Who will you be voting for in the elections?

[raphael123]

Labour, Tories or Lib Dems?

I think Lib Dem are a bit too left wing, and lack experience. Tories only care about the rich, and don't seem to understand life for people with poorer incomes. I think as soon as Blair goes, and Brown becomes leader of Labour there will be quite a few comments made about Cameron's posh upbringing. At the moment with Blair in power who went to a public school, it would be a bit rich for him to critizise Cameron for having a posh upbringing too! From what I understand though is Cameron is from a pretty average home, with an average upbringing who just excelled at school and university.

I think the Lib Dems leader Campbell was spot on when he said "Come on Dave, it's time to come clean. Admit your guilty secret. In your youth you were a Tory Boy and your heroes were Michael Howard, Norman Lamont and John Selwyn Gummer. With pin-ups like that, frankly, I'd want to keep my past private too."

He also accused Cameron of "ducking and weaving" and questioned his judgement on his decision to support the Iraq war.

"Teenage kicks are one thing, but you've got to grow up sometime,"

Then we got Labour, who haven't exactly been great in their 10 years, but with a new leader Brown, maybe he should be given a chance? In truth our options are very limited!

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Tories.

Because Lib Dem is a wasted vote and I don't want Gordon Brown to run the country.

[Drew]

I won't be voting, easy enough :p :

[LotusElise]

Whichever of the smaller parties running in the constituency I happen to be in best suits my personal politics. It would be a protest vote.
Labour have well and truly lost their way, and I can't see Gordon Brown finding it any time soon. :rolleyes:
I used to be a Lib Dem voter, but their policies seem more and more confused, plus I don't trust Menzies Campbell.
I could never, ever vote Conservative as it would be totally inimical to my beliefs.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I could never, ever vote Conservative as it would be totally inimical to my beliefs.

What are your beliefs? :p

[raphael123]

I won't be voting, easy enough :p :

lol pretty silly thing to do. it's your choice, but anyone who doesn't use their vote (assuming your allowed to) can't really complain if the government do something they don't agree with.

Brown, Jon Brow - What makes you think Cameron is more able to run the country rather than Brown? :)

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Brown, Jon Brow - What makes you think Cameron is more able to run the country rather than Brown? :)


He isn't a socialist :p

[BTCC Fan#1]

As a member of the Lib Dems it's pretty obvious where my vote will go, there is absolutly no difference between Labour and the Tories anymore, last week for instance Blair and Cameron made almost identical speeches about 'family values'. I think a lot of people will have seen through Cameron's vacuous PR stunts by the time of the next election, and anyone who thinks 'Dave' will be a liberal PM if he actually gets in are kidding themselves. A lot of people will still remember that the Tories wrecked the country the last time they were in power, and just like Blair did with Thatcher, he'll just carry on the legacy.
As for Brown, he won't make this mythical jump to the left some Labour supporters suggest, he's essentially already been 'power-sharing' with Blair for a number of years, if he was going to make radical changes I think we would've seen some evidence of it by now. He just seems typical 'NuLabour', and overly-authoritarian.

On a side note, the way the BBC and other media outlets have reported the Lib Dem conference this weekend has been frankly shocking, reading what the BBC had to say about Sir Ming's speech you wonder if they had even bothered watching it.. :s

[raphael123]

He isn't a socialist :p

I don't think Gordon Brown is a socialist in the way your thinking.

Peter Hitchens not so long ago stated that he thinks Cameron has lost the last significant difference between Labour and Tory by prioritising publicly-funded government services!

Some of the things he's said are worrying. Such as he plans to cut tax and raise public spending. When questioned how he would carry both pledges out, he said 'economic growth of course'!

He's got charisma, but I think I'd have to trust Brown over Cameron. Also whether Cameron could represent Britain, or even understand the life of Britains when he came from such a priviledged background, and 3 members of his shadow cabinet are also etonians, aswell as 15 members of his front bench team are etionians, it's questionable!

As for the PR games he plays BTCC your spot on. This is the man who was bragging about cycling to work once a week or something (though not anymore), but when he was cycling, he hired a car to carry his suitcase and some clothes!!

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Some of the things he's said are worrying. Such as he plans to cut tax and raise public spending.

!!

What can go wrong? :laugh:

[raphael123]

What can go wrong? :laugh:

lol okay okay. You vote for a guy who is making promises which aren't going to be kept. Any man who thinks you can reduce tax and increase public spending is naive, and if you believe him well...

I was hoping for some kind of intelligent conversation on it with you, as I'm interested to hear from a Tories voter point of view. But I don't think your capable, or maybe just not in the mood. That's ok :) Maybe another time.

[LotusElise]

What are your beliefs? :p

Committed Socialist (that's why I'm not voting Labour, either ;) ) and skeptical/suspicious of the benefits of big business.

[Mark in Oshawa]

lol okay okay. You vote for a guy who is making promises which aren't going to be kept. Any man who thinks you can reduce tax and increase public spending is naive, and if you believe him well...

I was hoping for some kind of intelligent conversation on it with you, as I'm interested to hear from a Tories voter point of view. But I don't think your capable, or maybe just not in the mood. That's ok :) Maybe another time.

Actually, far be it from someone from the "colonies" to bud in here, but in your statement that cutting taxes and increasing public spending is naive, well, on the surface it is. I take you though to two actual examples of history in North America (and there a likely a few more I can't speak of).

First off, whatever you think of President Ronald Reagan, who ran the US for 8 years with a Democratic Senate and Congress, he managed to RAISE the actual amount of revenue the US government brought in while cutting the top income tax rates. Due to the high amount of percentage the rich pay in taxes in most industrialized nations, any small cut there puts a lot more money off the top, and one would think that the actual revenues would drop. Of course, this doesn't happen, for the rich don't sit on the money, they put it into investments that generate wealth for them yes, but also wealth they have go through the ecomony and taxes are siphoned off, people are employed, they play taxes and so forth. The Democratically controlled Congress and Reagan's own military spending however did chew into the raised revenues and the deficit in the end went up, but it should also be pointed out that the growth of the US economy over the next 15 years basically eliminated what was thought to be a horrid debt.

It CAN be done, but it takes thought, it takes care, and it takes human nature to run its course. People when they get extra money in their pockets from paying LESS tax don't stuff the money in a mattress, and it doesn't go away, for that money ends up being invested somewhere or spent somewhere. The generation of economic activity is then taxed and the end result is government revenues go up.

The Same thing happened here in Ontario in 1995. The Premiers before the Tory gov't. of the day ran the province right into a deep hole of debt while raising taxes and overspending on spurious social programs. The welfare rolls soared, and the economy was stagnant while the US and the rest of Canada were on a economic upturn. The Tories got elected and turned the ship right. Some of you may not like that, and there was a lot of caterwauling around here, but the gov't cut taxes across the board for income tax, they shrunk the size of government while freeing up money to put into some critical areas. Their execution of this was a little wonky, but the fact remains that they increased revenue while cutting taxes, and if they were more competant in how they managed the social services and their packaging of change, they would still be in power today.

Raising taxes is something done only VERY carefully, because as it has been proven more than once, a tax cut to the right segment of the economy can come back through other means. Income tax cuts to one large income tax paying group don't disappear, they multiply throughout the economy. IT is often fools that mismanage the largesse that comes afterwards that taint the process.

If I lived in Britain, I would be on the horn's of a dilemma, for I am a small c conservative by nature and a libertarian at heart, but in Britain, from what I read and see in the press, you really have no real choices.

[Ian McC]

Hell for the first time ever I may not bother, sad as it is I don't think it will make any difference who wins, at least the Lib Dems offer an alternative.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Well the Tories are garenteed to win in my area so there is no point in me voting, but I will just becuase it's the 1st time i'll have the chance as i've just turned 18 :)

[J4MIE]

Tories.

Because Lib Dem is a wasted vote and I don't want Gordon Brown to run the country.

Care to explain why? Do you really understand politics at all or do you just not like Scots? :rolleyes:

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Care to explain why? Do you really understand politics at all or do you just not like Scots? :rolleyes:

See post #7 ;)

[LotusElise]

What do you have against socialists then?

[Brown, Jon Brow]

What do you have against socialists then?

Nothing personal :uhoh:

I just don't like the idea of the state pocessing everything.

[May.]

In the past I've used Tactical Voting in my area.


This time, I'm going for Tactful Voting.


I'm going to tell each and every canvasser who turns up on my doorstep that, Yes, they can count on my support.


