Tory economic policy (or lack of?)

[TheDaddy]

You might like being lied to, I don't, if they can deceive the one's they love the most they can deceive anyone and when they are found out they should be named and shamed.

[etccarmageddon]

Originally Posted by TheNorm

This statement says it all. What chance do we have of getting good people into government if they know that details of their private lives might well make front page news, and be gossiped about by busybodies in internet forums?

Get a life!

fair point but you have to question the judgement of someone who chooses to have relations with EDWINA CURRIE!!! yuck!!!!

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

You might like being lied to, I don't, if they can deceive the one's they love the most they can deceive anyone and when they are found out they should be named and shamed.

So you have never lied to anyone close to you? Not a leading question, but I am a great believer in a few aphorisms -

Let he/she who is without sin, cast the first stone.
To err is human, to forgive divine.
Better to light a candle than to curse the darkness

I have noticed there is a tendency to equalise things - to say that a lot of good things done over a period of time can be negated by one small (in the overall scheme of thing, but I think infidelity is unforgivable) thing.

I think that speeding is bad, but I do not instantly then doubt all the good things the speeding offender has done (a local member of the clergy was done for speeding on the motorway - the congregation did not ask for his resignation).

I believe it was right that John Major was taken to task for deceiving his wife, but I do not then equate that with "he must have lied about everything else".

But, as the saying goes, to each their own.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

So you have never lied to anyone close to you? Not a leading question, but I am a great believer in a few aphorisms -

Let he/she who is without sin, cast the first stone.
To err is human, to forgive divine.
Better to light a candle than to curse the darkness

I have noticed there is a tendency to equalise things - to say that a lot of good things done over a period of time can be negated by one small (in the overall scheme of thing, but I think infidelity is unforgivable) thing.

I think that speeding is bad, but I do not instantly then doubt all the good things the speeding offender has done (a local member of the clergy was done for speeding on the motorway - the congregation did not ask for his resignation).

I believe it was right that John Major was taken to task for deceiving his wife, but I do not then equate that with "he must have lied about everything else".

But, as the saying goes, to each their own.

I am not an elected official, if I were I can guarantee you I would not lie, is it to much to ask for our politicians to tell the truth.

Did I say that he must have lied about everything, what I said was if he can deceive her he can deceive anyone and therefore everything he say's is clouded in doubt

[TheNorm]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

I am not an elected official, if I were I can guarantee you I would not lie, is it to much to ask for our politicians to tell the truth...

Where is it written that elected officials have to be saints?

...Did I say that he must have lied about everything, what I said was if he can deceive her he can deceive anyone and therefore everything he say's is clouded in doubt

Can you name a public figure (politician or otherwise) who is beyond reproach?

[Pierre]

Can you name a public figure (politician or otherwise) who is beyond reproach?

The Dalai Lama

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by TheNorm

Where is it written that elected officials have to be saints?
Can you name a public figure (politician or otherwise) who is beyond reproach?

No wonder there is electoral apathy and there are plenty of people who go through their lives political and other wise without lying and cheating, no one said they have to be saints just honest

[hatedbythemail]

politicians private lives ae of no interest to me unless they expose hypocrisy. like i said before, but perhaps should clarify, politically i think he was a genuine and honourable man. the exception would be the back to basics vs currie copulation. even then i find it hard to be too bothered. not a tory, not a majorite, but i do think he was less divisive and destructive than many leaders we've had, especially that woman - what was her name again? :-)

haaaaaaalelujah
halelujah
halelujah
ha-a-a-a-le-luuuuu-jah

a blinding light pierces through the gloom of 70's socialism
Iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiit's ............................Maggieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee !

"Where there is discord, may we bring harmony.
Where there is error, may we bring truth.
Where there is doubt, may we bring faith.
And where there is despair, may we bring hope."

Not long afterwards, astronomers noticed a wobble in Earth's orbit, caused by precession from the spinning in St Frances of Assisi's grave.

[hatedbythemail]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

haaaaaaalelujah
halelujah
halelujah
ha-a-a-a-le-luuuuu-jah

a blinding light pierces through the gloom of 70's socialism
Iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiit's ............................Maggieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee !

"Where there is discord, may we bring harmony.
Where there is error, may we bring truth.
Where there is doubt, may we bring faith.
And where there is despair, may we bring hope."

