gingerninja wrote: binklebonk wrote:
somethin fishy wrote:Yeah I agree, that’s one reason I actually like MMP. It stifles the ability to make unilateral significant changes. Imagine what more damage Aunty Helen could have done if she was let loose for all those years in a non minority government.
I'm not saying I disagree with you. But I am curious to know what damage you are referring to. I can't think of anything offhand but then that may be due to it not having affected me?
You're not affected by the economy?
We all know by now that you are obviously a labour campaigner, but some of us actually prefer a government that can count and is interested in growing the economy rather than making frivolous laws to try and make us all dependent on a nanny state. And at last count there are more of us than you!
Well you assume I'm a Labour campaigner and fair enough but you are wrong. I vote for whoever I feel is presenting a set of policies I agree with and has a track record that instills a level of trust that they'll carry out what they say. So by those criteria I may have to stop voting ...
Can you answer me some questions GN.
1, What do you do for a job?
2, How has the previous Labour government/s restricted your wealth? (not only in monetary terms)
3, What does the term "Nanny state" mean to you?
4, Do you think folk that you don't know and may never know deserve help if their circumstances (Family they're born into?) put them in a position of disadvantage.
5, Can you give me an example of a "frivolous law designed to make us dependant on the "Nanny state"?
From your use of the term "Nanny state" I assume you must be in a job that desires as low a level of government regulation as possible.