed forces to coerce them into remaining fully within the state. If that leads to insurrection and the lining up of politicians against walls, so be it...

So you voted, and now you've got a government. I just hope YOU like it.

mjones · June 2007

Nick, setting aside the complete impracticability of governing a modern society at the level of individual constituencies (who plans the roads, railways, energy supply, etc?); if you think there is demand for such a system then why can't candidates stand on that manifesto through the usual electoral processes? Your 'campaign for real democracy' is a political party, even if you pretend it isn't.

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by NickM

Of course, I don't suppose the Westminster government will permit constituencies to secede;

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

The first ones to secede will be religious ones to set up their own religious states. Areas of London will set up Israeli mini states and there will be Muslim areas under Sharia law. I don't see it as a recipe for comity.

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Patrick Stevens

The first ones to secede will be religious ones to set up their own religious states. Areas of London will set up Israeli mini states and there will be Muslim areas under Sharia law.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">And would that be wrong?

So you voted, and now you've got a government. I just hope YOU like it.

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by mjones

...who plans the roads, railways, energy supply, etc.?...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Oh. So there are no international railway journeys? You cannot currently drive a car out of one state and into another? States do not trade in energy?

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by mjones

...if you think there is demand for such a system then why can't candidates stand on that manifesto through the usual electoral processes?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">This is a plan to use the "usual electoral processes". It simply doesn't play according to the rules made by those currently in power.

So you voted, and now you've got a government. I just hope YOU like it.

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by NickM

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Patrick Stevens

The first ones to secede will be religious ones to set up their own religious states. Areas of London will set up Israeli mini states and there will be Muslim areas under Sharia law.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">And would that be wrong?

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Insofar as London would end up like the Gaza strip with constant fighting, yes.

mjones · June 2007

No, you are being dishonest. You are asking people to vote for 'none of the above', but then making the assumption that this equals support for your party's manifesto of devolved government, even though you pretend it not to be a party. The 'rules' you dismiss are the rules of democracy, the rules that protect you from oppression and allow you to advocate hopelessly impracticable policies. It is precisely because you know you won't get any support for these policies for candidates openly standing on that manifesto that you want to get round those rules.

And as for the analogy with international energy and transport systems- don't you have the slighest idea what is involved in planning infrastructure on this scales? The costs, the skills? Just getting agreement between france and germany for interoperation of their high speed trains was hard enough; just for two large countries and you advocate similar negotiations having to take place between over 600 constituency level people's committee's! Hopelessly naive doesn't even come close to describing it.

Gary Askwith · June 2007

Mjones assuming you are talking about material consumption growth and not humanies collective consciouness growth then perhaps you can suggest an appropiate growth rate for the global industralised world?
lets assume it is 3%- same as Britains ( chinas is around 10% but we will ignore this for now)
I'm sure your clever enough to work out the mathematics of a constant 3% annual growth...one scenario is that in 70 years approx 8 times the level of global resources will be required
Where are these global scale resources coming from?

With due respect Mjones you seem to want your cake and eat it..typical of the hopelessly nieve green consumerists as I like to think of them...they assert that we can still have affluent lifestyles, economic growth and massive global trade, as long as we put the right price on consumer goods, push for energy efficiency and switch to renewable energy. Easy solutions like this will always be popular, precisely because they do not require people to challenge their value systems or adopt a fundamentally different and less affluent way of life. People that favour continuing the present capitalist and consumerist way of life, will always tend to gravitate towards political movements that offer easy technical-fix solutions to ecological problems. Green consumerism looks plausible until it is confronted with all of the ecological, resource and socio-economic problems created by consumer-capitalism in total. We are facing a global warming problem, but we are also facing a soil demineralisation problem, a metal-resource depletion problem, over-consumption of water, water poisoning through use of fertilisers and industrial chemicals, massive deforestation across the globe, a collapse of marine ecosystems due to over-fishing and increased acidity, a massive surge in global energy consumption, depletion of all fossil energy sources; including feedstock for plastics and many chemicals. These problems cannot be solved by convenient technological fixes within the context of a growth-based consumer society, because this is what is causing the problems in the first place. The basic cause of these problems is that there are too many people using too many of the Earth's resources too quickly.

Economic Growth; as dead as a Yangtze River dolphin....

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Gary Askwith

Mjones assuming you are talking about material consumption growth and not humanies collective consciouness growth then perhaps you can suggest an appropiate growth rate for the global industralised world?
lets assume it is 3%- same as Britains ( chinas is around 10% but we will ignore this for now)
I'm sure your clever enough to work out the mathematics of a constant 3% annual growth...one scenario is that in 70 years approx 8 times the level of global resources will be required
Where are these global scale resources coming from?

