The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
This time from the Telegraph.
LINKY
Always interesting seeing these things as, should I choose to vote, my support is still fairly split.
According to this I'm all about Conservatives and UKIP with a (un)healthy chunk of BNP thrown in for good measure. Can't say I've decided who I'm voting for yet, but it killed some time and gave me an idea where I stand compared to the parties.
LINKY
Always interesting seeing these things as, should I choose to vote, my support is still fairly split.
According to this I'm all about Conservatives and UKIP with a (un)healthy chunk of BNP thrown in for good measure. Can't say I've decided who I'm voting for yet, but it killed some time and gave me an idea where I stand compared to the parties.
Page:
Don't forget about privatisation.
tnc wrote:
> Hedfix wrote:
>
> I believe that's what the civil service are for.
>
> Although there's truth to this, I don't see that putting a
> politician in charge of a crucial area such as the economy who
> knows nothing about it is such an incredible move
>
> Why, after all, is a politician actually needed in this role -
> other than to use the civil servant's figures to create spin and
> provide a face of the institution?
>
> I'd rather a less loquacious person heading up the government
> science department who actually knew his stuff, than someone who
> could come onto a televised discussion (ie Paxman's show) and use
> his political nouse, the reason he has the role rather than the
> aforementioned professional, to say "I have no idea"
Well they handed over part of the economy (interest rates I think, was there more handed over?) to The Bank of England.
So in a sense they've already handed part of the economy over to non-politicians.
> Hedfix wrote:
>
> I believe that's what the civil service are for.
>
> Although there's truth to this, I don't see that putting a
> politician in charge of a crucial area such as the economy who
> knows nothing about it is such an incredible move
>
> Why, after all, is a politician actually needed in this role -
> other than to use the civil servant's figures to create spin and
> provide a face of the institution?
>
> I'd rather a less loquacious person heading up the government
> science department who actually knew his stuff, than someone who
> could come onto a televised discussion (ie Paxman's show) and use
> his political nouse, the reason he has the role rather than the
> aforementioned professional, to say "I have no idea"
Well they handed over part of the economy (interest rates I think, was there more handed over?) to The Bank of England.
So in a sense they've already handed part of the economy over to non-politicians.
tnc wrote:
> I'd rather a less loquacious person heading up the government
> science department who actually knew his stuff, than someone who
> could come onto a televised discussion (ie Paxman's show) and use
> his political nouse, the reason he has the role rather than the
> aforementioned professional, to say "I have no idea"
As sad as it is, watching Newsnight last night by myself, I literally burst out in laughter when Lord Adonis said that. Don't get me wrong he seems like a pretty okay politician, not up himself at all, but jeeez...
> I'd rather a less loquacious person heading up the government
> science department who actually knew his stuff, than someone who
> could come onto a televised discussion (ie Paxman's show) and use
> his political nouse, the reason he has the role rather than the
> aforementioned professional, to say "I have no idea"
As sad as it is, watching Newsnight last night by myself, I literally burst out in laughter when Lord Adonis said that. Don't get me wrong he seems like a pretty okay politician, not up himself at all, but jeeez...
Hedfix wrote:
> I believe that's what the civil service are for.
Although there's truth to this, I don't see that putting a politician in charge of a crucial area such as the economy who knows nothing about it is such an incredible move
Why, after all, is a politician actually needed in this role - other than to use the civil servant's figures to create spin and provide a face of the institution?
I'd rather a less loquacious person heading up the government science department who actually knew his stuff, than someone who could come onto a televised discussion (ie Paxman's show) and use his political nouse, the reason he has the role rather than the aforementioned professional, to say "I have no idea"
> I believe that's what the civil service are for.
Although there's truth to this, I don't see that putting a politician in charge of a crucial area such as the economy who knows nothing about it is such an incredible move
Why, after all, is a politician actually needed in this role - other than to use the civil servant's figures to create spin and provide a face of the institution?
I'd rather a less loquacious person heading up the government science department who actually knew his stuff, than someone who could come onto a televised discussion (ie Paxman's show) and use his political nouse, the reason he has the role rather than the aforementioned professional, to say "I have no idea"
Butch wrote:
> tnc wrote:
> I was a little unclear here on whether you did or didn't
> support
> UKIP's stance against using wind farms?
>
> I don't support it.
>
> I have yet to see any scientific proof that climate change is
> entirely (or even mostly) caused by 'us' burning fossil fuels so
> agree that immediate action isn't necessary, however, I realise
> that the oil, coal and such will not last forever.
>
> With this in mind, I fully support the research, and building,
> of renewable energy sources (such as wind farms, solar power
> etc.) but for the reasoning that we will still need power 30
> years from now and not because we are all going to die a horrible
> sunny/snowy death a few years from now and, as such, UKIP don't
> match my feelings on this particular issue.
