|
Post by EGBFan on Feb 20, 2005 8:52:18 GMT -4
Cities are known to lie back and spread their legs every time the sports teams want a new stadium, even if there's already a perfectly fine one only about twenty years old currently in existance. Ok, so now you've got me started on sports. Football (soccer) seems to get unlimited funding, but I don't know much about football because I deliberately switch channels whenever everything with that much hype comes on TV or the radio and I just don't read about it in the papers. (Except Harry Potter, I'm afraid.) Does anybody care what that bloody bridge is called? (This is all I got of the story - as I say, I try not to find out.) How long before the Wimbledon show courts get their new roof? There are a few niggles I have about that particular tournament, but it's Grand Slam tennis which I care about, so obviously it should be a priority for the rest of the country as well. I rely on the bus. The bus company I use is actually run by my university (which means I get a discount , and it provides a very good service. The other bus services in my area are good too. They seem to be constantly updated and the routes re-planned, but they never put the fares up (fingers crossed) and I even think that both of the main services to our town have seen some improvement lately. There's a rail station near the town centre, which is about right in a town this size, on the Thameslink Network if that means anything to anyone. It's about half an hour's walk from my house but that's ok with me, and if I'm feeling tired and can spare five quid there's always a queue of taxis just outside. You can get a train into the two adjacent cities, several London stations or you can ride all the way down to the south coast. BUT the service is abominable. Some bigwig is always deciding to re-build bridges in the middle of London, which disrupts the entire network. The trains are nearly always late anyway, and once you get into London... Obviously things are much worse in Indianapolis, but you will never hear me dissing the buses. Mind you, UniversityBus has this poster all about how brilliant the government is for giving them money. They do it because they're trying to suck up to us students; Blair is alienating an entire generation with his plan to raise tuition fees. The whole reason I don't have to pay tuition fees is because my mother is poor and I don't have anything to do with my father - if Blair gets his way, I'll be able to ride the buses a few pence cheaper but I'll also have to call my dad and pretend to like him if I want to be able to pay to keep studying. I mean, they've already taken away student grants... Mind you, this "Education, education, education" (*emphatic hands*) thing doesn't seem to have come through. (Longer school days my bum! ) Hopefully this will be one of the promises he doesn't keep...
|
|
|
Post by Silent Seraphim on Feb 20, 2005 12:22:51 GMT -4
The other bus services in my area are good too. They seem to be constantly updated and the routes re-planned, but they never put the fares up (fingers crossed) and I even think that both of the main services to our town have seen some improvement lately. Bus fares in my area have gone up to £1.20, which means £2.40 for a two-bus trip. That's a total of £4.80 to get two buses to and from a destination. Thanks very much, Ken!!! Needless to say, I drive everywhere. But I do feel for those who have to get the bus regularly where I live.
|
|
|
Post by EGBFan on Apr 5, 2005 9:53:06 GMT -4
I think it was a BBC Radio 2 presenter suggested who suggested recently that the women of Great Britain are likely to vote for Blair in the upcoming election because they fancy him. I find this insulting on so many levels. Not only does it imply that British women neither know nor care about politics; it also credits us with extremely poor taste in men!
|
|
|
Post by Silent Seraphim on Apr 5, 2005 15:13:59 GMT -4
I think it was a BBC Radio 2 presenter suggested who suggested recently that the women of Great Britain are likely to vote for Blair in the upcoming election because they fancy him. I find this insulting on so many levels. Not only does it imply that British women neither know nor care about politics; it also credits us with extremely poor taste in men! Typical. I'm guessing the presenter was a man. Most (I can't honestly say all) of my female friends are extremely interested in politics, and are irritated by Blair and his policies. They are looking forward to going to the polls in May. If there are women out there voting for image over substance, I think very few would be attracted to the lying, egotistical arrogance of Tony Blair. EDIT: An interesting and humorous thing to note... If you type the word 'liar' in google search, guess whose biography comes up on the top of the list?
|
|
|
Post by EGBFan on May 10, 2005 8:10:49 GMT -4
So Blair's back in. Yeah, you know, it happened days ago - I've been inwardly screaming all that time and trying to come to terms with things.
Well, it was expected, right? Only... how?? I don't know ANYONE who supports Blair! As ever, I laughed and agreed with Jon Culshaw's pieces on the Dead Ringers Election Special:
"What did I have to do to lose this election? Aren't you sick of this smile?? I don't want to be the Prime Minister anymore!"