Then I'll probably go and vote Lib Dem.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

For someone my age the Lib Dem make an attractive vote as they would probably scrap tuition fees. However personally I don't see whats wrong with paying off your student loans when you get a job.

Plus Menzies Campbell seems like a bit of a blithering idiot. It would be like having James May as prime minister.

[stevie_gerrard]

The Tories. Im quite impressed with David Camerons approach, and although there are many people who hate him, i think he would be a good leader.

(Runs for Shelter as he gets pelted with rotten fruit and veg from around the back of the local groceries)

[BeansBeansBeans]

Plus Menzies Campbell seems like a bit of a blithering idiot. It would be like having James May as prime minister.

James May is not a blithering idiot.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

James May is not a blithering idiot.

Earth to BeansBeansBeans!! Yes he is! Well he is according to Jeremy Clarkson.

[BeansBeansBeans]

Earth to BeansBeansBeans!! Yes he is! Well he is according to Jeremy Clarkson.

So, let's get this straight.

You're a Tory.

You're a Man Utd fan.

You think James May is, and I quote, a 'blithering idiot'.

You oppose everything I hold dear! Do you want a fight?

[Brown, Jon Brow]

So, let's get this straight.



You oppose everything I hold dear! Do you want a fight?

The only thing you hold dear is your view that James May isn't a blithering idiot??? :confused: :D

Calm down, No need for a fight.

:uhoh:

[BeansBeansBeans]

Hey, I'm only joking Jon!

[Malbec]

I'm a liberal (for you Yanks thats with a small L)

so that makes me a Tory in this bizarre day and age.

[raphael123]

Jon Brow, what do you think Brown will possess that Cameron wouldn't?

Mark in Oshawa - I can't really comment on US politics much, let alone it's history. Has this occured in the UK before? Tories would simply benefit the upper/middle class and the traditional cereal packet family. Cameron is a good speaker, full of charisma, but he doesn't actually come out with many policies, so voting for a party who's leader refuses to bring out any policies he would introduce is risky to say the least! The last one he did was to reduce tax on married couples, therefore single parents etc get taxed more. Slightly harsh on the single mothers who are abandoned by the father of their child! Whenever they come out with policies it shows their lack of quality, or their inefficiencies in running the country. New Labour may not have done a great job, but I think Tories would do a lot worse, and Lib Dems, though they offer a good alternative, are far too left!

Whoever said Cameron looks like a good leader, do you think Blair is too then?

[Drew]

lol pretty silly thing to do. it's your choice, but anyone who doesn't use their vote (assuming your allowed to) can't really complain if the government do something they don't agree with.


Of course I can still complain, not voting doesn't mean you lose your right to freedom of speech.

I won't vote, because I don't agree with the system and also because most of the time the politicians don't listen

[inamo]

So what have the Labour government that are still in power actually done for the benefit of this country?

So far as I see it, the poor areas are even poorer with increasing crime rates especially amongst young people, since when has it ever been acceptable to solve a trivial argument by killing someone? British industry is decreasing at an alarming rate, we're in real danger of being unable to support ourselves in a crisis. We are involved in a prolonged conflict in the middle east and Afghanistan which ultimately haven't helped the people who live there, thanks to a prime minister who acts as a puppet to the Bush empire. The civil service is in dissarray, the NHS is a financial bottomless pit short-staffed and unable to train it's own doctors due to the reliance on staff from other parts of the world, some of whom struggle to communicate in fluent English. Political correctness has taken over from common sense. etc etc etc

I'd venture to suggest that the alternatives can't do much worse than that!

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Jon Brow, what do you think Brown will possess that Cameron wouldn't?



I just feel that he speaks more common sense than Gordon Brown(no relation to me ;) )

I bet Gordon Brown would bring in more regulation, red tape, paper work, political correctness. etc.

[raphael123]

Of course I can still complain, not voting doesn't mean you lose your right to freedom of speech.

I won't vote, because I don't agree with the system and also because most of the time the politicians don't listen

If you don't vote because you can't be arsed, then you have no right to complain is my view.

As for not listening, voting is a form of allowing the public to inform the politians what they want. In France it worked, when Le Pen got to the 2nd round of the elections, I know the majority of people only voted for him to show the government they want something done to control immigrants, and Sarkozy understood this and acted appropriately.

However, if you don't vote because you disagree with the system, that's another point. Why do you disagree with the voting system, and what would you suggest?

[raphael123]

I just feel that he speaks more common sense than Gordon Brown(no relation to me ;) )

I bet Gordon Brown would bring in more regulation, red tape, paper work, political correctness. etc.

Your replies are simplistic to say the least. Fair enough, I won't try and engage in conversation with you on this matter :)

[LotusElise]

I just feel that he speaks more common sense than Gordon Brown(no relation to me ;) )

I bet Gordon Brown would bring in more regulation, red tape, paper work, political correctness. etc.

I'm in no way a supporter of Gordon Brown. I can see more public money being wasted on PFI-type "initiatives" under him and a continuation of the wrong and scary belief that as long as the economy is doing okay and random targets are being met, that should mean everyone is happy.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Your replies are simplistic to say the least. Fair enough, I won't try and engage in conversation with you on this matter :)

Stop calling me simple :dozey:

I just know that I am more centre right than centre left okay!

[BDunnell]

I bet Gordon Brown would bring in more regulation, red tape, paper work, political correctness. etc.

Exactly what do you mean by him 'bringing in political correctness'?

Yet again, I fail to understand what it is that we are meant not to be able to do or say now because of this concept for which some people blame politicians. I do not feel at all restricted because of what is loosely termed 'political correctness'.

For what it's worth, I will be voting for my Lib Dem candidate in the next general election, though I no longer class myself as an enthusiastic supporter of the party, largely because of its misguided backing for private sector involvement in certain public services.

[jim mcglinchey]

[quote="raphael123"]Labour, Tories or Lib Dems?

Well theres the DUP ( Paisleys mob ) Sinn Fein ( Gerry Adams mob ) or for the more moderate of us theres the UUP, SDLP or Alliance, not forgetting about the Workers Party, PUP, UK Unionists and the Greens. An embarassment of choice really.

I'll go and exercise my democratic right but I just know that the extremists are going to get most of the seats.

[Drew]

If you don't vote because you can't be arsed, then you have no right to complain is my view.

As for not listening, voting is a form of allowing the public to inform the politians what they want. In France it worked, when Le Pen got to the 2nd round of the elections, I know the majority of people only voted for him to show the government they want something done to control immigrants, and Sarkozy understood this and acted appropriately.

However, if you don't vote because you disagree with the system, that's another point. Why do you disagree with the voting system, and what would you suggest?

I think there should be referendums, especially for important topics Iraq, for example, giving the majority a say in what they want.

Proportional representation should be used instead of what is used currently in the UK (I don't remember its name)

[raphael123]

I think there should be referendums, especially for important topics Iraq, for example, giving the majority a say in what they want.

Proportional representation should be used instead of what is used currently in the UK (I don't remember its name)

That isn't a great idea. Who would decide what is an 'important topic', or would you also want a referendum to decide what is an important topic?

Then there's the fact of having to be in a position to make a decision. Are you prepared to sit through hundreds of pages of documents to make sure you are well informed when making a decision? Or would you suggest making a decision without knowing everything? You have to be realistic, the large majority of people wouldn't be bothered to educate themselves on a topic to make a well informed decision.

One thing all politicians seem to agree on is that when you are PM, you have to do what you think is right, rather than just go for the popular choice (which you may disagree with).

You get to choice who you want to make these decisions, if you don't want to cast a vote, then moan about the governments decisions, more fool you.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

That isn't a great idea. Who would decide what is an 'important topic', or would you also want a referendum to decide what is an important topic?

Then there's the fact of having to be in a position to make a decision. Are you prepared to sit through hundreds of pages of documents to make sure you are well informed when making a decision? Or would you suggest making a decision without knowing everything? You have to be realistic, the large majority of people wouldn't be bothered to educate themselves on a topic to make a well informed decision.

One thing all politicians seem to agree on is that when you are PM, you have to do what you think is right, rather than just go for the popular choice (which you may disagree with).

You get to choice who you want to make these decisions, if you don't want to cast a vote, then moan about the governments decisions, more fool you.

I have to agree with that.

[BDunnell]

I think there should be referendums, especially for important topics Iraq, for example, giving the majority a say in what they want.

Proportional representation should be used instead of what is used currently in the UK (I don't remember its name)

Referenda are all very well in a small country like Switzerland, but it would be unworkable to hold them for every decision that needed to be made in a large country like the UK. In addition, if governments always acted according to what a majority of people think, some very bad decisions would be taken.

