Public Meeting

[Bobbie En Tejas]

whoa!!! sorry john, if i hadn't posted the first reply this might have not started, don't get caught up in an arguement with that pair, here's a tried and trusted method to diffuse the situation

"aye, you'll be right!!!!"

"now shut it and get up, sometimes you canna get a seat in yer ain hoose"

Don't flatter yourself.

And if the chest pains have died down, I'll be thinking of you from the deck of the "Inspiration" as we depart from Tampa tomorrow, for points Caribbean.

Very cool swelted.. hope the hurricanes behave for you.

[Sweltered]

This is the kind of thinking that will REALLY put Scotland on the map. JOHN S for First Minister!

What I mean Sweltered is that your comments, like Homers, are Puerile. They do your real persona no justice.

Sorry to disappoint you John, but I meant every word.

[general jack o'niell]

[Sweltered]

poor john, offending no one and gets jumped by curly and larry


i am wit you!!!!!

I was referring to politicians in general.

However, the genes-run-in-the-family quote puts him in a class of his own. And they talk about Bush!!!

[John S]

Doh! Here’s some light relief

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqLvBUSJucg

But seriously, politicians are possibly the closest scrutinised group of people there has ever been, criticism is easy when practically every move and word is in the public domain. The result, I think, is that more and more politicians learn to switch off to criticism - not listening is not a good quality in a politician.

I'm not suggesting that there are no charlatans, incompetents, or liars amongst them. We know there are. But I do think that it is dangerous to continually generalise and talk down politicians as a whole, after all we were angry when Paddy Wivel produced his "Campbeltown" program, rightly so, because the “general impression” of town and its young people we felt was way off the mark.

At least when we elect politicians we all have some control. When we choose not to vote, we give away control to the more entrenched who would vote for a donkey wearing the right rosette. When this happens democracy is weakened and we reap what we sow.

[Sweltered]

:oops: Doh! Here’s some light relief

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqLvBUSJucg

But seriously, politicians are possibly the closest scrutinised group of people there has ever been, criticism is easy when practically every move and word is in the public domain. The result, I think, is that more and more politicians learn to switch off to criticism - not listening is not a good quality in a politician.

I'm not suggesting that there are no charlatans, incompetents, or liars amongst them. We know there are. But I do think that it is dangerous to continually generalise and talk down politicians as a whole, after all we were angry when Paddy Wivel produced his "Campbeltown" program, rightly so, because the “general impression” of town and its young people we felt was way off the mark.

At least when we elect politicians we all have some control. When we choose not to vote, we give away control to the more entrenched who would vote for a donkey wearing the right rosette. When this happens democracy is weakened and we reap what we sow.

So, knowing that they are going to be under such scrutiny, why do so many of them behave as they do. As for the BBC prog. I belive they showd a contrived generalisation of the young people of the town but were any of the scenes staged? I did not see it, so I can't comment on it. As for donkeys in rosettes, wasn't Thatcher in power for 11 years.

I can't vote over here, and I don't think I would if I could. The only politician in Florida that commands any sort of respect can't stand again. Jeb Bush will be President one day, but he is a totally different man than his brother is. And no skeletons...yet.

I had high hopes for Gordon Brown, but that is fading fast. They are all melding into one supertory party.

[dedalus]

I thought you were away on a boat? I am jealous especially since you didnt get any hurricanes this year.

Anyway - on the subject of voting - and the fact that those that actually pay for democracy are in the minority - isnt it time we introduced a basic I.Q. test for voters? Stop those who vote on the basis of the candidate's hair style from running the country into the ground.

Something simple like

what is Inflation?

Under the present government did the following go up or down?

employment
GDP
serious crime
balance of payments

I would also introduce a statutory Holiday on Tax freedom day - just to focus the mind on all the ways they have of seperating us from our cash.

[4th gen Suthen']

and raise the voting age to 26 while you are at it..........

[John S]

I had high hopes for Gordon Brown, but that is fading fast. They are all melding into one supertory party.