Not long afterwards, astronomers noticed a wobble in Earth's orbit, caused by precession from the spinning in St Frances of Assisi's grave.

you been on the crazy juice again? :-)

Originally Posted by foreverwar

half a dozen true Eurosceptics??? errr, try again.

Your figures are correct, but only true eurosceptics really had the guts to truly stand up to Major and the whips (one of whom was David Davis) and only 9 went far enough to have the whip withdrawn. I don't know how many of them would have voted against the treaty had the pressure on them not been so immense. Their job wasn't to keep Major in power! (The *******s were actually members of his own cabinet so called in 1993; who were opposed to him, but not enough to risk their own seats. My mistake earlier, and my apologies.)

Originally Posted by Foreverwar

The Maastritch bill was passed by the House of Commons - or do you only believe in Democracy when it coincides with your beliefs and views?

Oh no Foreverwar, I'm a supporter of democracy all right. If you can show me how John Major's Tories were elected on a ticket of giving great swathes of sovereign power to undemocratic EU institutions, with all that that implies, I'll be happy to concede that Major acted as a decent and honourable man. It is the British mainstream political parties, but particularly the hierarachy, that don't support democracy. Many, many years ago they admitted that they would never win the argument for European union in a democratic debate - so they have never had one. This is now known now because official papers were released under the 30 year rule confirming it.

Originally Posted by foreverwar

And yes, thanks for providing a link to a Eurosceptic's site to back up your argument
http://www.europeanfoundation.org/docs/April%202005.pdf page 25
"The choice of material in the foreword alerts the reader to the author’s fundamentally British Eurosceptic view of the Constitution, whilst the legal and constitutional analysis reflects the thinking of Bill Cash and the European Foundation"

Which link? The last one I provided was a link to the Maastricht Treaty on an EU site. The opinions of the European Foundation are europhile to put it mildly. They still revere Robin Cook and Ted Heath!

Edit: Sorry I was thinking of the European Movement, not Foundation. I hadn't come across the organisation in your link. I'm really confused. Why did you provide its link?

Originally Posted by foreverwar

As I said earlier, I can only go on personal experiences of meeting with the man, and discussions with others who had also met him - not just on reports from the newspapers, and Spitting Image/Steve Bell parodies of him - can you say the same?

I never had the pleasure of meeting Major, and you are entitled to your opinion of him. But I don't base my opinion of him on your other suggested sources. The treaties themselves are enough (including those that preceded Maastricht) and his naive desire ["My aim for Britain in the Community can be simply stated. I want us to be where we belong. At the very heart of Europe"]. I said earlier that I don't rate the press as a reliable source.

Have you met any of the Maastricht Rebels?

Originally Posted by Pierre

The Dalai Lama

Ooops
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenzin_...4th_Dalai_Lama
"In October 1998, The Dalai Lama's administration acknowledged that it received $1.7 million a year in the 1960's from the U.S. Government through the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)[15], and also trained a resistance movement in Colorado (USA). [16] When asked by CIA officer John Kenneth Knaus in 1995 whether the organization did a good or bad thing in providing its support, the Dalai Lama replied that though it helped the morale of those resisting the Chinese, "thousands of lives were lost in the resistance" and further, that "the U.S. Government had involved itself in his country's affairs not to help Tibet but only as a Cold War tactic to challenge the Chinese."[17]
British journalist Christopher Hitchens wrote a scathing criticism [18] of the Dalai Lama in 1998, which questioned his alleged support for India's nuclear weapons testing, the "selling of indulgences" to Hollywood celebrities like Richard Gere, and his statements condoning prostitution.
The Dalai Lama is sometimes criticized for modifying his message to be as palatable as possible to his audience, sometimes changing viewpoints according to the situation. He is also sometimes reproached for taking one side of an issue at one time and changing it later on, usually in response to criticism. This tendency has led opposing sides of an issue to believe that the Dalai Lama supports their cause, e.g. homosexuality[19], abortion, the Iraq war, Kashmiri independence, nuclear weapons, etc"

---------- Post added at 22:05 ---------- Previous post was at 21:49 ----------

Originally Posted by freezin

...snip....
http://www.eurotreaties.com/maastrichtext.html

Above is the link you quoted

and

my link was pointing out the site you had quoted was run by this man -Anthony Cowgill - well, his name was at the bottom of the web-page above, and this was one of the (very few) review(s) I could find of his book.