But he's retiring though, right? ITV News wouldn't joke about that, would they??
|
|
|
Post by Fritz on May 10, 2005 10:44:47 GMT -4
So Blair's back in. Yeah, you know, it happened days ago - I've been inwardly screaming all that time and trying to come to terms with things. I feel your pain. You're going what I went through last November At least that gives you hope. Even if George Duh-bya decided to retire, it'd make Dick Cheney President. Of course, it really wouldn't be any different than things are now, but still... There's a show I see occassionally on Comedy Central, "The Daily Show" , which pokes fun at the news and politics. They did a hilarious bit on the British elections that reran last night--it showed Blair being booed at a town hall meeting, getting grilled by the audience and moderator, and actually admitting "mistakes were made". They contrasted it to the totally orchestrated town hall meetings Duh-bya goes to, the softball questions from the fawning audience and moderators, and of course how he never ever admits a wrong-doing. "I just don't get their system" John Stewart said at the end.
|
|
|
Post by Silent Seraphim on May 10, 2005 13:34:41 GMT -4
But he's retiring though, right? ITV News wouldn't joke about that, would they?? The result is exactly what I thought it would be. My local MP changed hands from Labour to Tory with only a tiny majority but at least my vote had some effect. My only hope now is that the remaining Labour MPs finally wake up from their Blair-induced coma and realise that he is going to take their party to the cleaners if they don’t get rid of him soon. After all, Howard is leaving the Tory party even though they actually gained seats on election night. Now that Labour have lost seats, they can call a vote of no confidence. I have a feeling that will happen after the EU constitution referendum, and Blair will be out soon after that. At least that’s what I hope will happen. Somewhat related to Fritz’s comment, I couldn’t help but laugh when I was browsing the Yahoo message boards on election night, and saw Republicans hailing the result as another Republican victory without realising that a) Blair and the Labour party are Liberal and b) that even though they won the election, the result means Blair is more likely to go rather than stay for another full term, because even though they won the vote, they lost almost 100 MPs. Not exactly the kind of victory they thought it was.
|
|
|
Post by Fritz on May 10, 2005 17:55:22 GMT -4
Somewhat related to Fritz’s comment, I couldn’t help but laugh when I was browsing the Yahoo message boards on election night, and saw Republicans hailing the result as another Republican victory without realising that a) Blair and the Labour party are Liberal . Heh heh...that is kind of funny. I guess, as usual, most of them aren't up enough on politics in the UK to realize that--Blair being Bush's poodle aside--him and his party are the counterparts of the Democrats in the States. But since he knuckled under and said "Whatever you say George, sure, go ahead and invade a near-defenseless country in defiance of international law." he's okay with them. I'm glad I'm not British--I'm not sure how I could've voted. I imagine it'd been like Bill Clinton declaring war unnecessarily....do I stick with the guy who f***ed this up but belongs to the party that better approximates my beliefs? (Being liberal-leaning, that'd be the Democrats and Labour) or voting for the guy who didn't screw it up, but has all sorts of scary right-wing nutjobs waiting to come into power with him (Republicans and Tories)? I guess I was lucky that the choice was a lot clearer for us Americans. If only more of us didn't choose wrong...
|
|
|
Post by Silent Seraphim on May 10, 2005 19:31:52 GMT -4
Heh heh...that is kind of funny. I guess, as usual, most of them aren't up enough on politics in the UK to realize that--Blair being Bush's poodle aside--him and his party are the counterparts of the Democrats in the States. Yeah, as you say, they assumed that Blair and co were more right-leaning than left. In a way, I can understand it, but it was funny the way they were cussing Liberals while praising Blair and his party’s victory in practically the same sentence. I faced that exact conundrum you mentioned – to vote for a right-wing party when my personal preference is to the left, purely to give Blair a black eye. It was a protest vote, and I think what made it slightly easier is that I didn’t think the Tories had much hope of overturning the huge majority that labour had and so wouldn’t have ended up in power. I think if the Tories had a better leader, then the choice would have been more difficult because there would have been more of a chance of a Conservative victory. I probably would have abstained, or given my vote to the Lib Dems (who didn’t have a hope in hell in my constituency), if it had come to that. I’d rather not vote at all than inadvertently vote in a right-wing party. I think what really galls me, is that I’ve been a Labour supporter for most of my voting life, and by rights I should be absolutely over the moon that we’ve reached a historic third term in office, but because of Blair and what he’s done to the party, I just don’t care.