I think one of the biggest problems is that any scientists conducting research, in need of funding, can basically get easy and unlimited government grants if they can relate their work back to global warming. Therefore, we have a lot of hype about global warming all throughout the media, with things like "top scientists predict ice caps will melt by 2020" and very little proof to actually back up these claims
I agree, UKIP's stance against wind farms is slightly ludicrous given the importance of finding alternatives to fossil fuels, that will indeed run out
However at this current time, the cost of building wind farms will be astronomical and it's something to look into even 5/10 years down the line, while fossil fuels are still in relative abundance and committing a large chunk of taxpayer's money to the building of renewable energy won't be met with scorn
> tnc wrote:
> I was a little unclear here on whether you did or didn't
> support
> UKIP's stance against using wind farms?
>
> I don't support it.
>
> I have yet to see any scientific proof that climate change is
> entirely (or even mostly) caused by 'us' burning fossil fuels so
> agree that immediate action isn't necessary, however, I realise
> that the oil, coal and such will not last forever.
>
> With this in mind, I fully support the research, and building,
> of renewable energy sources (such as wind farms, solar power
> etc.) but for the reasoning that we will still need power 30
> years from now and not because we are all going to die a horrible
> sunny/snowy death a few years from now and, as such, UKIP don't
> match my feelings on this particular issue.
I think one of the biggest problems is that any scientists conducting research, in need of funding, can basically get easy and unlimited government grants if they can relate their work back to global warming. Therefore, we have a lot of hype about global warming all throughout the media, with things like "top scientists predict ice caps will melt by 2020" and very little proof to actually back up these claims
I agree, UKIP's stance against wind farms is slightly ludicrous given the importance of finding alternatives to fossil fuels, that will indeed run out
However at this current time, the cost of building wind farms will be astronomical and it's something to look into even 5/10 years down the line, while fossil fuels are still in relative abundance and committing a large chunk of taxpayer's money to the building of renewable energy won't be met with scorn
LukeM wrote:
> I want a balanced parliament as SNP leader Alex Salmond said this
> week. At least with a so called hung parliament everyone gets a
> say and no one has an overwhelming power of majority.
>
> That said I would like to see politics greatly reformed world
> wide. For one thing, why don't we have experts running various
> parts of the government instead of career politicians?
>
> Surely one of Britain's best economists should be up for
> Chancellor of the Exchequer, not a politician. Same goes for
> business ministers, science ministers, school ministers.. IMHO
> experts should be put in power, not trained politicians who know
> very little about this stuff.
>
> On Newsnight last night Lord Adonis admitted to Jeremy Paxman
> that he (Adonis) knew as much about the Volcanic ashes science as
> Paxman did, yet he is in charge of making policies on safe air
> travel. Surely scientists should be making the legislature rather
> than politicians who know nothing?
I believe that's what the civil service are for.
> I want a balanced parliament as SNP leader Alex Salmond said this
> week. At least with a so called hung parliament everyone gets a
> say and no one has an overwhelming power of majority.
>
> That said I would like to see politics greatly reformed world
> wide. For one thing, why don't we have experts running various
> parts of the government instead of career politicians?
>
> Surely one of Britain's best economists should be up for
> Chancellor of the Exchequer, not a politician. Same goes for
> business ministers, science ministers, school ministers.. IMHO
> experts should be put in power, not trained politicians who know
> very little about this stuff.
>
> On Newsnight last night Lord Adonis admitted to Jeremy Paxman
> that he (Adonis) knew as much about the Volcanic ashes science as
> Paxman did, yet he is in charge of making policies on safe air
> travel. Surely scientists should be making the legislature rather
> than politicians who know nothing?
I believe that's what the civil service are for.
McLong wrote:
> I do find it amusing/confusing that so many people have
> completely switched their views after watching the 3 main party
> leaders on tv the other night. What, 20 mins from Clegg and your
> original thoughts have completely gone out the window?
I think a lot of this is due to people not actually making informed choices. I'd say the majority of the electorate have never gone anywhere near a political manifesto
Instead, people are influenced by the quick and easy option - ie watching a debate, political speeches etc, rather than actually trawling through hard copy policies
Likewise, voters for Labservative are often doing so because they always have done or they see them as the only realistic parties
After seeing Clegg trounce Brown and Cameron with his answers (all be it using his completely hyopthetical position) many switched off Labour and Conservative
Likewise, Brown agreeing with nearly everything Clegg said and using discredited figures didn't help. Plus, there's a massive bias against Cameron for those that feel he's jumped up, smug, and incredibly posh. Of course, many fail to realise Clegg went to Wesminster school himself..
> I do find it amusing/confusing that so many people have
> completely switched their views after watching the 3 main party
> leaders on tv the other night. What, 20 mins from Clegg and your
> original thoughts have completely gone out the window?
