UK Politics

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

I have created this thread for people to comment on the current gov't in UK, and who they might like to see voted in after Blair is gone.

My view is that the Liberal Democrats should be elected. One of their promises is that University would become much freer that it is now, and we have already seen them deliver on this in Scotland, so why not give them a chance 'down south'?

[The Gaffer]

In theory, I'd agree, though in practice I'm not sure they actually have a coherent and credible set of policies. Although they were the only party that opposed the Iraq war, I thought they did a pretty pants job of putting across the anti-war argument.

We have a lib-dem council, and they always seem to adopt the populist stance. Like when they rallied behind some NIMBYs objecting to a new bus route for the local hospital because it would mean their house prices would go down.

Lib-dem councillor: Would you like to sign the petition to object to this dreadful new bus route?
The Gaffer: So, you think we shouldn't have better public transport, then?
Ldc: er... no, of course we should have better public transport, er, it should just go somewhere else
The Gaffer: Right, so the people who work for the NHS and therefore can't afford to buy a house within 20 miles of the hospital should just get a job somewhere else, then? Or should they buy another car and add to the congestion instead?
Ldc: er, * starts sweating *, erm don't you think that Charles Kennedy is a nice young man?

Actually, Charles Kennedy seems like a good bloke, though the British people will never elect a redhead.

Having said that, I might end up voting for them just because Bliar is such an arse, and the Tories are even worse. God, it's so depressing.

Gordon Brown for PM!

[sun-star]

I would like to see Gordon Brown as PM.

Janny?

[Janny]

*sniggers* Is that one of those controversial statments to cause an argument?

(But yes... maaaaybe me too)

Sorry, I forgot: Why?!

[sun-star]

Originally Posted by Janny

*sniggers* Is that one of those controversial statments to cause an argument?

No, I'm just bored. And in a politics mood.

Sorry, I forgot: Why?!

Well, we don't know much about him, but AFAIK he's:
a) not obsessed with spin
b) anti-Euro
c) not Thatcherite
d) responsible for the govt's best policies to date

Therefore he is better than Blair or Howard.

EDIT: or Charles Kennedy. Funny how I always forget about him.

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

I'm for Charle's Kennedy as PM.

[Janny]

Originally Posted by sun-star

Well, we don't know much about him, but AFAIK he's:

Ah! The Democrat model of candidate selection!

[sun-star]

Well, well, well...

North-East Rejects Devolution

I didn't see that coming!

[Draken]

I did. The No Campaign took only one line - don't create yet more politicians, especially when they don't have real powers. The best the Yes Campaign could come up with was to get Brendan Foster to write us all a letter.

Personally, I think regionalisation is the only way forward for both the North and the West of England. Investment decreases with distance from London - and I'm talking per capita, not just total - even for public money like lottery grants. Without a proper regional government, that isn't going to change. The problem is, proper regional government wasn't offered.

[Durin1]

Tony Blair lost my vote as soon as he embarked on an ill-fated decision to join America in the war in Iraq whole-heartedly regardless of opposition and dissension, not to mention going to war on a blatant false premise.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Durin1

Tony Blair lost my vote as soon as he embarked on an ill-fated decision to join America in the war in Iraq whole-heartedly regardless of opposition and dissension, not to mention going to war on a blatant false premise.

A leader leads and must look at what the resulting future can be - people generally only look at the here and now. Also - it was not a "blatant false premise" - everyone from the French, to the UN to the all the other intelligence agencies in the world felt that Iraq had WMD - even so - that wasn't the only reason for going in there. Also - concerning WMD - it has now been learned that Iraq had a turn key WMD system set up - he was just waiting for the french to get the sanctions lifted and he would have been in full scale production within months. Hardly someone who was not a danger. We attacked Meloshivic for far less than Hussein.

[The Gaffer]

As all right thinking people know, that's a load of dingo's kidneys, but let's not go THERE again.