|
|
|
Post by EGBFan on May 12, 2005 6:25:29 GMT -4
I know - let's make this all about me. I got quite excited about my first general election (I was 18 in time for the local election last year, but that means like nothing). It was nice to feel a part of it. Not voting Labour and thinking: HA! Take that, Blair! Mmmwwwhahahahaha! BUT My vote actually does make no difference! I don't know what my family is doing here, but we live in a town of absolute snobs. I think I mentioned the McDonald's thing - the local toffs complain whenever anyone suggests building a McDonald's in my town. But anyway, the point is, the Tory MP always gets in. It's been the same guy like my whole life, and probably quite a bit longer. If I voted Tory (which I would rather do than vote Labour right now, because astonishingly they are the further left of the two), it just would have been one more ballot paper on their pile. As it is I voted another way, but of course it got eaten up with the votes of the other 2 or 3 people who didn't vote Tory, and the Conservative candidate won the seat. Again. But at least that's one seat that didn't go to Labour. I'm glad I'm not British--I'm not sure how I could've voted. Well, you could have done what I did. My party - the Liberal Democrats - ended up with about 60 seats, as per usual (as opposed to a-hundred-something for the Tories and - AAARGHHH! - something like 353 for Labour). But as I say, my vote didn't help them. It's all very disillusioning.
|
|
|
Post by Kingpin on May 12, 2005 8:23:04 GMT -4
Well, I've never been fooled by Labour, they're a nasty bunch of softy softy cronies who have nearly ruined Britian, gotten their own way (Scottish MPs have no business voting in a ENGLAND based Tuition Fee system) and have basically cowtowed to the lower masses.
I'm a born and bred Conservative (Tory) voter.
And worst of all...we could get Gordon Brown as our next PM...I mean, Al Gore has more charisma...
Brown is not world leader material.
|
|
The Joker
Doberman
The Smoker, The Midnight Toker
Posts: 95
|
Post by The Joker on May 12, 2005 9:05:54 GMT -4
I refused to let myself be surprised by the election results. People obviously viewed Labour as the best of a bad bunch, which shows just how far the Conservatives have to go. Still, at least I have Labour's slashed advantage and the Lib Dem's bad day to console myself with.
The main parties obviously aren't recognising the fact that a country is at the end of the day composed of people - and a country is therefore only as good as its people. And while Britain's parents don't care, Britain's teenagers run around out of control, Britain's police remain scared to do anything, Britain's political system remained unbalanced (good call on the Scots MPs thing, Kingpin), Britain's authorites reain fearful of offending people...that soul is wasting away.
|
|
|
Post by Silent Seraphim on May 12, 2005 13:09:38 GMT -4
Well, I've never been fooled by Labour, they're a nasty bunch of softy softy cronies who have nearly ruined Britian, gotten their own way (Scottish MPs have no business voting in a ENGLAND based Tuition Fee system) and have basically cowtowed to the lower masses. I'm a born and bred Conservative (Tory) voter. Well, I wouldn’t say that the Tories were much better. In fact, they were a heck of a lot worse. …Under-investment in the NHS, privatisation of just about every public service we had, the decimation of our manufacturing industry, under-investment of public transport, recession, the miners strike, the poll tax… People lost their homes, their jobs and their businesses under the Tories. It wasn’t a great time under Thatcher’s government, in fact it was depressing. I think you’ll find that Britain was ‘ruined’ by thirteen years of a Conservative Government which most people are extremely reluctant to vote back into power, for obvious reasons. Besides, New Labour has moved as far to the right as they can without calling themselves Tory and turning a shade of blue, so I’d have thought that most traditional Conservative voters would love to vote for them. Even the Tory party themselves are having difficulty arguing against New Labour policy which they would have made had they been in power. And worst of all...we could get Gordon Brown as our next PM...I mean, Al Gore has more charisma... I really don’t think Michael Howard has much in the way of charisma, either. Besides, why should we always vote for image over substance? I’d rather vote for someone with effective policies than someone who looks great in a suit, wears a fake smile, and who lies to the Commons. At least Gordon Brown would never have allowed himself to become Bush’s poodle. Brown is not world leader material. Good. I don’t want a ‘world leader’. I’d rather have someone working in this country’s interest, rather than someone looking to make an impression on the world stage. I’ve had enough of that with Blair.
|
|