I used to be in favour of proportional representation, but my view has changed over time. It can lead to a disconnection between the electorate and the candidates on offer, as has happened in the UK with the European elections. PR works best under a federal system of government, which would also be difficult to introduce in the UK owing to the fact that people feel an affinity to counties and smaller areas more than they do in relation to larger regions, such as the German Länder.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Imagine if we had a referendum on the Euro. Most people would just vote for because of convienience when going abroad, without thinking about the economic implications.

[BDunnell]

Imagine if we had a referendum on the Euro. Most people would just vote for because of convienience when going abroad, without thinking about the economic implications.

I very much doubt it! Almost every poll ever carried out in the UK, as far as I can remember, has shown that a referendum on the Euro would result in a vote against, no matter what the economic implications would actually be.

[BDunnell]

Imagine if we had a referendum on the Euro. Most people would just vote for because of convienience when going abroad, without thinking about the economic implications.

I very much doubt it! Almost every poll ever carried out in the UK, as far as I can remember, has shown that a referendum on the Euro would result in a vote against, no matter what the economic implications would actually be.

[Peter Mandelson]

SNP in May

Support Scotland Independent EVERYBODY

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I very much doubt it! Almost every poll ever carried out in the UK, as far as I can remember, has shown that a referendum on the Euro would result in a vote against, no matter what the economic implications would actually be.

What I meant was, that out of the people who voted 'yes lets join the euro' many wouldn't know about the economic factors.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

SNP in May

Support Scotland Independent EVERYBODY

i don't want Scotland to be independant though :\

[courageous]

if governments always acted according to what a majority of people think, some very bad decisions would be taken.


Indeed, you would end up with the news of the screws dictating goverment policy (what do you mean they already do?)

For the record, I always vote for our local MP Bob Marshall Andrews.
He is a serious labour back bencher in the mold of Tony Benn, Jeremy Corbyn & Dennis Skinner - a much bigger headache for Blair/Brown than the tories could ever hope to be.

In first past the post voting you have to take the individual into account.

With elections that are proportional rep, I vote Green or Socialist (they can & do win seats).

[Peter Mandelson]

i don't want Scotland to be independant though :\

WHY NOT

look at the top ten rich list
1 Luxembourg 80,288
2 Norway 64,193
3 Iceland 52,764
4 Switzerland 50,532
5 Ireland 48,604
6 Denmark 47,984
7 Qatar 43,110
8 United States 42,000
9 Sweden 39,694
10 Netherlands 38,618

8 out of top 10 are small european countries

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29_per_capita

if scotland is on its own scots will become one of the richest countries in the world


plus scots like the € more than the £

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Only 3 of those counties have the Euro. And the only Uk is $1,000 dollars from the top 10 in that list :rolleyes:
The Scottish have a way better deal in the UK than English and Welsh do. However I want Scotland to stay in the UK because I'm proud to live in a country (The United Kingdom) that is has beautiful areas such as Scotland.

Plus the UK has far more world political power than independant natons would.

[Peter Mandelson]

UK WILL DIE IN MAY
THIS IS GUARANTEED
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/14968
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/14968

[Brown, Jon Brow]

UK WILL DIE IN MAY
THIS IS GUARANTEED
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/14968
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/14968

I'll bet you £20 it doesn't :D

[Peter Mandelson]

I'll bet you £20 it doesn't :D



http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=1542


if you read all the common here
most of the scots will vote SNP in may
AND GET THE HELL OUT OF UK

[A Scotsman]

I'm with you Peter...

What's more I've spoken to Alex Salmond and he's in favour of taking all the cash we Scots were going to have to cough up for the London Olympics and giving it to Knockhill to create an F1 class track in Scotland.... :-)

[Peter Mandelson]

the US gov is corrupted

read this

http://ny.metro.us/metro/local/article/Halliburtons_road_to_Dubai/7437.html

[Brown, Jon Brow]

You're corrupted

[Peter Mandelson]

Scotland only have 8% of UK populations

but 15% of British soldiers dying in Iraq are Scottish

Scottish are dead in Iraq for the sake of Bush oil

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Scotland only have 8% of UK populations

but 15% of British soldiers dying in Iraq are Scottish

Scottish are dead in Iraq for the sake of Bush oil

You can use statistics to prove anything.
51% of all people know that !!

[SeanMockery]

SNP in May

Support Scotland Independent EVERYBODY

I 2nd that.

[BrentJackson]

OK, lots of strangeness here.

To the bunch of Scots here that want independence - I ask why?

To the talkers about British Politics - wow does it sound familiar. We have the same it seems - a left of center party (New Labour in Britain, Liberal in Canada), a right of center (Tories in Britain and Canada) and well off to the left party that seems to be the protest vote party (Lib Dem in Britain, NDP here.)

I'm a line-straddler. I voted for the Conservatives last time because the Liberals were crooked buggers and we wanted them out. The Conservatives won but only got what we call a minority government, which means another party has to support them to get legislation passed. Naturally plays into the hands of the NDP, but with the Conservatives in power they butt heads quite often, especially since the NDP leader is farther left than anybody in this country's politics by a long shot.

In Britain, I would be going for the Tories. They seem to be the better people for the job, but then again I don't care for Blair so I probably am biased. :)

[BDunnell]

For the record, I always vote for our local MP Bob Marshall Andrews.
He is a serious labour back bencher in the mold of Tony Benn, Jeremy Corbyn & Dennis Skinner - a much bigger headache for Blair/Brown than the tories could ever hope to be.

In first past the post voting you have to take the individual into account.

A fine man indeed - and with some unique campaigning techniques, as anyone who's seen the wonderful clips of him berating members of his electorate will testify!

[Malbec]

To the bunch of Scots here that want independence - I ask why?

To the talkers about British Politics - wow does it sound familiar. We have the same it seems - a left of center party (New Labour in Britain, Liberal in Canada), a right of center (Tories in Britain and Canada) and well off to the left party that seems to be the protest vote party (Lib Dem in Britain, NDP here.)

I don't understand either, especially since we've got a Scottish educated PM right now who intends to hand power over to a fully Scottish Chancellor. They practically run Britain.

On second thoughts maybe if we give Scotland independence they'll take their politicos back with them?

I disagree that New Labour is left of centre while the Conservatives are right of centre. On many issues the Conservatives have shifted markedly to the left of New Labour, and for the first time in history look as if they're going to corner most of the votes from within the NHS for example, a traditional hardcore leftwing Labour voting sector.

In areas such as security and human rights I'd say New Labour is one of the most right wing parties in Europe, enacting a whole series of invasive acts to empower the government against the individual, trying to introduce biometric ID cards etc.

The only thing that hasn't changed is that the Liberal Democrats are by British standards strongly left wing as they've always been.

[BDunnell]

The only thing that hasn't changed is that the Liberal Democrats are by British standards strongly left wing as they've always been.

I don't agree with that assessment. I wouldn't describe the Liberal Democrats as being an especially left-wing party, not when one compares them with, for example, the Labour Party of the 1980s.

[Peter Mandelson]

vote SNP in May and get Scotland free of nuclear




we don't need Labour's WMD

[raphael123]

The only thing that hasn't changed is that the Liberal Democrats are by British standards strongly left wing as they've always been.

Though Lib Dems believe in the redistribution of wealth, don't they also believe in privatisation? Is that 'strong left wing'?

[Malbec]

Though Lib Dems believe in the redistribution of wealth, don't they also believe in privatisation?

of?

[BDunnell]

As far as I'm aware, the Lib Dems are not in favour of the renationalisation of any of the public services that have been privatised in the UK. This is one of the reasons why I am so irritated by politicians of all parties banging on about 'choice', yet as a voter I don't have the chance to choose to vote for a mainstream party that is not in favour of privatisation. They have also called for the part-privatisation of the Post Office.

[Malbec]

I think there's a big difference in pushing for further privatisation and refusing to renationalise already privatised sectors. Renationalisation comes with its own risks and costs as well.

I should clarify that the Lib Dems were 'leapfrogged' in the shift to the political right that happened across the board when Blair came to power, which for a point (from my POV) seemed to push the Tories pretty close to the BNP on some issues in their desperation to be seen as being even more right wing than New Labour.

Over the past two days, at the Tory conference, its interesting that David Cameron has decided to pitch his message at the two British organisations that hate this regime the most, the NHS and the armed forces. The funny thing is, I don't think Labour are aware of how vilified they are in these two groups.

[emporer_k]

I wish that there was the option to vote for "none of the above".

[raphael123]

of?

Well Lib Dems MP have often been heard critizising the intervention as a 'nanny state'. Though privatisation isn't their main concern, its more about social welfare and redistribtution of wealth, privatisation is on their agenda. An example which they have mentioned in the past is the post office :)

Do people think the way Sarkozy in France has tackled immigrants etc is racist?

[BeansBeansBeans]

I wish that there was the option to vote for "none of the above".

There is, kind of. Just spoil your ballot.

[Robinho]

Imagine if we had a referendum on the Euro. Most people would just vote for because of convienience when going abroad, without thinking about the economic implications.

i'd vote for because of the economic implications to be honest, and yes, i have an Economics degree, and whilst the EU and centralisation may not be the best run or best solution for everyone, a single currency, working well, i think would work as effectively in the UK as the £.

however, if there was a referendum i think the majority of the country would vote against, purely as they see Europe as some alien organisation looking to run their lives from afar (unlike Tony Blair ;) )

as for my vote, i would be difficult to pin down at the moment, i have voted both Lib Dem and Tory, and would be tempted to vote Lib Dem again, apart from the fact i have no faith in Menzies Campbell to provide a solid leadership and be relaively (for a politician) in touch with the nation.

i'd like to think the Tories would toughen up on a few things, crime especially and get back to a country that worked quite well at running itself without too much (especially) economic intervention, although i have little confidence that David Cameron in anything but pure spin, although to me he is eminentley preferable to Girdon Brown. i do not trust him on bit, his economics is cconstantly flawed, and whilst Tony Blair has taken the party to a central position i don't think Gordon Brown could resist imposing some lunatic ideas, but he might stand up to Bush?

a vote for the greens is IMO opinion wasted these days, it used to be a useful protest, but these days with the climate being a hot (no pun intended) topic all the main parties are trying to show themselves as being environmentally responsible and will do a lot more than they used too.

ultimatley i don't think there will be much difference to the general public regardless of who ends up in power, but i think i will use my vote to remove Labour, as i think they have done more harm than good over the last few years, and any good ideas they had at the beginning of their tenure has been lost amongst a whole mess of crap since. IMO things were ticking over nicely in the Tory years (i know it wasn't a bed of roses for everyone) and the economy was very stable. the primary reason they got moved on was the lack of ingerity of their politicians, not their policies, maybe they have addressed this now, maybe we've seen that Labour (read Prescott) have been no better.

[BDunnell]

I wish that there was the option to vote for "none of the above".

I'm dead against this idea. People shouldn't expect to be able to find a candidate on the ballot paper who agrees with all their views on every issue under the sun. By the law of averages, this will hardly ever happen (unless you stand yourself*). For example, there are several Lib Dem policies with which I disagree, yet I don't feel disenfranchised and tend to vote Lib Dem.

[Bezza]

Considering the way Labour have lied, spun and spat all over the country since 1997, I'll be voting for whoever has the most chance of ousting them.

[BDunnell]

Considering the way Labour have lied, spun and spat all over the country since 1997, I'll be voting for whoever has the most chance of ousting them.

Glad to read that you are taking such a considered view of politics, as ever...

[Brown, Jon Brow]

i'd vote for because of the economic implications to be honest, and yes, i have an Economics degree, and whilst the EU and centralisation may not be the best run or best solution for everyone, a single currency, working well, i think would work as effectively in the UK as the £.

however, if there was a referendum i think the majority of the country would vote against, purely as they see Europe as some alien organisation looking to run their lives from afar (unlike Tony Blair ;) )




I wasn't saying that the economic implications of the euro were going to be bad. There are good points and bad points, a single currency might help UK manufacturers trade competitevly with European companies, but we may lose foreign investors as exchange rates will be less favourable.etc.....
I was just agreeing with a point made that referendums aren't good because the general public don't now the inside out of every topic. Shurely that's what politicians are for.

[raphael123]

Considering the way Labour have lied, spun and spat all over the country since 1997, I'll be voting for whoever has the most chance of ousting them.

So Tories then?
Do you know anything about them?
Do you agree with them?
Do you think they won't do the same thing as Labour?
I have my doubts, considering Cameron plays up to the camera so much as it is, and he's not even PM yet! The program on Channel4 on Monday at 8 will expose the way Tories are simply trying to con the nation

[Rudy Tamasz]

OK, lots of strangeness here.

To the bunch of Scots here that want independence - I ask why?



Because this is the law of politics. It is so natural for a developed nation to live in an independent state.

How well Scots will be doing with their independence is a different question, though. I hope they won't repeat the mistakes of newly independent East European states and won't hand their country to an incompetent and corrupt government.

[Peter Mandelson]

It's time

for the SNP!

[Bezza]

Glad to read that you are taking such a considered view of politics, as ever...

Labour have done naff all for me, and its up to me what I think. If you want to have a pop do it properly and not with sarcasm.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

It's time

for the SNP!

No it's not!! :down:


Brown, Jon Brow - 'British and proud'

[SOD]

Brown has taken the reigns.

[Roamy]

I am voting for Rudy

[BDunnell]

Labour have done naff all for me, and its up to me what I think. If you want to have a pop do it properly and not with sarcasm.

I'm only saying what I think of your political views. It is impossible for me to take them seriously.

[Bezza]

It is impossible for me to consider your opinion as valid to me, because you don't know me personally.

I couldn't be bothered typing a long message reasoning why I don't like the current government. So, you'll have to just put up with it.

Maybe I should've said BNP - then you would've certainly (over)reacted!

[Peter Mandelson]

No it's not!! :down:


Brown, Jon Brow - 'British and proud'

SNP on verge of historic victory

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=453781

[fizzicist]

Okay Mr Mandelson, we've gathered that you want independence for Scotland. Point taken.

On the one hand it would devolve a 300 year old Union and that would be a very sad day.

On the other, it would mean the Scottish parliament would have to fun itself and not be massively subsidised by the English taxpayer. Your logic that 'many of the top ten richest countries are small, thus Scotland will become rich' is flawed at best. Scotland is a massive tax burden on the English, yet it seems that the English are the ones who prefer Unionism. If independence comes your way, then you must take the increased costs of living in Scotland that will also come with it.

Personally I will be voting conservative, because I am sick of the top down approach of the incumbent Government. I am fed up of the massive amounts of red tape being placed on industry. I pay far too much tax. I am horrified by the utter farce that is our foreign policy and immigration policy, the fact that my workplace has become a terrorist target due to the 'special relationship' with the US is not pleasant. I object to having been lied to by our Government (Iraq anyone?). I no longer wish to be governed by a Nanny state insistent on taking our freedom of choice away. And most of all I am fed up to the back teeth with the vast sums of money that have been wasted on the NHS because of the centralist approach from Whitehall. The sums spent would have been admirable had they not been spent on red tape and increased administration.

I am a firm believer in free enterprise, a non interventionist economic approach and empowering people to work hard and make the best of their own life & make their own decisions.

Like Bezza I am sick of being lied to, spun out and spat on by Labour. The concept of Gordon Brown having total control is frankly mortifying and should he get in, then I will be emigrating at the first opportunity.

[BDunnell]

Personally I will be voting conservative, because I am sick of the top down approach of the incumbent Government. I am fed up of the massive amounts of red tape being placed on industry.

Is this really the thing that holds British industry back, or is it merely the natural effect of globalisation?


I am horrified by the utter farce that is our foreign policy and immigration policy, the fact that my workplace has become a terrorist target due to the 'special relationship' with the US is not pleasant. I object to having been lied to by our Government (Iraq anyone?).

Lies which the party you have decided to support fell for hook, line and sinker. Conservative support was key to the Government winning the vote in Parliament that led directly to our involvement in Iraq, and it also advocated the close relationship with US foreign policy until such time as it seemed electorally expedient to do otherwise. David Cameron's stance on these issues has been highly hypocritical and more than a little confused. We would have gone to war if he had been in power in 2003, with exactly the same consequences. It is all very well for him and other senior Tories to say that if they knew what they now know about the Government's case for going to war, they might not have supported the decision. Plenty of other people were able to see through it at the time, so why not the Shadow Cabinet?

Aside from that, as someone who used to work in a place that surely was/is surely one of the leading terrorist targets in the UK without feeling that my life is in danger, I think you are being a bit paranoid about the level of threat that you face in your workplace.


I no longer wish to be governed by a Nanny state insistent on taking our freedom of choice away.

Freedom of choice in what respect? Why do you feel so put-upon? I am extremely dissatisfied with the current government (and have not voted Labour in the past 10 years), but I do not feel that I am being unduly restricted from doing anything I would otherwise want to do.


