Safe Speed Forums

And I thought I was hiding it so well

Prof Beard

The Greens are libertarian on a number of issues such as the laws covering drugs and sexual relationships, and also on curbing detention without trial and defending the jury system.

On anything that relates to motor vehicles, they are extremely authoritarian.

As it no longer plays much of a part in our politics, we tend to forget the "traditional right" which believed in hanging, flogging, racial purity, curbing the rights of women, gays and ethnic minorities, censorship, conscription and a strong role for the Church in national life.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

With a score like that?

I guess you'd call me a lefty, but pragmatic social democrat is probably closer to what I believe.

The Grauniad is far more centre-left (aka "woolly liberal" to some) than "loony left". The facts on the ground are that permanent immigration does far more good to this country than harm, the illegal immigrants that cause the most damage to our economy are in fact white Australians, Kiwis and South Africans who overstay their visas*, and that the vast majority of asylum seekers would gladly work and pay taxes if they were allowed to.

Other facts on the ground are that the President of the USA lied us into a war so that he could get one back for his daddy - and that our Prime Minister went along for the ride, in all likelihood because he believed a Tory/US Republican alliance could seriously threaten his political standing - and that the USA is currently a very much stratified society where the wealthy leave the poor and middle-classes to hang out to dry.

To talk about more relevant stuff, I believe that speed limits are a necessary evil, but that the current method of enforcing them is actually doing more harm than good. I don't buy the argument that NSL should be increased or removed due to the improvement in cars over then last decade or so, and I believe strongly that we're going to have to find a better system of transport for all. Personal freedom's one thing, but if it's screwing up the future for our kids, we need to look at how selfish we're prepared to be.

I firmly believe that driving a gas-guzzling performance car is going to be as frowned upon as smoking in front of children in the next decade or two.

Tc.

* - Of course, because they're white - you don't get the Sun/Mail/Express/People/Star complaining about them...

going off topic here but I feel the need to ask:



you obviously haven't been to Australia recently if you feel the need to attach 'white' in front it. The white australia policy died a long time ago.
While I agree that most illegal immigrants are from these countries, the reverse also applies in that in Australia the majority of illegals are from the UK. A fair swap no? Our governments don't worry about them particulary because they know that the majority will eventually get bored and go home.
That said, what I can't see is how these visa overstayers damage the economy as they have 'no recourse to public funds' but presumably they're still having to buy stuff to live so are at least paying VAT even if they're managing to evade income tax.

yeah, but if you sent them all back where they came from, all the bars in London would have no staff. On the upside, though, there would be thousands of affordable rental properties available in the Earls court triangle!

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.

Funnily enough I hear that English ex-pats in the Melbourne area are planning parties if we win the Ashes. Wonder if the Aussies will close all the English pubs and send 'em all back here in disgust.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

if you win, I'm leaving.

Not if all the expats came back from Australia, NZ and SA, there wouldn't.

Cheers
Peter

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

Like the prof, according to the test I'm a libertarian lefty, right between Nelson Mandela and the Dalai Lama.

Looks like my socialist worker roots are still finding some expression.

_________________
Fixed ideas are like cramp, for instance in the foot, yet the best remedy is to step on them.

Ian

Aw, it's been twenty years or so. If we win you'll get over it, especially if normal service is resumed afterwards.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

Overtly, maybe... but to hear some of the pols coming in and out of the Australian High Commission talk, it's very much still going on under the surface. They're actively encouraging white immigration to have an excuse to refuse Asians entry into the country... but that's going *waaay* off topic.



Aye, but it does kind of shoot a hole in the 'Eastern European Immigrants Taking All Our Jerbs' argument that our right-wing media seems to revel in. They only care if it's swarthy or brown people doing it... not unlike the AHC.

J.

As i said - respect anyone's views - me i'm on thefence - please don;t push

They clarify the positions on this page.

My result was similar to Petes, and only confirmed one thing, the only party that came close to my "blob" was the greens, and I disagree significantly with them when it comes to transport. So I have to stick with my original assessment of being totally unrepresented, and from most of the others that have published their results it would appear that the same is true for them. So here is the biggest truth of UK politics: Nobody represents the majority.

Sadly that is a fact - so maybe, just maybe the time has to ditch countless years of politics and move to Proportional representation - you tell me

I quite like the Aussie system, when I got an Aussie to explain to me in words of one syllable HTH it worked. I had thought it was bog standard PR, but AIUI that only applies to the Senate (upper house). The House of Representatives (though he called it the House of Reprehensibles, which I thought describes most of our lot pretty well) is elected by preferential voting. You vote for all candidates in order of your preference e.g. if it was done here I might vote Tory 1st, Independant 2nd, Labour 3rd, LibDem 4th, Green 5th, Loony 6th. If one candidate gets more than 50% of the first choice vote then they win the seat. If no-one gets >50% the one with the lowest score drops out. So if the Tory candidate in the example had the lowest percentage of first choice votes he'd go and all his supporters would then have their second choices counted instead - in my case it would be for the Independant candidate.

IMO it's a better system than either plain first-past-the-post or PR, especially when combined with compulsory voting. It more or less ensures that winners get some semblance of popular support while avoiding the strong chance of hung parliaments that comes with PR. About the only serious drawback is that you have to vote for all candidates, and there may be individuals on the ballot paper that you can't stand and to whom you don't want to give even your last choice vote. The other slight problem is that I can imagine people who really can't be arsed just writing 1,2,3,4 and so on all the way down the ballot, which means extra votes for whoever's name is first alphabetically (or however they decide the order on the list). Perhaps the very first box should simply be marked 'Abstain' to deal with that. IMO we should trial it in this country instead of all these crappy postal schemes.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

well you do and you don't. The parties list their preferences so by ticking 'above the line' for a party then your preferences allocated automatically. It's only if you don't agree with that that you have to number all the boxes.

Yes, I've been told about the above the line bit, but IMO the same thing still applies. You might be happy with nearly all candidates but think that one is the worst kind of lying filth and the last person who should be given the slightest hint of power. But AIUI ticking above the line implies support for all candidates of that party. Or have I misunderstood what I was told? Incidentally, I heard Queensland was trying out a revised preferential vote which allows a voter to not mark a preference against one or more candidates. I forgot about it when I posted earlier, but it sounds like the best of both worlds to me.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

no, I don't think you've misunderstood. Let's say you've got Tory, Libs, and Labour. If you tick the tory box you're voting To, Li, La. If you tick the Labour box: La, Li, To and the Lib box Li, La, To
If instead you want to vote To, La, Li then you'll need to number those boxes 1,2,3 yourself.
There may be someone you think is a nutter low on the list somewhere but the reality is the outcome is not generally a major surprise - one of the major parties or a well-known independent.