With due respect Mjones you seem to want your cake and eat it..typical of the hopelessly nieve green consumerists as I like to think of them...they assert that we can still have affluent lifestyles, economic growth and massive global trade, as long as we put the right price on consumer goods, push for energy efficiency and switch to renewable energy. Easy solutions like this will always be popular, precisely because they do not require people to challenge their value systems or adopt a fundamentally different and less affluent way of life. People that favour continuing the present capitalist and consumerist way of life, will always tend to gravitate towards political movements that offer easy technical-fix solutions to ecological problems. Green consumerism looks plausible until it is confronted with all of the ecological, resource and socio-economic problems created by consumer-capitalism in total. We are facing a global warming problem, but we are also facing a soil demineralisation problem, a metal-resource depletion problem, over-consumption of water, water poisoning through use of fertilisers and industrial chemicals, massive deforestation across the globe, a collapse of marine ecosystems due to over-fishing and increased acidity, a massive surge in global energy consumption, depletion of all fossil energy sources; including feedstock for plastics and many chemicals. These problems cannot be solved by convenient technological fixes within the context of a growth-based consumer society, because this is what is causing the problems in the first place. The basic cause of these problems is that there are too many people using too many of the Earth's resources too quickly.

Economic Growth; as dead as a Yangtze River dolphin....

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Cutting through the jargon, (too many degrees chaps?) it seems to me that gaz and mjones are not really far apart. Gary says that there are too many of us using the earth's resources too quickly and we've got to downsize. mjones says that if we use our existing resources more efficiently, then we can maintain our existing industrialised way of life, albeit in a different way which probably means in practice a lot of downsizing. I agree with both positions.

Unknown · June 2007

mjones, I'm not going to bother responding to your first paragraph. You obviously can't conceive of anything better than simply going along with a system which you are told is good for you.

As for your second: You, on the other hand, are quite satisfied with seeing the world totter towards eco-meltdown under the current nation state political structure.

Of course the fragmentation of nation states would be accompanied by, and would to some extent force, a reduction in wasteful economic activity. That's part of the point.

Anyway, as I've already said, I have come round to the opinion that the right course of action is the painless removal of Homo "Sapiens" from the world. All I need now is a sympathetic bioweapons expert.

So you voted, and now you've got a government. I just hope YOU like it.

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by NickM

mjones, I'm not going to bother responding to your first paragraph. You obviously can't conceive of anything better than simply going along with a system which you are told is good for you.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Even if this were true, it would not preclude mjones (and me for that matter) from seeing that what you propose is completely unworkable.

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Gary Askwith

...Easy solutions... will always be popular, precisely because they do not require people to challenge their value systems or adopt a fundamentally different and less affluent way of life...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Quite so; and thus they'll always be the only ones on offer from nation state politicians, and will have the support of people of stunted imagination who think that it's necessary to play by the rules and vote in those politicians' elections.

That's why the world is fucked.

So you voted, and now you've got a government. I just hope YOU like it.

mjones · June 2007

Nick, given your very silly comment about wiping out the human race with bioweapons, it is very hard to tell whether you actually want to be taken seriously.

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by mjones

Nick, given your very silly comment about wiping out the human race with bioweapons, it is very hard to tell whether you actually want to be taken seriously.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

It would be interesting to see the reaction if Nick were to stand for Parliament on such a platform. My guess is that he'd get support from various interesting individuals who'd want to be in charge of the bio weapons and have a very clear idea as to which race would be the first to be on the receiving end.

Gary Askwith · June 2007

Heres something for Mjones to ponder;( one of us nasty elitist radicals thinking out of the box[;)])

Agree or not[:)][}:)]

Recently, I was having a conversation with one of the country's most prominent campaigners on climate change. He'd been talking about what could realistically be done to prevent further emissions. He'd made a convincing case that, technologically at least, it would be possible to make the necessary transfers from carbon heavy technologies to renewables within the timeframe needed to prevent disastrous global warming. What was frustrating, he said, was the unwillingness of governments, and perhaps people in general, to make the necessary changes.

We were both a bit tipsy, so I asked him to be honest with me. What chance did we really have preventing disastrous climate change, I asked. Being realistic - being honest, how likely was it? After making me promise not to take his answer outside of the room, he told me: about 5%, he said. If we're lucky.

Technically, I suppose I have now broken that promise, but since I'm not naming him, I don't expect he'll mind. The point is not this one person's opinion in any case, because it's an opinion I've actually heard enunciated by other climate change campaigners I know - and as an environmentalist of 15 years standing myself, I know quite a few. Pretty much all of them, if you get them alone in a room and perhaps give them a glass or two of wine, would admit to pretty much the same thing. The technology exists, perhaps, but the political will and the economic reality doesn't. That reality dictates that stopping climate change is nigh on impossible.