I think a lot of this is due to people not actually making informed choices. I'd say the majority of the electorate have never gone anywhere near a political manifesto
Instead, people are influenced by the quick and easy option - ie watching a debate, political speeches etc, rather than actually trawling through hard copy policies
Likewise, voters for Labservative are often doing so because they always have done or they see them as the only realistic parties
After seeing Clegg trounce Brown and Cameron with his answers (all be it using his completely hyopthetical position) many switched off Labour and Conservative
Likewise, Brown agreeing with nearly everything Clegg said and using discredited figures didn't help. Plus, there's a massive bias against Cameron for those that feel he's jumped up, smug, and incredibly posh. Of course, many fail to realise Clegg went to Wesminster school himself..
I'm still undecided, so I need to do a lot more reading before I make my vote. What worries me is that these online 'who should you vote for' tests keep telling me that I should vote Conservative!
I do find it amusing/confusing that so many people have completely switched their views after watching the 3 main party leaders on tv the other night. What, 20 mins from Clegg and your original thoughts have completely gone out the window?
I do find it amusing/confusing that so many people have completely switched their views after watching the 3 main party leaders on tv the other night. What, 20 mins from Clegg and your original thoughts have completely gone out the window?
tnc wrote:
> I was a little unclear here on whether you did or didn't support
> UKIP's stance against using wind farms?
I don't support it.
I have yet to see any scientific proof that climate change is entirely (or even mostly) caused by 'us' burning fossil fuels so agree that immediate action isn't necessary, however, I realise that the oil, coal and such will not last forever.
With this in mind, I fully support the research, and building, of renewable energy sources (such as wind farms, solar power etc.) but for the reasoning that we will still need power 30 years from now and not because we are all going to die a horrible sunny/snowy death a few years from now and, as such, UKIP don't match my feelings on this particular issue.
Hope this has cleared that up, although reading it back I may have made it worse...
> I was a little unclear here on whether you did or didn't support
> UKIP's stance against using wind farms?
I don't support it.
I have yet to see any scientific proof that climate change is entirely (or even mostly) caused by 'us' burning fossil fuels so agree that immediate action isn't necessary, however, I realise that the oil, coal and such will not last forever.
With this in mind, I fully support the research, and building, of renewable energy sources (such as wind farms, solar power etc.) but for the reasoning that we will still need power 30 years from now and not because we are all going to die a horrible sunny/snowy death a few years from now and, as such, UKIP don't match my feelings on this particular issue.
Hope this has cleared that up, although reading it back I may have made it worse...
Butch wrote:
> they are completely against things like
> wind farms and, whilst I agree climate change is a natural
> occurrence and the 'man-made' aspect of it is greatly over-hyped,
> being an intelligent, logical individual I cannot support such a
> notion as 'renewable energy' is something we are likely to rely
> on more and more in the coming decades due to the finite nature
> of fossil fuels..
I was a little unclear here on whether you did or didn't support UKIP's stance against using wind farms?
There are obviously several matters of policy I don't completely agree with - ie scrapping the Human Rights Act 1998 so that religious fundamentalists who come to this country and, for example, praise the work of the 7/7 bombers can be extradited. I believe we need a realistic alternative to the HRA to be proposed before its scrapped to safeguard the right to privacy, marriage, family life etc
As for UKIP's stance on the EU - I think it makes a lot of sense. The alliance with the west UKIP wants is more the world powers in the west - specifically America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Israel and also India and Brazil
As they point out, the EU does not help us as an international political structure, it only really ensures people can move freely within the EU, gives us a common law etc. Trading could be re-established under the EFA, without us having to pay £16.8bn to the EU for the privilege. Switzerland and Iceland manage fine on principles similar to EFA
Likewise, UKIP want us to actually have a seat within the UN and all politically important infrastuctures within the EU
After all, why are we paying the most to the EU for the lowest representation in the European Parliament etc
> they are completely against things like
> wind farms and, whilst I agree climate change is a natural
> occurrence and the 'man-made' aspect of it is greatly over-hyped,
> being an intelligent, logical individual I cannot support such a
> notion as 'renewable energy' is something we are likely to rely
> on more and more in the coming decades due to the finite nature
> of fossil fuels..
I was a little unclear here on whether you did or didn't support UKIP's stance against using wind farms?
There are obviously several matters of policy I don't completely agree with - ie scrapping the Human Rights Act 1998 so that religious fundamentalists who come to this country and, for example, praise the work of the 7/7 bombers can be extradited. I believe we need a realistic alternative to the HRA to be proposed before its scrapped to safeguard the right to privacy, marriage, family life etc
As for UKIP's stance on the EU - I think it makes a lot of sense. The alliance with the west UKIP wants is more the world powers in the west - specifically America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Israel and also India and Brazil
As they point out, the EU does not help us as an international political structure, it only really ensures people can move freely within the EU, gives us a common law etc. Trading could be re-established under the EFA, without us having to pay £16.8bn to the EU for the privilege. Switzerland and Iceland manage fine on principles similar to EFA
Likewise, UKIP want us to actually have a seat within the UN and all politically important infrastuctures within the EU
After all, why are we paying the most to the EU for the lowest representation in the European Parliament etc
Page: