Change coming to Japan in September '09 Election ?
-
Originally posted by angel7030:
the concept for the oppostion alliance is to win first, plan later.Which is a fucking stupid idea.
-
Originally posted by ray245:
Which is a fucking stupid idea.
if u dun wins, plan so much for the economy for what?? -
Originally posted by angel7030:
if u dun wins, plan so much for the economy for what??So it's all about winning then? It's all about getting someone new into the parliment without any understanding of what sort of policy they are pushing for?
Nevermind if the opposition party is being voted into power even though their economic plan might be worse than the PAP right?
-
Originally posted by ray245:
Nevermind if the opposition party is being voted into power even though their economic plan might be worse than the PAP right?
Anything but PAP who treats people like slaves.
I want government that treats people like human beings, not slaves to be sucked dry.
Death Agony of Thatcher Deregulated Financial Model
http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/Financial_Tsunami/Thatcher_Model/thatcher_model.html
-
Originally posted by ray245:
When coal miners strike occur during the worst winter periods, and public transport workers suddenly walked out of their work places during the most inconvenient times - Magaret Thatcher made it her goal in her second term to curtail the powers of the union, and removed the ability to launch wild cat strikes in UK.
Did that not benefit everyone ?
You do realise that reducing the power of the unions is not the only thing she did? I have no problem with her reducing the power of the unions, but her policy of privatising the national industries in the UK.
If you are so keen to know more about the benefits from Margaret Thatcher's three terms as Prime Minister of UK, you could do an honest search with the help of google, instead of this see-sawing exchange.
If you believe in the PAP's way of creating benefit to the "majority" first, and attend to the "minority" later - why do you have issues with this ?
Maybe I disagree with the PAP's view of giving benefits to the majority while ignoring the minorites?
Good for you to have such a thought - at least the PAP feeding of the stomachs did not dull another mind in this Speaker's Corner.
Prior to Margaret Thatcher's becoming PM of UK, the previous PM was Edward Heath, who was subjected to pressures from the various powerful trade unions that were not answerable to the electorates, and did as much to protect their own interests. Interestingly, in an autobiography of her, it stated that industrial output did not drop much (if at all) and certainly not the 40% one might expect showing just how much overmanning existed then. (*1)
Was it the fault of her policies that resulted in high unemployment in the early 1990s - just before she stepped down, or was it due to the recession that hit UK then ?
Wait? You are using Margaret's own autobiography to defend her?Even if the drop in manufactoring output is not 40 percent, why do you even think that Britian's industrial output should drop to begin with?
So your only defense of Thatcher is she did not screw up bad enough?
Between 1979 and 1985, 1.5 million workers are laid off, industrial output dropped by 11 percent, trade in manufacturing dropped from a surplus to a deficit,
And wait, so you are also defending her because the economic meltdown occurred after she step down from office? So if the economic meltdown only occurs after Bush step down from power and when Obama is in power, you won't blame Bush and his policies for the economic meltdown?
Do I need to defend Margaret Thatcher when her records are for every possible interpretation to fit everyone's different agenda in having a view about her ?
Was it some people who expressed their frustration with the ruling party for a long period, or can you not accept the opinion of nearly 14 million, who expressed through their vote in Japan’s general election (*2) - based on news report of the count up to this hour ?
How the hell do you determine that the majority of the people are voting against the ruling party for staying in power for a long period of time based on a few interviews? Can you seriously tell me that five or ten interviews is enough to say 14 million voters are voting based on the fact that the ruling party has been in power for 50 over years?
The election is just over, from surfing across all the different blogs on the www, you could make up your own views if you wish.
Should there be any interest to influence your opinion in any ways ?
If you wish to see a detailed analysis for the reasons in LDP's downfall, you can wait a few more days or weeks for analysts to appear with their thoughts discussed on TV and - or over the www.
Same question is being asked with Singapore - why have we tolerated this situation for 52 years - since 1957, or 44 years since 1965 ?
Is it not due to the same old "kiasu and kiasi" over cautious attitude of not facing a new world boldly, and believing in the same old fears that the incumbents continue to exploit for their own benefit ?
The unemployment rate has hit 5.7% in Japan now, and they have been in similar economic limbo for the last ten years.
Should we wait for the same set of circumstances before we make the choice, or watch another US$100 Billion unaccounted loss from our reserves before we wake up to the new realities ?
You are the one who defended Thatcher by saying it is the fault of the recession that increased unemplyoment rate in UK, yet you are backpedalling and saying that we should vote the PAP out of office due to the fact that we are in an recession?
Was my statement about Thatcher a defense of her position ?
Does she need any defending when her records speak for herself ?
The view stated was an abstract from a review that I read over the web when googling for details, perhaps I should have qualify it better.
We should vote the PAP out of office for the false claim of themselves being elites able to manage Singapore economy of GDP US$240 Billion, and deserving the approximately three million dollar wages paid to each of them.
Yet they will need to wait for the positive results of the actions from the US President, who is paid less then US$500,000, to resolve his US economy with a GDP valued at US$14 Trillion.
-
We should get rid of PAP because they are morons who claim to be talented elites and treat common Singaporeans as fools who have to be tightly controlled and sucked dry to pay their million dollar salaries.
Anybody disagree?
-
Originally posted by ray245:
So it's all about winning then? It's all about getting someone new into the parliment without any understanding of what sort of policy they are pushing for?
Nevermind if the opposition party is being voted into power even though their economic plan might be worse than the PAP right?
U may have an objective, the skill of politician is not the plan, as you know politics is dirty, you must know how to conn the public into believing in you,..the selling point is not to change the economy, that will be a manifesto that most will fall asleep,..know your audiences, the economy is not what peoples is looking for,..it is the society and the daily livinghood that peoples are up to it. In singapore, you cannot change much on the economy, and worst, if you make a promise that dun surface, you are going to get knock off the seats. Sell the idea of bring down the cost of living, tax and foreign influx will be more appropriate to get people to vote you.For eg, lowering of Minister paid, reduction of FTs, reducing of tax that will bring cost of living down will get you tremedous applaud and support from the ground ya.
-
Originally posted by angel7030:
if you make a promise that dun surface, you are going to get knock off the seats.But PAP does it all the time.
More good years ahead.
-
Originally posted by angel7030:
U may have an objective, the skill of politician is not the plan, as you know politics is dirty, you must know how to conn the public into believing in you,..the selling point is not to change the economy, that will be a manifesto that most will fall asleep,..know your audiences, the economy is not what peoples is looking for,..it is the society and the daily livinghood that peoples are up to it. In singapore, you cannot change much on the economy, and worst, if you make a promise that dun surface, you are going to get knock off the seats. Sell the idea of bring down the cost of living, tax and foreign influx will be more appropriate to get people to vote you.For eg, lowering of Minister paid, reduction of FTs, reducing of tax that will bring cost of living down will get you tremedous applaud and support from the ground ya.
Politics is not something that is supposed to be fun. It should be boring, it should bore the hell out of people and make people think about who are they voting for and etc.
Every single political party can easily promoise all those things, but only an idiot would vote for them based on simple political promise alone. You vote for them based on their political ideology, you vote for them because you view that their political ideology is able to fix the nation or fix the economy. If this is the case, then the party that simply talk the loudest and promise the most amount of thing would have come into power.
This is not the view the PAP should adopt, this is not the view the opposition should adopt.
If conning the public to vote for you is all that matters in a democracy, then democracy have failed.
You can lower tax for all you want and gain tons of votes, but that does not mean you are running the nation well.
Do I need to defend Margaret Thatcher when her records are for every possible interpretation to fit everyone's different agenda in having a view about her ?
Yes, and justify why from your view of Thatcher based on your political views is valid.
We should vote the PAP out of office for the false claim of themselves being elites able to manage Singapore economy of GDP US$240 Billion, and deserving the approximately three million dollar wages paid to each of them.
Yet they will need to wait for the positive results of the actions from the US President, who is paid less then US$500,000, to resolve his US economy with a GDP valued at US$14 Trillion.
Voting the PAP out of power would not solve any problems if you can't prove that the opposition have a better idea on how to run the nation.
-
Originally posted by ray245:
Politics is not something that is supposed to be fun.
Who told you that?
You vote for them based on their political ideology, you vote for them because you view that their political ideology is able to fix the nation or fix the economy.
So how many singaporeans vote for PAP based on their suck the people until dry ideology?
Voting the PAP out of power would not solve any problems if you can't prove that the opposition have a better idea on how to run the nation.
So the people voted wrongly for PAP in 1959?
Should had voted for Lim Yew Hock's labour front?
-
Originally posted by angel3070:
Who told you that?
Yeah, carrying on in making politics seems like a fun game of tribalism, where I don't care if my party's policies will screw up Singapore, as long as my favourite party win.
So how many singaporeans vote for PAP based on their suck the people until dry ideology?
Quite a few? The same can be said in regards to people who voted for the opposition.
So the people voted wrongly for PAP in 1959?
What's your point?
-
Originally posted by ray245:
Yeah, carrying on in making politics seems like a fun game of tribalism, where I don't care if my party's policies will screw up Singapore, as long as my favourite party win.
I have no favourite party. But I do know PAP is not a party that I would support.
Quite a few?
Proof?
What's your point?
To show that your point is bullshit?
-
Originally posted by angel3070:Originally posted by ray245:
I have no favourite party. But I do know PAP is not a party that I would support.
Which doesn't mean you have vote for the opposition.
Proof?
For one, look at how the PAP managed to stay in power even though they continue to increase the taxation rates down here.Is increasing taxes a bad idea? Not really, if you can justify the need to additional taxes.To show that your point is bullshit?
Meh, did you even bothered to compare what the labour front is proposing and what the PAP is proposing?
-
Meh, did you even bothered to compare what the labour front is proposing and what the PAP is proposing?
No. So what did PAP propose in 1959 elections?
What lies did they tell?
-
Japanese have lan pah, Sinkaporeans don't have.