Originally Posted by foreverwar

...snip....And yes, thanks for providing a link to a Eurosceptic's site to back up your argument
http://www.europeanfoundation.org/docs/April%202005.pdf page 25
"The choice of material in the foreword alerts the reader to the author’s fundamentally British Eurosceptic view of the Constitution, whilst the legal and constitutional analysis reflects the thinking of Bill Cash and the European Foundation"

mmmmm - not very Europhile, eh?

Originally Posted by freezin

Have you met any of the Maastricht Rebels?

I've met, at various party conferences, elections and by-elections, and at the House, when I used to do research for, and visit, my MP there -
Liam Fox
David Willetts
Tony Marlow
Teresa Gorman
Teddy Taylor
James Cran
Michael Spicer
Rupert Allason
Bill Cash
Nicholas Winterton
Ian Duncan Smith
George Gardiner

Have you met any of the Maastricht rebels?

OK, how about this one from the EU itself:
http://europa.eu/scadplus/treaties/maastricht_en.htm

Or this one:
http://www.essex.ac.uk/info/Maastricht.html

The text is the same in all three.

Originally Posted by Foreverwar

my link was pointing out the site you had quoted was run by this man -Anthony Cowgill - well, his name was at the bottom of the web-page above, and this was one of the (very few) review(s) I could find of his book.

mmmmm - not very Europhile, eh?

Maybe you missed my edit.

I've met, at various party conferences, elections and by-elections, and at the House, when I used to do research for, and visit, my MP there -

So you presumably know what their problems with the Maastricht Treaty were, and yet you still say that Major was a decent honourable man?

Originally Posted by Foreverwar

Have you met any of the Maastricht rebels?

Yes, though not as half as as many as you. Most of them have now crossed over to the dark side or retired now.

Oh no Foreverwar, I'm a supporter of democracy all right. If you can show me how John Major's Tories were elected on a ticket of giving great swathes of sovereign power to undemocratic EU institutions, with all that that implies, I'll be happy to concede that Major acted as a decent and honourable man. It is the British mainstream political parties, but particularly the hierarachy, that don't support democracy. Many, many years ago they admitted that they would never win the argument for European union in a democratic debate - so they have never had one. This is now known now because official papers were released under the 30 year rule confirming it.

Well can you? You apparently have all the right connections.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by freezin

If you can show me how John Major's Tories were elected on a ticket of giving great swathes of sovereign power to undemocratic EU institutions, with all that that implies, I'll be happy to concede that Major acted as a decent and honourable man.

Anyone got a copy of the Tory manefesto from back then?
I don't remember them having "we won't give great swathes of sovereign power to undemocratic EU institutions" listed as an election pledge (remember Major saying he loved the NHS because of his mother), but I may be wrong...

Originally Posted by freezin

OK, how about this one from the EU itself:
http://europa.eu/scadplus/treaties/maastricht_en.htm
Or this one:
http://www.essex.ac.uk/info/Maastricht.html

The text is the same in all three.
Maybe you missed my edit.

Must have - didn't realise you had changed your story/sources.

Originally Posted by freezin

So you presumably know what their problems with the Maastricht Treaty were, and yet you still say that Major was a decent honourable man?

I respected their viewpoints, even though I disagreed with them - they were (mostly) honourable people, using what (I and others thought) inappropriate tactics - some of them were as mad as a box of frogs, though . Back to the point of democracy - a majority in the House voted to pass the bill, but the "rebels" were determined to get their "payback" for being defeated, so continued to undermine the government of which they were a part. It was very amusing to watch (and somewhat painful), as in the 80's the Tory Reform Group had to take a sustained barrage of "traitors", "left-wing pinkos", and "you'll let Labour in if you don't show full support for the Government". As soon as it was the other way around, all bets were off - fairly hypocritical, imho. The Maastricht Rebels were the "Militant Tendency" of the Conservative Party.

Originally Posted by freezin

Well can you? You apparently have all the right connections.

He acted in what he believed was the best interests of the country - and your vitriol is why I left politics in the early 90's; I entered politics to try and help people, and if I disagreed with some of them, that was my (and their) right. It was all about trying to go forward - unfortunately, some people just want to go back.

Unfortunately, some extremists (in all parties) are of the opinion that, if you don't agree with them, you are the enemy, and must be destroyed; they would rather be defeated than "compromise their principles", and they are happy to take others down with them. I decided to focus on my family and job, and (imho) much happier because of it.