Brown is a consummate politician but so much has changed in England since devolution I think it is unlikely he will ever be acceptable to English voters because he is too Scottish, this goes for John Reid also who is currently being touted as a successor to Blair. In May an ICM poll found that 52% of English voters thought that it was wrong that a Scottish MP can become Prime Minister of the whole UK.

I don’t think Labour is moving towards a super Tory party, it is just becoming more anglocentric as England starts to think "Scotland has its own parliament isn't that where all Scots politicians should be". Here’s a typical article from an English local newspaper on the subject.
http://www.yorkshiretoday.co.uk/ViewArt ... ID=1735848

[John S]

and raise the voting age to 26 while you are at it..........

Do you think anyone under 26 actually votes?

[John S]

on the subject of voting - and the fact that those that actually pay for democracy are in the minority - isn’t it time we introduced a basic I.Q. test for voters? Stop those who vote on the basis of the candidate's hair style from running the country into the ground.

Prof, I don't think you pay for democracy i think you pay for government; a dictator would take your hard earned just the same.

If you have ever stood outside the polling station at the Vistoria hall you'd see that not many people who vote are ignorant of what they are doing they just have different priorities. Oftain people are ignorant of how to vote effectively ie voting green and expecting it to improve the environment or listening to propaganda, The Liberals are masters at it, "Vote Tory and you'll let in the SNP"

[Surfbored]

imho party politics is for little people !!!

It's like supporting a football team, you vote for the colour of the rosette.

Occassionally somebody questions that a candidate might never have stepped foot in the place, and was chosen solely on the grounds that it's a safe seat or a good bet. But the masses will vote for the party they always vote for regardless. (or to indulge some petty selfish interest at the expense of all else)

When the day comes that someone comes along that can do a job for the area, and passionately believes they can do a job for the area, and isn't all about sitting on commitees, sub-commitees, often being whipped or co-erced to vote in ways detrimental to their constituency, picking up travelling expenses and generally riding the gravy train ... that is the day I will cast a vote.

AMEN

[John S]

I agree that there is more to the democratic process than party politics, but inorder to achieve collective goals there has to be some form of collective machinery. The current "independent group" who run Argyll and Bute Council is an example of limited collective power. Each one stood as an independent to win the seat as the "local hero" but formed to independent group in order to be able to run the council. They also operate as a party, meet behind closed doors, and operate a whip, which is a bit disingenuous to those who voted for the local hero.

That is the limit of their influence. In order to ensure that Argyll & Bute gets its fair shear of influence at a wider level than this we would have to elect a council from a party, which has influence at a national level.

At least as important as party, as you suggest, is quality. But that can only be judged by taking the time to engage with politicians.

[Bobbie En Tejas]

I can't vote over here, and I don't think I would if I could. The only politician in Florida that commands any sort of respect can't stand again. Jeb Bush will be President one day, but he is a totally different man than his brother is. And no skeletons...yet. ...

You never know about skeletons in closets until they come out, and then they are no longer in the closet. The last thing I want is another Bush. Remember, George was governor of Texas for 8 years.. did no major damage, or no irreparable damage (long live Ann Richards, wish she would run), but he has done more to harm this country than any of them. God, please, no more Bushes. And after the Florida election fiasco, I doubt seriously Jeb has any more respect for the constitution than George does. I wouldn't even be surprised at this point if Laura ran, just to keep the Bushes in power.

[John S]

George was governor of Texas for 8 years.. did no major damage, or no irreparable damage (long live Ann Richards, wish she would run), but he has done more to harm this country than any of them. God, please, no more Bushes.

It seems to me that the more resolute the leader, the more advisors they surround themselves with who hold and reinforce that resolve until their grip on reality is lost; they start believing only they can be right. Then, when they decide to change their minds, they're right again - but without having ever been wrong! the acknowledgement of error never coming because they are never wrong.

Take Blair, the diminishing of Tony Blair is now of the extent that only he is unaware of it. It’s like a replay of Thatcher’s last days in power. But the trend has been there for some time. Here’s an article from The Guardian in 2004 examining Bush and Blair’s "Doublethink" over Iraq which is even more relevant today.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story ... 27,00.html