Viewing Thread:
"Animal Yarn"

It was the mid-90s, and everyone was tired of being kicked in the nuts by ruling Conservatories, who sold all they could and ran everything the couldn’t sell by commercial principles.
Blair-monkey woke with a start, claiming to have had a vision of a better way.
He and his Labourers seized power from the Conservatories and began about creating a more socialist country.

Over time things began to change. The Labourers began to stamp on the face of the unions. They waged wars their voters didn’t want. When a Ginger Ninja and a Short woman protested, Blair-monkey banished them from the group. Forever after that day Blair-monkey threatened dissenting group members that if they followed the Ninja or the Short woman they would bring down the Labourers and reinstall the evil Conservatories. The meek lackeys fell in line and Blair-monkey went on to charge students top-up fees, pushing poorer students out of universities, and created foundation hospitals, to commercialise the health service. He introduced the Terrorist Act, which deviated from the European Convention on Human Rights, and civil recovery legislation. These allowed him to destroy people without ever having to bring criminal charges.


After 8 years Election Day rolled around again. The voters crept into balloting stations and looked from Conservatory to Labourer and from Labourer to Conservatory, but they could no longer tell the difference.

Maverick42 wrote:
> Yukikaze wrote:
> The Liberal Democrats actually opposed the rises in the minimum wage
> because of the effect it would have on employers and redundancies.
>
> Well surely that's fair comment?

It is, I was pointing it you because Strafio said it was good that Labour raised the minimum wage, but then said he'd support the Liberal Democrats - it is clearly contradictory.

Personally - and as the Conservatives argued - I think changing the minimum wage meant little difference to the people who actually needed help because prices go up for essential stuff and it's still not enough to have a decent life.

Yukikaze wrote:
> The Liberal Democrats actually opposed the rises in the minimum wage
> because of the effect it would have on employers and redundancies.

Well surely that's fair comment?

Strafio wrote:
> Labour haven't been quite as bad as the Tories were, and have done
> some pretty decent things.
> In the last 2 years, I witnessed the minimum wage for 16 year olds
> rise from £2.05 an hour, to £3.25.
> The minimum wages of 18's and 21's has also gone up, but they didn't
> concern me when I was 16 so I've not noticed the change.

However tax increases cancelled out most of that rise anyway for those not living at home and you'll find that living on the minimum wage probably is not a great deal of fun.

> When we didn't agree with the war, he manipulated us by overstating
> the threat of Iraq with the "45 minute" claim.

Except you're wrong. The media overplayed it - to be honest if anyone thought the 45 minutes claim meant Iraq could attack the UK in 45 minutes then you're stupid and shouldn't blame the government for your stupidity. As it is the Panorama interview with Kelly gives credence to the WMD claims - what's threaten Blair is how the decision was taken to name Kelly.

The Liberal Democrats are clueless, attention grabbing, well...liberals. Kennedy is the most pathetic supposed statesmen in the country and has no clear values other than to oppose everything that the Conservatives and Labour do, by and large. The Liberal Democrats actually opposed the rises in the minimum wage because of the effect it would have on employers and redundancies.

individual council elections every two years,under the rules of what i said below.

There should also be much more public input into what the government does and more frequent national elections.

we need to move away from all this beaureaucratic,pc,human rights,nonsense and start kicking the @rses of those who need a good kicking.
we should start by making sure these politicians do their jobs.this party system doesnt work and should be abandonned.i dont see why it is neccessary,this country should be ruled by a group of individuals,without manifestos or ulterior motives.you should be judged on how you do your job eg how you run your own council and if you dont do your job we wont elect you.no more shouting down someone because they are from a different party.political parties are no more than bussinesses and are run the same way.get rid of them.either that or we could get some trained monkeys and watch them dance(it would be more fun).

I wish there'd be someone really worth voting for up there.

I honestly believe I could make a good Prime Minister. I believe I could do it as well.

Not yet, but you never catch them out straight away.


Personally, I'm going for the Liberals.


Labour haven't been quite as bad as the Tories were, and have done some pretty decent things.
In the last 2 years, I witnessed the minimum wage for 16 year olds rise from £2.05 an hour, to £3.25.
The minimum wages of 18's and 21's has also gone up, but they didn't concern me when I was 16 so I've not noticed the change.

Still, I don't think they can be trusted anymore.
Tony seems to be going on his own agenda nowdays, practically ignoring EVERYONE around him.
When we didn't agree with the war, he manipulated us by overstating the threat of Iraq with the "45 minute" claim.

Perhaps it's gone to his head that he's in charge and he's forgotten that he's supposed to be running this country on our behalf.


Either way, I don't trust either of the leading parties at the moment.

He has one little quality though, he hasn't lied to the nation and innumerable others to support a policy...

Say Joe, what IS the definition of sarcasm?

cookie monster wrote:
> I think i might vote tory at the next election, Michael Howard has
> good leadership qualities.