This is my impression too, so I'd like to make a controversial suggestion: that climate change campaigners themselves are in denial. Denial of how much good they can do. Denial of how much difference their actions will make. Denial of how much doodoo we are really in.

Here, then, is the case for the prosecution. I'm no climate change expert myself, so please feel free to tear me apart. But as well as I understand it, the situation is this. Scientific consensus tells us that we need to reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases by somewhere between 60 and 80% below current levels in order to stabilise climate impacts. This, of course, will not act to prevent climate change, which appears to be affecting us already, but it might prevent it from getting worse. Furthermore, we need to do this quickly - within three or maybe four decades at most. Climate writer Mark Lynas, in fact, goes further. He reckons that we have at best a decade to stabilise emissions at current levels in order to prevent us tipping into a situation where positive feedback to make disastrous climate change irreversible. And James Lovelock, of course, believes it's already too late.

Meanwhile, we have a global industrial economy growing at the fastest rate in human history. It is globalised - linked together intimately - to an extent also entirely unprecedented. We have a human population, and a rate of human population growth, that is unprecedented too. Furthermore, the vast majority of the world's nations have joined hands in a happy capitalist alliance, which puts industrial expansion and economic growth at the heart of their policymaking. That economic growth is based upon fossil fuels. Perhaps 'based' is to weedy a word, actually - it is entirely dependent upon them. They make it possible. Nothing else will provide anything like the rate of growth needed to keep that global economy from imploding.

Now, perhaps if we had a hundred years to make that 60 to 80% reduction we could do it, though it would still require a degree of international consensus and co-operation so far unseen in human history. But we don't have that long. We have, it seems, a few decades at most. Meanwhile the world's biggest polluter, the United States, barely recognizes the existence of climate change. The other major industrial economies, including those of Europe, may make the right noises, but the chances of them making such deep cuts in such a short time - and impacting on their own 'global competitiveness' in the process - are pretty much zero. And all of this is without taking into account the newly industrialising countries - Brazil, China, India etc - who have no intention whatsoever of slowing down the rate of fossil-fuelled growth which is bringing people out of poverty and finally making them players on the global stage.

Imagine you are a visiting alien from another planet. Appraise the situation for yourself, and give me an unbiased and honest account of how likely you think it is that this species, at this time, in this situation, can do what is necessary to prevent potential climate disaster. What is the answer you get? Not good, is it?

In this context, the demands of climate change campaigners for people to fly less, use bikes a bit more, insulate their lofts and go on an annual march look pretty paltry. In fact, they could even look counter-productive, winding people up into a frenzy of personal activity, only to have them crash to the ground when they realise how tiny that activity is in the context of the problem. If we really have perhaps a 5% chance of stopping climate change, don't those who campaign on it have a duty to be honest with the public? And is their lack of honesty merely a mirror image of the lack of honesty of our politicians when confronting the same issue?

Tough questions, and not ones any eco-activist likes to hear. And I should make it clear that I'm not pointing the finger. I try to limit my own personal emissions, and I can rant about climate change with the best of them. Neither am I making a case for nihilism - for giving up, shrugging our shoulders and letting Shell and BP do what they want.

But I suppose I am making a case for honesty. I think climate change campaigners know more than they're letting on, but they're not telling the public. I think that my anonymous friend's view - that we have maybe a 5% chance at best of fending off disaster - is pretty widely held. If it is, would we not be better off accepting the impossibility of necessary change in the available timeframe, and reworking our responses accordingly?

I suspect that we would. So why are climate change campaigners so reluctant to acknowledge what most people can see with their own eyes - that turning this oil tanker around in such a short time is an impossibility?

Firstly, and most cynically, no one would buy their books or go to their talks if they did. But this is just being mischievous. I suspect that they - we, actually - are in climate change denial as well. Denial of the scale of the problem, but also about the value of using traditional methods of environmental campaigning to solve it. And that's the point. We are, after all, all professional campaigners aren't we? It's what we do. We are 'activists' - so we need to be active. Not being active is almost a crime within this world, even if the activity itself doesn't actually do any noticeable good. Even if it's displacement activity.

When I discuss this with the climate change campaigners that I know, their argument always boils down to one final point. Maybe you're right, they say, but even if you are, it's better to be doing something than to be doing nothing. We must be active. We must campaign. Not to do so would be an abdication of responsibility; it would be to cede ground to Bush and Exxon. This is unthinkable, and so we must be active, even if being active might be less useful than stopping to think about where activism for activism's sake is actually taking us.