And most of all I am fed up to the back teeth with the vast sums of money that have been wasted on the NHS because of the centralist approach from Whitehall. The sums spent would have been admirable had they not been spent on red tape and increased administration.

I agree about that. However, it is merely the tip of the iceberg as far as the problems being faced by the public services are concerned, and as I have said many times, the private sector involvement that you presumably espouse has had a lot to do with this. For instance, would the NHS be in such a state now if billions of pounds weren't also being wasted on PFI schemes for which the taxpayer always ends up shelling out in the end? The sooner politicians of all parties realise that the private sector is not some sort of panacea of excellence, the better. You only have to look at public services overseas to realise this - and, indeed, at the last few years of British Rail.

[fizzicist]

Is this really the thing that holds British industry back, or is it merely the natural effect of globalisation?

Aside from that, as someone who used to work in a place that surely was/is surely one of the leading terrorist targets in the UK without feeling that my life is in danger, I think you are being a bit paranoid about the level of threat that you face in your workplace.



On point one, globalisation has a small amount to do with it, however our incumbent government hasn't helped SME's in particular. Taxation on business has increased disproportionately in the last 10 years, especially on SME's. As the EU expands and low cost base economies such as Poland join, policy has to take this into account to ensure that industry is adequately equipped to still be able to compete, lest we become service sector Britain.

As for point two, I'm rather sensitive to this as I have to speak with Scotland Yard on an all to regular basis following the London bombings. I don't face a particularly high threat to my life, the problem we have is one of security as we distribute a number of products which can be used in bombs.

My comments regarding the Nanny state are perhaps best reflected in the way that Blair managed to conveniently ignore a massive proportion of the electorate and shove the huntin ban through. Personally I'm not keen on hunting but my objection stemmed from the fact that so many people were being ignored and a controversial ban on a traditional (and surprisingly humane) activity was implemented. On top of that there's the millions spent on advertising by our various Government departments telling us what we should and shouldn't do. Is it really a wise use of money to buy billboard advertising spots to remind people not to rev their car engines because of the carbon emissions? :rolleyes:

Our political leanings are probably somewhat different and these debates rarely change anyone's opinion, but personally I feel that independent thought and responsibility is being discouraged and that sickens me.

[raphael123]

On point one, globalisation has a small amount to do with it, however our incumbent government hasn't helped SME's in particular. Taxation on business has increased disproportionately in the last 10 years, especially on SME's. As the EU expands and low cost base economies such as Poland join, policy has to take this into account to ensure that industry is adequately equipped to still be able to compete, lest we become service sector Britain.

As for point two, I'm rather sensitive to this as I have to speak with Scotland Yard on an all to regular basis following the London bombings. I don't face a particularly high threat to my life, the problem we have is one of security as we distribute a number of products which can be used in bombs.

My comments regarding the Nanny state are perhaps best reflected in the way that Blair managed to conveniently ignore a massive proportion of the electorate and shove the huntin ban through. Personally I'm not keen on hunting but my objection stemmed from the fact that so many people were being ignored and a controversial ban on a traditional (and surprisingly humane) activity was implemented. On top of that there's the millions spent on advertising by our various Government departments telling us what we should and shouldn't do. Is it really a wise use of money to buy billboard advertising spots to remind people not to rev their car engines because of the carbon emissions? :rolleyes:

Our political leanings are probably somewhat different and these debates rarely change anyone's opinion, but personally I feel that independent thought and responsibility is being discouraged and that sickens me.

And what about what BDunnell said about Iraq and Tories policy on it (something I agree with what BDunnell said)?

Also, I think people are forgetting who the bad guys are here. Blaming the UK's friendship with America for putting us at threat from terrorist attacks is stupid! It's the terrorist putting us at threat!! Please let's not forget that these are terrorists, and they are responsible for putting us at threat, not Tony Blair's friendship with Bush. All we are trying to do is to stop the threat of terrorism, which is an admirable thing to do.


Then regarding fox hunting, I think the majority of the population was all for the ban, however it was those who opposed the ban who made the bigger noise. It's only natural for those who are against something to make a larger noise than someone who is for it something that is about to be implemented. Also, I think we need someone in charge, who only commits to something that he believes in. You can't go round making policies, and decisions based on what you think the public will want! That would be leading to dangerous territory.

[BDunnell]

And what about what BDunnell said about Iraq and Tories policy on it (something I agree with what BDunnell said)?

I believe that anyone who votes Tory because, in part, they oppose the war in Iraq is barking up the wrong tree. The Conservatives helped to let Blair off the hook over Iraq, and effectively allowed him to lie by not scrutinising the Government's claims properly. I recall many debates over Iraq, the war in Afghanistan and related issues in which Conservative MPs dismissed all concerns from MPs of other parties in a revoltingly unthinking manner; there was one in which a then Tory spokesman replied to an entirely legitimate question during an adjournment debate about (I think) the legal status of Guantanamo Bay by saying that the Lib Dem MP in question had delivered 'an anti-American rant', which was not the case by any stretch of the imagination. The idea that any Conservative government would question the 'special relationship' in some effective way is simply ludicrous.


Also, I think people are forgetting who the bad guys are here. Blaming the UK's friendship with America for putting us at threat from terrorist attacks is stupid! It's the terrorist putting us at threat!! Please let's not forget that these are terrorists, and they are responsible for putting us at threat, not Tony Blair's friendship with Bush. All we are trying to do is to stop the threat of terrorism, which is an admirable thing to do.

I disagree about this, because there are many ways in which the actions of those engaged in the 'war against terrorism' have stoked up, rather than damped down, extremism at home and abroad. This is not to say that the terrorists themselves are not to blame; rather, that it is not a simple case of 'good against evil', or 'with us or against us'.


You can't go round making policies, and decisions based on what you think the public will want! That would be leading to dangerous territory.

Surely this is what all political parties have to do, and always have had to do?

[raphael123]

I believe that anyone who votes Tory because, in part, they oppose the war in Iraq is barking up the wrong tree. The Conservatives helped to let Blair off the hook over Iraq, and effectively allowed him to lie by not scrutinising the Government's claims properly. I recall many debates over Iraq, the war in Afghanistan and related issues in which Conservative MPs dismissed all concerns from MPs of other parties in a revoltingly unthinking manner; there was one in which a then Tory spokesman replied to an entirely legitimate question during an adjournment debate about (I think) the legal status of Guantanamo Bay by saying that the Lib Dem MP in question had delivered 'an anti-American rant', which was not the case by any stretch of the imagination. The idea that any Conservative government would question the 'special relationship' in some effective way is simply ludicrous.


I agree.
Though I think in fairness Tony Blair did what he thought was right. As John Bolton recently said, in America the fact Iraq supposedly had WMD was not really a main issue, it seems only here has it been made such a big deal, and as a reason for going to war. In America that was not the case, and there was still considered good reason to go to war with Iraq.



I disagree about this, because there are many ways in which the actions of those engaged in the 'war against terrorism' have stoked up, rather than damped down, extremism at home and abroad. This is not to say that the terrorists themselves are not to blame; rather, that it is not a simple case of 'good against evil', or 'with us or against us'.

So your basically saying we shouldn't tackle the problem that is terrorism? So as not to make them angry and try and attack again? I'm sorry, but that's the cowards way. You can't let people getting away with terrorism due to the fear that they'll retaliate even stronger! As I said, they are the bad guys, please don't forget that!!


Surely this is what all political parties have to do, and always have had to do?

Depends what you define as democracy. I think democracy is about the country being run by people elected by the local public. It's not about a government being voted in, and to then carry out what the public want you to do. If thats the case, do you want a vote on every decision the government makes? Or Just the big issues like e.g. Iraq? If thats the case, do you then want a vote for what is a 'big decision' before making the vote to go with the government, or against? And on top of that, how are you going to make sure that everyone is in an educated position to make an informed decision? Are you going to get someone to test every voter on a subject e.g. iraq, to make sure they are aware of all the facts before allowing them to vote?

To be a good leader you have to believe in what your doing. That's the problem with Cameron, he's an opportunist, he doesn't really believe in anything! You can see that from the way he's changed from being one of the main guys behind Howards manifesto, to today!

[Malbec]

I agree.
Though I think in fairness Tony Blair did what he thought was right. As John Bolton recently said, in America the fact Iraq supposedly had WMD was not really a main issue, it seems only here has it been made such a big deal, and as a reason for going to war. In America that was not the case, and there was still considered good reason to go to war with Iraq.