I'm with you, Draken, for the same reasons. Pity, because Labour are taking the health service and education (fees excepted) in the right direction, after 20 years of being run down. They've actually been a pretty radical government in many ways (minimum wage, devolution, freedom of information act, etc), though admittedly many of them have been totally botched (House of Lords reform).

The most positive thing is that after 20 years of politicians being terrified of saying the word "tax" without the word "cut" immediately afterwards, there is now a consensus here that if you want decent public services then you have to pay for them somehow.

Most of that is down to the achievement of Bliar's ministers, especially Brown, and not Bambi himself though. I wish they'd ditch him and install The Broon.

[Fenir_LacDanan]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

A leader leads and must look at what the resulting future can be - people generally only look at the here and now.

Like good ole dubua, perhaps...

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

concerning WMD - it has now been learned that Iraq had a turn key WMD system set up - he was just waiting for the french to get the sanctions lifted and he would have been in full scale production within months. Hardly someone who was not a danger. We attacked Meloshivic for far less than Hussein.

Oh, hang on, .....yawnnnnnn. so Iraq had a 'key' that unlocked a 'key' that unlocked a 'key' and so on.

JUST ADMIT IT. THERE AINT NO WMD LEFT IN IRAQ. Cowards...

Gee you yanks nailed down that whole "wmd" thing. Oh gee (sarcasm monitor exploding), well (snigger) done (chortle) on that.

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

A leader leads and must look at what the resulting future can be - people generally only look at the here and now. Also - it was not a "blatant false premise" - everyone from the French, to the UN to the all the other intelligence agencies in the world felt that Iraq had WMD - even so - that wasn't the only reason for going in there. Also - concerning WMD - it has now been learned that Iraq had a turn key WMD system set up - he was just waiting for the french to get the sanctions lifted and he would have been in full scale production within months. Hardly someone who was not a danger. We attacked Meloshivic for far less than Hussein.

A leader leads, but the leader should also listen to the followers opinion. The majority of Britain was against the War in Iraq.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Telcontar_Dunedain

A leader leads, but the leader should also listen to the followers opinion. The majority of Britain was against the War in Iraq.

The folloers don't always have the long term insight of what is going on - nor do they have all the information to make an informed decision. How many top secret meetings have you been involved with? We elect leaders for a reason - to make informed decisions and make decisions based on a long term outlook and goal. If the constituants were listened to for everything - the government would never get anything done because it would be going from one extreme to another. it would be like trying to drive to california while slamming the brakes every mile.

[Fenir_LacDanan]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

The folloers don't always have the long term insight of what is going on - nor do they have all the information to make an informed decision.

And who are you to decide, misceleanous poster....

Perhaps the people did and do have their long term intrest's in view...

Who are you to say...?

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

I have been to no top secret meetings (I'm guessing that that as a rhetorcal question!) yet shouldn't the leader at least listen to the followers and give them a good reason. When no weapons were found in Iraq he never said "Sorry, I was wrong" he said that there were no nuclear, biological or chemical weapons found in Iraq, but they were still right to go.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Telcontar_Dunedain

I have been to no top secret meetings (I'm guessing that that as a rhetorcal question!) yet shouldn't the leader at least listen to the followers and give them a good reason. When no weapons were found in Iraq he never said "Sorry, I was wrong" he said that there were no nuclear, biological or chemical weapons found in Iraq, but they were still right to go.

Based on numerous commission reports - it was still the right thing to do. Was he wrong - or was the intelligence initially wrong though? As I have said numerous times - Hussein didn't have Dr Germ in the top of his government for eye candy you know.

[Fenir_LacDanan]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Based on numerous commission reports - it was still the right thing to do. Was he wrong - or was the intelligence initially wrong though? As I have said numerous times - Hussein didn't have Dr Germ in the top of his government for eye candy you know.

Was Bush wrong??

Was it wrong intel?????

Was Bush wrong???

One perhap should ask these questions closer to jersey. Perhaps.

[Valandil]

This is getting off topic.

Should we split off the parts about Bush? Or do you guys want to just leave them in but get back to UK Politics?