It's perfectly understandable reaction. But what would you have done, if you were heading up the Light Brigade? Headed straight at the guns of the sake of being active, or stop to think about what you wanted to achieve, what was possible to achieve and how you might actually achieve it. Maybe charging mindlessly up the valley of death shouting, 'reduce global emissions radically now! we have 10 years!' is not the best thing to be doing. Because if the means to do it simply do not exist, it stops being campaigning and starts being wishful thinking. And what is the difference between wishful thinking and denial? Answers on a postcard please.

Paul Kingsnorth is a environmental journalist

Economic Growth; as dead as a Yangtze River dolphin....

mjones · June 2007

Nick and Gary: the fundamental problem for you both is really very simple. If you could persuade enough people to support your (naive, destructive and unworkable) policies then you could put up candidates on that manifesto at the next election. But as you know that you won't ever be able to get public suppport you blame democracy for giving the wrong answers and, in common with repressive ideolgues throughout history, try to get round it.

Fortunately for the rest of us, democracy means that we won't be subject to your tyrannical regimes. Unfortunately for you this means that your unachieveable obession with overturning society distracts you from the altogether more constructive task of trying to get sustainable policies adopted through the existing system.

Joe Sacco · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by mjones

Nick and Gary: the fundamental problem for you both is really very simple. If you could persuade enough people to support your (naive, destructive and unworkable) policies then you could put up candidates on that manifesto at the next election. But as you know that you won't ever be able to get public suppport you blame democracy for giving the wrong answers and, in common with repressive ideolgues throughout history, try to get round it.

Fortunately for the rest of us, democracy means that we won't be subject to your tyrannical regimes. Unfortunately for you this means that your unachieveable obession with overturning society distracts you from the altogether more constructive task of trying to get sustainable policies adopted through the existing system.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Don't put them down so quickly, Hitler managed it a few years back. Just a case of getting their timing right. Oh, and having an extremely high level of determination...

Gary Askwith · June 2007

Ok mjones...we will leave you and patrick to your blind irrational faith that somehow humanity will pull through by tinkering around the edges of failed ideologies [:)]

I can't actually see anyone advocating Stalinist tyranny so why the pavlovian link from radical thinking to fascist dictatorship?.....could it be thats all you have to offer....answering a few of my questions would surely be more interesting

Anyway this is all internet piffle give it 10or 15 years and it will be plain in retrospect whoose thinking was in the right direction

oops nearly forgot todays Independant headline....well what do you know:

[url][/url]http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article2675747.ece[url][/url]

Economic Growth; as dead as a Yangtze River dolphin....

mjones · June 2007

Failed ideologies? Well there is one in particular failed ideology that rather stands out in the last century, but it certainly isn't one that Patrick or I would advocate!

No-one advocating dictatorship? Well both you and Nick seem to want to get rid of the democratic process, a characteristic generally associated with tyrants. Now it may be that you can provide some examples of non-democratic utopia where everyone is free and content, but I'm not holding my breath.

Don't know why you keep trying to tell me climate change is a problem- you really ought to have grasped by now that I know that. Funnily enough it isn't just fringe lefty and anarchist types that understand climate change. However the rest of us don't waste our time whinging about how unfair it is that people don't want to vote for the cloud cuckoo land politics we aspire to; we are getting on with trying to find real solutions that will work in the planet we inhabit.

ankev1 · June 2007

Gary,

energy spent trying to overthrow capitalism or multi-party systems is wasted energy when you're talking about climate change. It would take ages to do that; in fact it's probably unachievable. Given, however, that that is what the establishment consists of, you need to make it work to achieve the necessary changes (what's the difference if a high tory orders a reduction in climate emissions or a stalinist dictator?). There are signs that the western governments (except the USA) have begun to listen. Pressure needs to be kept up on them and IMO we should be denying any materials to the likes of India and China which enable them to screw things up further. At the very least we should be considering trade sanctions against them if they carry on.

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by mjones

...you could put up candidates on that manifesto at the next election...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Jesus Christ, it's like banging my head on a wall [:(!]

So you voted, and now you've got a government. I just hope YOU like it.

spire · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by NickM

Jesus Christ, it's like banging my head on a wall [:(!]

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Perhaps that should tell you something?

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by spire

Perhaps that should tell you something?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Indeed it does, but probably not what you think.

So you voted, and now you've got a government. I just hope YOU like it.

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by ankev1

...Given, however, that that is what the establishment consists of, you need to make it work to achieve the necessary changes...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">It cannot happen. It is not in the nature of the existing political structure to make it happen.

So you voted, and now you've got a government. I just hope YOU like it.

Leftists vs Rightists

Comments

Categories