Thats the problem with Blair isn't it.

He decided that going to war with Iraq was right, then the rest of his decision making followed from that. Evidence was selected to fit the argument that war was right. Intelligence was carefully selected and presented, anything that didn't fit the pro-war argument was discarded.

Problem is that that isn't how Democracies are supposed to go to war. Intelligence is supposed to be analysed openmindedly and only when there is absolute certainty that there is casus belli should war be declared.

It fits in exactly with how Blair has been handling other issues. What do police officers know about policing anyway? Doctors clearly know nothing about healthcare, teachers are ignorant about schools. Ignore what they have to say about their own fields and dictate 'reforms' centrally from Whitehall. If it all goes wrong, then clearly the 'reforms' haven't been executed properly, which is useful because we can then blame the police officers, doctors and teachers.



So your basically saying we shouldn't tackle the problem that is terrorism? So as not to make them angry and try and attack again? I'm sorry, but that's the cowards way. You can't let people getting away with terrorism due to the fear that they'll retaliate even stronger! As I said, they are the bad guys, please don't forget that!!

Bad guys? How simplistic.

Whatever this government may say, 7/7 WAS linked to Iraq. Even the lead bomber in his video stated such, and quite frankly I think he had a better idea of why he detonated himself that day than Blair does.

Blair went to war in Iraq despite strong arguments from the FCO, the military and the intelligence services that it would not do anything to reduce 'terrorism'. Instead he signed up to Bush's hopelessly naive belief that taking the fight to 'terrorists', even invading a country that judged Al-Qaeda as a bigger threat to its own existence than they are to the US would somehow reduce the risk of terrorism globally.

In signing up to that futile belief, Blair made Britain a target. Do you really think its a coincidence that the biggest bomb attacks in Europe have been made on members of the 'coalition of the willing'?

Its the utter stupidity of this belief that invading Iraq would reduce terrorism that angers me, and the total disregard for any opinion that strongly argued against it. I don't expect much better from the likes of Bush, but Blair, with so many of his government departments having such deep experience of fighting terrorism in Northern Ireland, the British mainland and throughout the Empire and Commonwealth in past years, ought to have known one hell of a lot better.

[BDunnell]

Though I think in fairness Tony Blair did what he thought was right. As John Bolton recently said, in America the fact Iraq supposedly had WMD was not really a main issue, it seems only here has it been made such a big deal, and as a reason for going to war. In America that was not the case, and there was still considered good reason to go to war with Iraq.

I have to say that my own view on this is a little odd, because while I remain firmly against the war in Iraq, I believe that the most significant lies that occurred were in the dossier on WMD, the 45-minute claim, and the smearing of Dr David Kelly and the BBC. None of these were actually instigated by the PM.


So your basically saying we shouldn't tackle the problem that is terrorism? So as not to make them angry and try and attack again? I'm sorry, but that's the cowards way. You can't let people getting away with terrorism due to the fear that they'll retaliate even stronger! As I said, they are the bad guys, please don't forget that!!


Of course I'm not saying it shouldn't be tackled. What I said was that we need to recognise that this is not a case of 'good against evil', and that we shouldn't believe that we are always in the right. By all means, tackle terrorism, but by reasonable means, and without becoming paranoid about the level of threat.


Depends what you define as democracy. I think democracy is about the country being run by people elected by the local public. It's not about a government being voted in, and to then carry out what the public want you to do. If thats the case, do you want a vote on every decision the government makes? Or Just the big issues like e.g. Iraq? If thats the case, do you then want a vote for what is a 'big decision' before making the vote to go with the government, or against? And on top of that, how are you going to make sure that everyone is in an educated position to make an informed decision? Are you going to get someone to test every voter on a subject e.g. iraq, to make sure they are aware of all the facts before allowing them to vote?

That isn't practical, so the politicians have to come to decisions with which some people will inevitably disagree. I thought that was what I said before.

[BDunnell]

Thats the problem with Blair isn't it.

He decided that going to war with Iraq was right, then the rest of his decision making followed from that. Evidence was selected to fit the argument that war was right. Intelligence was carefully selected and presented, anything that didn't fit the pro-war argument was discarded.


I agree wholeheartedly. However, no matter how much I dislike Blair, my main anger is focused on Alistair Campbell and Geoff Hoon, both of whom were directly responsible for the way the intelligence was presented and the later naming of Dr Kelly in relation to the 45-minute claim. Of course, Blair takes ultimate responsibility, but Campbell and Hoon's behaviour really disgusts me to this day.


Whatever this government may say, 7/7 WAS linked to Iraq. Even the lead bomber in his video stated such, and quite frankly I think he had a better idea of why he detonated himself that day than Blair does.

Blair went to war in Iraq despite strong arguments from the FCO, the military and the intelligence services that it would not do anything to reduce 'terrorism'. Instead he signed up to Bush's hopelessly naive belief that taking the fight to 'terrorists', even invading a country that judged Al-Qaeda as a bigger threat to its own existence than they are to the US would somehow reduce the risk of terrorism globally.

In signing up to that futile belief, Blair made Britain a target. Do you really think its a coincidence that the biggest bomb attacks in Europe have been made on members of the 'coalition of the willing'?

Its the utter stupidity of this belief that invading Iraq would reduce terrorism that angers me, and the total disregard for any opinion that strongly argued against it. I don't expect much better from the likes of Bush, but Blair, with so many of his government departments having such deep experience of fighting terrorism in Northern Ireland, the British mainland and throughout the Empire and Commonwealth in past years, ought to have known one hell of a lot better.

Again, there's no more I can add, except to say that the new agreement in Northern Ireland, as unpalatable as it understandably is to a lot of people (including myself, in some ways), demonstrates the potential effectiveness of making peace through negotiation with terrorist groups as a concept.

[raphael123]

Thats the problem with Blair isn't it.

He decided that going to war with Iraq was right, then the rest of his decision making followed from that. Evidence was selected to fit the argument that war was right. Intelligence was carefully selected and presented, anything that didn't fit the pro-war argument was discarded.

Problem is that that isn't how Democracies are supposed to go to war. Intelligence is supposed to be analysed openmindedly and only when there is absolute certainty that there is casus belli should war be declared.

It fits in exactly with how Blair has been handling other issues. What do police officers know about policing anyway? Doctors clearly know nothing about healthcare, teachers are ignorant about schools. Ignore what they have to say about their own fields and dictate 'reforms' centrally from Whitehall. If it all goes wrong, then clearly the 'reforms' haven't been executed properly, which is useful because we can then blame the police officers, doctors and teachers.



Why are you telling me that? It's as if you think I disagree or have said otherwise?
What I was saying was a government shouldn't always go for the easy decision and favour what the public want.

Listening to the people who know a thing or two about the subject however should be common sense.

I'am currently working for a council within the planning department. Paid professionals who have a degree in the subject, make a decision on whether planning permission should be accepted. The person looking for permission can appeal against this if rejected, and it can end up being decided by the committee, the locally elected mp's - who have no education in planning! All the professional planners can do is give their opinion, but the final decision is with the mp's who know very little about planning. Absurb isn't it? So yes, I agree completely with you that the government should listen to what the so called 'experts' in a specific field. But not necessarily public demand. Two different things.



Bad guys? How simplistic.

Whatever this government may say, 7/7 WAS linked to Iraq. Even the lead bomber in his video stated such, and quite frankly I think he had a better idea of why he detonated himself that day than Blair does.



Bad guys? Yes I do happen to think terrorists are bad guys. If that's simplistic so be it. There's no good in these guys! If you think otherwise though... :)

And yes, 7/7 may very well be linked with iraq, but that doesn't excuse it. Do you think the UK would be free from terrorism if Iraq hadn't happened then? Do you think Terrorism suddenly popped up after Iraq?



Blair went to war in Iraq despite strong arguments from the FCO, the military and the intelligence services that it would not do anything to reduce 'terrorism'. Instead he signed up to Bush's hopelessly naive belief that taking the fight to 'terrorists', even invading a country that judged Al-Qaeda as a bigger threat to its own existence than they are to the US would somehow reduce the risk of terrorism globally.

In signing up to that futile belief, Blair made Britain a target. Do you really think its a coincidence that the biggest bomb attacks in Europe have been made on members of the 'coalition of the willing'?

Its the utter stupidity of this belief that invading Iraq would reduce terrorism that angers me, and the total disregard for any opinion that strongly argued against it. I don't expect much better from the likes of Bush, but Blair, with so many of his government departments having such deep experience of fighting terrorism in Northern Ireland, the British mainland and throughout the Empire and Commonwealth in past years, ought to have known one hell of a lot better.

I don't think the Iraq war will reduce terrorism, not in the short term. But that wasn't the main cause either was it. Getting rid of Saddam, trying to bring peace in the middle east etc.

What would you have done to tackle terrorism? Or would you have just let them 'get on with it'?

Iraq played into terrorists hands by letting them use that as an excuse. Saying that we don't hear many stories about terrorists saying Iraq was one of the causes.

At the end of the day, we mustn't forget terrorists are the evil guys here.

[BDunnell]

I'am currently working for a council within the planning department. Paid professionals who have a degree in the subject, make a decision on whether planning permission should be accepted. The person looking for permission can appeal against this if rejected, and it can end up being decided by the committee, the locally elected mp's - who have no education in planning! All the professional planners can do is give their opinion, but the final decision is with the mp's who know very little about planning. Absurb isn't it? So yes, I agree completely with you that the government should listen to what the so called 'experts' in a specific field. But not necessarily public demand. Two different things.

How do MPs have the final decision on individual planning applications? This isn't my understanding of the system at all. Councillors, yes, MPs, no.

[raphael123]

DBunnell

Of course I'm not saying it shouldn't be tackled. What I said was that we need to recognise that this is not a case of 'good against evil', and that we shouldn't believe that we are always in the right. By all means, tackle terrorism, but by reasonable means, and without becoming paranoid about the level of threat.

If those at threats of terrorists attacks aren't good, and terrorists aren't evil, what would you say? For me terrorists are evil, end of. We may not be perfect, but nothing we've done deserves what they are trying to do. If you think differently fair enough, let's hear it :)



That isn't practical, so the politicians have to come to decisions with which some people will inevitably disagree. I thought that was what I said before.

I said democracy shouldn't be about doing exactly what the public want. You said you thought it did. If you've changed your story now, fair enough, but I'm no mind reader :)

[raphael123]

How do MPs have the final decision on individual planning applications? This isn't my understanding of the system at all. Councillors, yes, MPs, no.

councillors sorry, councillors elected by the public :)

[BDunnell]

I don't think the Iraq war will reduce terrorism, not in the short term. But that wasn't the main cause either was it. Getting rid of Saddam, trying to bring peace in the middle east etc.

What would you have done to tackle terrorism? Or would you have just let them 'get on with it'?

Iraq played into terrorists hands by letting them use that as an excuse. Saying that we don't hear many stories about terrorists saying Iraq was one of the causes.

At the end of the day, we mustn't forget terrorists are the evil guys here.

Are you seriously suggesting that recognising the fact that countries such as the USA and UK may exacerbate terrorism through their actions and fighting terrorism are mutually exclusive? If so, I think you need to reconsider that position.

For example, is it wrong in your opinion to say that the post-First World War allies helped bring about the rise of Hitler by way of the Versailles Treaty, which led to poor economic conditions in Germany and thereby created the conditions in which a populist nationalist leader could come to power? Or was Hitler just 'evil'?

[Malbec]

So yes, I agree completely with you that the government should listen to what the so called 'experts' in a specific field. But not necessarily public demand. Two different things.

You misunderstood my point. I wasn't referring to public demand.

Blair went to war in Iraq despite advice from 'experts' from MI6, the FCO and the armed forces.

So by your reckoning, he shouldn't have gone to war, agreed?



Bad guys? Yes I do happen to think terrorists are bad guys. If that's simplistic so be it. There's no good in these guys! If you think otherwise though... :)

And yes, 7/7 may very well be linked with iraq, but that doesn't excuse it. Do you think the UK would be free from terrorism if Iraq hadn't happened then? Do you think Terrorism suddenly popped up after Iraq?

Simplistic thinking leads to simplistic solutions, ie lets whup some ass in Iraq.

Fighting terrorism isn't the problem here. The world and his dog supported the US attack on Afghanistan following 9/11 because the two were linked beyond doubt.

However attacking Iraq was NEVER going to reduce terrorism, and you've failed totally to explain how it should.

Fighting terror is all about destroying the root causes of terrorism. Previously I talked about how Blair had a wealth of experience at his fingertips, because British forces together with British intelligence and the FCO have been on of the few organisations that have actually managed to win conflicts involving terrorism. I refer you to Malaya, Oman etc. In all of those conflicts, the campaign to win hearts and minds and alleviate some of the perceived injustices the terrorists were fighting for played just as great a role if not greater, than the military. In the current environment, it would have meant pushing the EU/US to resolve the Israeli/Palestinian situation, to push democratic changes through the Middle East via peaceful means and reducing the inequity of wealth in the region.

Yet instead of listening to this experienced advice, he chose to go all gung-ho and go to war on false grounds.



I don't think the Iraq war will reduce terrorism, not in the short term. But that wasn't the main cause either was it. Getting rid of Saddam, trying to bring peace in the middle east etc.

You've summed it up in one haven't you.

We all agree that the WMD stuff was total nonsense, but you don't REALLY know why Blair went to war do you? Noone really does apart from Blair himself. And is that how you want future wars to be declared on? Based on a hunch from your leader?

Can you name a single other war fought this century by Britain that was based on a premise you can't even be sure about?


Iraq played into terrorists hands by letting them use that as an excuse. Saying that we don't hear many stories about terrorists saying Iraq was one of the causes.

At the end of the day, we mustn't forget terrorists are the evil guys here.

I think you're falling into a pattern here when discussing things, which is to ignore points I've made.

Mohammed Siddique Khan, in his video regarding the bombing, names wars on our people, ie Iraq when he explains the attack.

The guys behind the 21/7 bombings have also specifically named Iraq in their recent court case as to why they did what they did. So your argument is baseless I'm afraid.

[raphael123]

Are you seriously suggesting that recognising the fact that countries such as the USA and UK may exacerbate terrorism through their actions and fighting terrorism are mutually exclusive? If so, I think you need to reconsider that position.

For example, is it wrong in your opinion to say that the post-First World War allies helped bring about the rise of Hitler by way of the Versailles Treaty, which led to poor economic conditions in Germany and thereby created the conditions in which a populist nationalist leader could come to power? Or was Hitler just 'evil'?

I can't really comment on post WW1 I'm afraid, I'm not educated on the subject.

All I said, to put it in the simplest terms was that we shouldn't forget who the bad guys are. UK and USA aren't the terrorists.

[raphael123]

You misunderstood my point. I wasn't referring to public demand.

Blair went to war in Iraq despite advice from 'experts' from MI6, the FCO and the armed forces.

So by your reckoning, he shouldn't have gone to war, agreed?



I think he should use the information infront of him. If the 'experts' suggested no, and they had all the information he had, then it would seem he shouldn't have gone to war :) If the information infront of him suggested he should, when the general public were completely against the war, he should have gone anyway.


Simplistic thinking leads to simplistic solutions, ie lets whup some ass in Iraq.


I don't think that :)


Fighting terrorism isn't the problem here. The world and his dog supported the US attack on Afghanistan following 9/11 because the two were linked beyond doubt.

However attacking Iraq was NEVER going to reduce terrorism, and you've failed totally to explain how it should.


That's because I don't have the answer :)
I'm sure going through the reasons of going to war has been explained by Labour. Des Browne made good points on the situation in Question Time last Thursday.


Fighting terror is all about destroying the root causes of terrorism. Previously I talked about how Blair had a wealth of experience at his fingertips, because British forces together with British intelligence and the FCO have been on of the few organisations that have actually managed to win conflicts involving terrorism. I refer you to Malaya, Oman etc. In all of those conflicts, the campaign to win hearts and minds and alleviate some of the perceived injustices the terrorists were fighting for played just as great a role if not greater, than the military. In the current environment, it would have meant pushing the EU/US to resolve the Israeli/Palestinian situation, to push democratic changes through the Middle East via peaceful means and reducing the inequity of wealth in the region. Yet instead of listening to this experienced advice, he chose to go all gung-ho and go to war on false grounds.




I would say going to war wasn't the best way. I don't think I've said otherwise have I?




You've summed it up in one haven't you.

We all agree that the WMD stuff was total nonsense, but you don't REALLY know why Blair went to war do you? Noone really does apart from Blair himself. And is that how you want future wars to be declared on? Based on a hunch from your leader?

Can you name a single other war fought this century by Britain that was based on a premise you can't even be sure about?


Many reasons have been given already, by America and UK. To say no reasons have been given for going to war would be lying. Whether you and I agree with them is another matter :)


I think you're falling into a pattern here when discussing things, which is to ignore points I've made.

Mohammed Siddique Khan, in his video regarding the bombing, names wars on our people, ie Iraq when he explains the attack.

The guys behind the 21/7 bombings have also specifically named Iraq in their recent court case as to why they did what they did. So your argument is baseless I'm afraid.

I don't think I'm ignoring your points, at least not deliberately. I think it's more to do with you assuming my position on something, and when I don't argue against it (presumably because I actually agree) you think I'm ignoring your points. Hope thats cleared it up for you :)

[Malbec]

I don't think I'm ignoring your points, at least not deliberately. I think it's more to do with you assuming my position on something, and when I don't argue against it (presumably because I actually agree) you think I'm ignoring your points. Hope thats cleared it up for you :)

Hmmmm, thats not the impression I'm getting.

It may not be deliberate, but your insistence that terrorists have not used Iraq to justify their attacks is simply false, and ignores the examples both I and BDunnell have raised in this thread so far.

I'm pulling out of this conversation at this point because I suspect we're talking at two different levels here.

[BDunnell]

I can't really comment on post WW1 I'm afraid, I'm not educated on the subject.

Well, I've just provided an outline of what happened to cause the rise of Hitler. Surely you can express a view on it?


All I said, to put it in the simplest terms was that we shouldn't forget who the bad guys are. UK and USA aren't the terrorists.

It is just not as simple as saying 'we are good, you are bad'. There would probably not be peace in Northern Ireland now if your view of how to deal with terrorists held sway.

[raphael123]

Hmmmm, thats not the impression I'm getting.

It may not be deliberate, but your insistence that terrorists have not used Iraq to justify their attacks is simply false, and ignores the examples both I and BDunnell have raised in this thread so far.

I'm pulling out of this conversation at this point because I suspect we're talking at two different levels here.

My insistence? I've mentioned it once. If thats the only point you disagreed with I take it back :) I wasn't aware terrorists said their actions was directly down to the situation in Iraq!??! - it hasn't been talked about by the media to a great extent to my knowledge.

As for everything else, it's you assuming things about me which is incorrect such as thinking I didn't think Blair should listen to experts, when I was merely talking about the general public, whihc I thought I made clear enough.

For thinking I'm for the war in Iraq to tackle terrorism, as the only reason for the war on Iraq.

I'm sorry I haven't answered all your points, but I'm hardly going to tackle your points when I agree with you. I agree the majority of what you say, you have just assumed I have the opposite view. I agree Blair should have listened to his 'experts'. I agree going to war wasn't the best way. I agree the war wasn't soley for tackling terrorism purposes. I agree all about the WMD. And I've taken back the fact I wasn't aware that terrorist point the finger to the situation of Iraq as a reason as to why they are killing innocent victims in western countries.

So what points exactly is it that I'm failing to answer?

I think the only possible disagreement is the fact that I think terrorism would still be present in todays society, with the war in Iraq or not. The only difference is now the terrorists are able to use Iraq as an excuse if they wish to do so, then certain (like yourself maybe) people can say 'oo if we hadn't gone to war in Iraq this wouldn't be happening', therefore laying a proportion of the blame on their own government rather than soley on the terrorists, which it is basically, when really people should be uniting together in the fight against terrorism, rather than blaming their own people etc. And the only other point is the fact I think the countries fighting against Terrorism are the good guys, and the terrorists are the bad guys.

It's easy to pull out of a discussion once you realise the errors of your ways I guess. Hopefully it won't become a habit of yours, or a pattern here when discussing things. :)

[raphael123]

Well, I've just provided an outline of what happened to cause the rise of Hitler. Surely you can express a view on it?



You want me comment on such a big issue, from a 50 word summary from someone who I have so far rarely found much common ground?

Sorry :) If I get time I'll try and do some research on the situation though, and I'll get back to you :)




It is just not as simple as saying 'we are good, you are bad'. There would probably not be peace in Northern Ireland now if your view of how to deal with terrorists held sway.

The terrorists in NI can't be considered in the same league as the one's we're dealing with now! Surely you must realise that?!

Tell me, how would you suggest dealing with these terrorists? Phone Osama and ask him to stop it? Offer money to stop him? What action would you take? It's so easy to say 'this is wrong', when you can't come up with a solution yourself :)

[BDunnell]

You want me comment on such a big issue, from a 50 word summary from someone who I have so far rarely found much common ground?

Sorry :) If I get time I'll try and do some research on the situation though, and I'll get back to you :)

I would have thought that you would know exactly what to think about the circumstances that led to the rise of Hitler, because you believe that there are good people and evil people, and nothing in between.

In addition, I don't know why you doubt my summary of events. That is how it happened. I'm surprised you didn't know already.


The terrorists in NI can't be considered in the same league as the one's we're dealing with now! Surely you must realise that?!

Tell me, how would you suggest dealing with these terrorists? Phone Osama and ask him to stop it? Offer money to stop him? What action would you take? It's so easy to say 'this is wrong', when you can't come up with a solution yourself :)

Statements like this lead me to agree with Dylan H. It is all but impossible to discuss these kinds of things with you, because we have both provided plenty of practical examples of why we think the way we do, yet you either genuinely fail to understand, pretend to, or have a go at us for not expressing ourselves clearly enough. The fault is yours, not ours. Sorry.

[raphael123]

I would have thought that you would know exactly what to think about the circumstances that led to the rise of Hitler, because you believe that there are good people and evil people, and nothing in between.

In addition, I don't know why you doubt my summary of events. That is how it happened. I'm surprised you didn't know already.



I'll repeat, I don't know enough about what happened to comment. If I have time, I shall look into it...for you blossom :)




Statements like this lead me to agree with Dylan H. It is all but impossible to discuss these kinds of things with you, because we have both provided plenty of practical examples of why we think the way we do, yet you either genuinely fail to understand, pretend to, or have a go at us for not expressing ourselves clearly enough. The fault is yours, not ours. Sorry.

So how do you 'negotiate' with terrorists like Osama?

Shock horror, you actually agree with Dylan H on something! It'd be nice to see one of your posts not always quoting Mr Dylan H just to say 'I completely agree...'. I'm not a regular on this board, but have been involved in a couple of discussions with you both regarding the NHS, privatisation, attitutes towards smoking etc, and in each case it's been the same. And without fail again, you did the same again in this post. Some may see it as sucking up (never!?!).

Then again Dylan H is a good guy, so all is good :) Nothing wrong with agreeing with people whatsoever :)

[BDunnell]

Shock horror, you actually agree with Dylan H on something! It'd be nice to see one of your posts not always quoting Mr Dylan H just to say 'I completely agree...'. I'm not a regular on this board, but have been involved in a couple of discussions with you both regarding the NHS, privatisation, attitutes towards smoking etc, and in each case it's been the same. And without fail again, you did the same again in this post. Some may see it as sucking up (never!?!).

Then again Dylan H is a good guy, so all is good :) Nothing wrong with agreeing with people whatsoever :)

What a pointless statement.

Two people agree on something, shock horror!

[Peter Mandelson]

independence is the way forward fo scotland

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/scotland/6506011.stm


imagine if UK no longer exists
this thread will not have heat debate
right?

[pvtjoker]

Is Scotland really calling for Independence these days? Just asking as I am not up on my UK politics.

In the US, we hear nothing about Scotland's call for Independence like we do for say, Quebec from Canada or Puerto Rico (complete independence) from the US.

[BDunnell]

Is Scotland really calling for Independence these days? Just asking as I am not up on my UK politics.

Some of it is. Wait until the result of the Scottish Parliament elections. If the Scottish National Party wins a majority, it would indicate leanings towards independence, if not a burning desire for it.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

independence is the way forward fo scotland

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/scotland/6506011.stm


imagine if UK no longer exists
this thread will not have heat debate
right?

If the Fecking SNP didn't exist then this debate wouldn't happen :mad:

Why is there so much nationalism in Scotland? I think that all British citizens should be able to vote on Scottish indendance. After all it would change my nationality.

[raphael123]

What a pointless statement.

Two people agree on something, shock horror!

On something? On everything I'd say from what I've seen.

And good response about the way you would go about negotiating with a terrorist like Osama, very well thought out :)

[BDunnell]

On something? On everything I'd say from what I've seen.

Please inform me why this matters.


And good response about the way you would go about negotiating with a terrorist like Osama, very well thought out :)

I have definitely had enough of this. Where I stand on this issue is perfectly clear from what I have said before. I do not need to go over it again. It is your fault, not mine, that you cannot understand it.

[Peter Mandelson]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHGfKggjTxE