View Full Version : Who are you going to vote for next week?
Well?
Me i haven't decided. I've only seen the lib dem propaganda so far, and a letter from Mr Howard.
And if you aren't old enough, who would you vote for ;)
We had all the leaflets throught the door the other day all at once, Labour, Tory, Lib Dem, BNP, Green Party etc, etc.
I'll probably vote Lib Dem or Labour, the BNP will never get in round here anyway.
We haven't had anyleaflets or people canvessing at all. They're probably too scared to venture over this side of town :rolleyes:
So... it's a bit hard to choose. I'll probably go for Lib Dem. I didn't vote in the last election and the shame has never left me.
Hang on... I have MEP elections and London mayoral elections next week.
Are we talking about MEPs?
If so, I'm thinking of voting for the Green party, cos she's one of our current thingy wotsits. She seems to be doing a good job, and it's the only leaflet I've read that hasn't pissed me off.
And Ken for Mayor. Obviously. Even though he's an evil Labour bastard again... :mad:
socialist cook
02-06-2004, 18:59
At the moment Lib Dem, because the MEP sent propaganda addressed to me personally in the post- I felt important:cool: hehe.
I wouldn't be too sure of the BNP not getting in around Huddersfield Klan, given the spread of council seats they have seem to be congregated around West Yorkshire(and that includes defected Tories!). Unless, the UKIP usurp them :rolleyes:
If I were still living in the UK... Plaid Cymru all the way :cool:
Hang on... I have MEP elections and London mayoral elections next week.
Are we talking about MEPs?
If so, I'm thinking of voting for the Green party, cos she's one of our current thingy wotsits. She seems to be doing a good job, and it's the only leaflet I've read that hasn't pissed me off.
And Ken for Mayor. Obviously. Even though he's an evil Labour bastard again... :mad:
Just in general, since i figured most people would vote for the same party :).
Unless, the UKIP usurp them :rolleyes:
Aka the SAY NO TO EVERYTHING!!!!!!!!1111 party.
Just in general, since i figured most people would vote for the same party :).
Well I'm trying to reconcile my need to vote for Ken with the fact it means I'm voting for Labour. I'm not liking that at all... I like Ken though, and I think he's done a great job. So I guess I don't have much of a choice really.
dailegs11
02-06-2004, 19:21
My party. Fuck all these lying politicians. Choose me. :rolleyes: :P
My party. Fuck all these lying politicians. Choose me. :rolleyes: :P Wouldn't that technically make you one of those lying politicians?
Anyway, I'm gonna vote for different parties in the local and European elections, so meh :mad: :p
The ward I'm voting in has all Tory councillors at the moment, and the only party which appears to have a hope of challenging one of them is the Lib Dems, so I guess I'm voting for them in the local ones. Labour don't stand a chance, and there aren't any other parties putting up candidates :mad:
In the European elections I'll probably vote for the Green Party. They gave me a windmill when I was walking around town, and had a big green bus :mrgreen: Erm, yeah, the information they gave me also appeared to make sense, and didn't spend all it's time telling me how all the other parties were lying to me...
Terminal Young Thing
02-06-2004, 19:35
Yep, Green for MEPs, not sure about our locals. Lib Dem or Green.
dailegs11
02-06-2004, 19:43
[QUOTE=Fiona]Wouldn't that technically make you one of those lying politicians?
Anyway, I'm gonna vote for different parties in the local and European elections, so meh :mad: :p
QUOTE]
Bah! I never lie! I am one of the most honest people around. :rolleyes: :p
Anyhow I could never be a politican. Too many cracks to cover up. I'm sure politicians were plasterers in past lives.
Yep, Green for MEPs, not sure about our locals. Lib Dem or Green. Not fair. No bloody Green councillors standing in my ward :mad: Suppose they realise there isn't any point but still :mad:
I seem to have two votes :P one for Huddersfield, one for Wetherby
You can vote twice in council elections, if you are a student, although not in Euro elections.
littlebabyeverything
02-06-2004, 21:27
Euro - Lib Dem
Local council - Lib dem
London Assembly - Lib dem
Mayor - Simon Hughes 1, Ken 2.
Spot a trend. I like voting Lib dem, because they never get in and therefore never let me down. I like Simon Huges. He wants to make Kennington station Zone 1, which will save me on travel costs. Steven Norris is alright for a Tory, but he wants to take away the congestion zone. Ken. I have always had a soft spot for. He put up a massive statue of Nelson Mandela outside the southbank in 1985, Ken was ahead of the crowd.
alexliamw
02-06-2004, 21:30
If I was 18, I would vote for the Lib Dems. They have by far the best policies and Simon Hughes is a fantastic mayoral candidate - one of my favourite politicians in any party.
The UKIP candidate for London mayor is Frank Maloney, the all-round thug, boxing promoter and Millwall fan. One of his slogans is "KEEP KIDS ON PLAYING FIELDS, NOT ON CRACK" :lol:
littlebabyeverything
02-06-2004, 21:47
If I was 18, I would vote for the Lib Dems. They have by far the best policies and Simon Hughes is a fantastic mayoral candidate - one of my favourite politicians in any party:
I agree. He is now my local MP. He gives the impression of being a politician for the right reasons and putting in the work on less glamorous issues and not because of some ego trip.
"KEEP KIDS ON PLAYING FIELDS, NOT ON CRACK"
:lol: Classic. You've got to be suspicious of any party with Kilroy as its sole celebrity endorser though. Twat :rolleyes:
alexliamw
02-06-2004, 23:36
He's a candidate! But they've also got Joan Collins as an endorser, who when asked "can you tell us what the main policies of the UKIP are?" by a canny journalist, replied "no, he can tell you about that".
The UKIP are such absolute twats.
Kilroy used to be a Labour MP for a long time didnt he? Imagine going to one of this local surgeries :lol:
http://www32.brinkster.com/omrlp/images/merchandise/merwastingtimepost.jpg
wheresmejumper
03-06-2004, 01:54
Well as someone who is an actual candidate in these elections I guess I better tell you all my choices.
I am voting Tory across the board: why??
Because Reading is run by a Labour 'mafia' or clique of councillors- there are something like 44 councillors and like 35 of them are Labour. For democracy to work well we NEED a good balance. Also Labour are shite. For lots of reasons.
As for the Lib Dems.. I am deeply worried you lot think they are a decent choice. All they are are a bunch of opportunist deperados who will do anything and say anything to get your vote..ooh theres a seemingly poplular gap in the debate we'll oppose the war..etc etc. If you look at ANY of the Lib Dems actual principles you can clearly see it would mean the complete destruction of any say we have in Europe to fight for our interests. ( as would Labour!) The only realistic choice for Britain in Europe is Tory. Unless you want either a federal superstate or us out of it all together....
As for Mayor. Norris is again the only decent option. Ken is a wanker. he really is. London is a shit hole in some places. Norris has great ideas, he has it sorted. Hughes seems to me to be a waste of space....
I would really urge people to put to one side their anti tory prejudice and a) show Tony Blair what you think of his incompetence and b) strengthen Britain's voice in Europe and bring democracy back to your local authorities.
Vote Conservative on June 10..even if it is the only time you ever do.
Well as someone who is an actual candidate in these elections I guess I better tell you all my choices. Hehe.
I am voting Tory across the board: why?? Because you are an idiot, and because you'd look pretty silly if you didn't seeing as you're standing as a Conservative councillor :p
Because Reading is run by a Labour 'mafia' or clique of councillors- there are something like 44 councillors and like 35 of them are Labour. For democracy to work well we NEED a good balance. Also Labour are shite. For lots of reasons. You just don't like the Reading East Labour lot. Actually a lot of them are nice people. And parents of pupils at the school where you teach. So slagging them off is probably not the best idea. Have you considered that there might be 35 Labour councillors out of 44 because that's who people have elected, that hardly makes them a 'mafia' :rolleyes:
As for the Lib Dems.. I am deeply worried you lot think they are a decent choice. All they are are a bunch of opportunist deperados who will do anything and say anything to get your vote..ooh theres a seemingly poplular gap in the debate we'll oppose the war..etc etc. If you look at ANY of the Lib Dems actual principles you can clearly see it would mean the complete destruction of any say we have in Europe to fight for our interests. ( as would Labour!) The only realistic choice for Britain in Europe is Tory. Unless you want either a federal superstate or us out of it all together.... Voting Lib Dem is however the only practical choice in the ward I vote in if there is any hope of getting rid of the Tories (is Rob Wilson standing in Thames?).
I would really urge people to put to one side their anti tory prejudice and a) show Tony Blair what you think of his incompetence and b) strengthen Britain's voice in Europe and bring democracy back to your local authorities. Think you'll find that they're being elected democratically at the moment, just cos you don't like living in a Labour strong hold. And seriously, Tony Blair may be incompetent, but I've seen nothing that suggests Michael Howard would be any better.
Vote Conservative on June 10..even if it is the only time you ever do. No.
don't vote tory at any level, you'll live to regret it
alexliamw
03-06-2004, 09:48
What an impassioned plea :D Let's take it bit by bit.
I am voting Tory across the board: why??
Because you're a natural Tory that would vote Tory whatever happened?
For democracy to work well we NEED a good balance.
So I presume you'll also be supporting the BNP, Greens, UKIP, Lib Dems, Respect, and Independent Candidates? Just to create a balance, you see. Because all of the above parties (with the possible exception of Lib Dems) are further away from Labour party policy than the tories are.
As for the Lib Dems.. I am deeply worried you lot think they are a decent choice. All they are are a bunch of opportunist deperados who will do anything and say anything to get your vote..ooh theres a seemingly poplular gap in the debate we'll oppose the war..etc etc.
All politicians are opportunists. That's the nature of British politics! You can't honestly think that Labour and Tories just stick by policies because they think they're right. Every Tory leadership since 1997 has opposed Labour on pretty well anything (admittedly, not the war) just for the sake of it, forcing them out of their own policy ground everywhere! And Labour pander to voters incredibly too - its what New Labour was built around. I think you'd find the Lib Dems were natural opponents of the war anyway, if you look at the political ideology of liberalism it would imply a relatively non-interventionist foreign policy. Contrary to popular belief, the Lib Dems have a stable ideology behind their policy and refer back to it on policy (see this report: http://www.libdems.org.uk/documents/policies/Policy_Papers/LiberalDemocracy.pdf) But in the end, despite their opportunism, one has to say, they are on the right side of the key issues. They are the only party that wants to check the growing restriction on civil liberties. They are the only party that wants a fairer system of taxation. They are the only party that presses for constitutional reform to make the UK more democratic. They are the only party that wants to stand up to George Bush and the USA. They are the only party that want a decentralisation of power from national government. The list goes on. These are all policies that grow out of the belief in liberalism, hence their constant references to it, and freedom, in their speeches. Despite their failings as a party, I agree with the policy too much to oppose it. They are far better than the Tories, New Labour, or Old Labour, in my opinion.
If you look at ANY of the Lib Dems actual principles you can clearly see it would mean the complete destruction of any say we have in Europe to fight for our interests. ( as would Labour!) The only realistic choice for Britain in Europe is Tory. Unless you want either a federal superstate or us out of it all together....
Any of the Lib Dem principles? Freedom? Democracy? Liberty? Less state control? Do you mean policy? If so, do you mean the ones I listed above? Or do you mean policy on Europe? And if so, did you even notice this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,3605,1188031,00.html ? The Lib Dems are not walking into Europe blindfolded; they do not want a federal superstate; they want to work with Europe rather than mindlessly pander to the nation's xenophobia in the play that the Tories do. Now that's opportunism.
As for Mayor. Norris is again the only decent option. Ken is a wanker. he really is. London is a shit hole in some places. Norris has great ideas, he has it sorted. Hughes seems to me to be a waste of space....
Was that meant to be an argument? So Ken is a "wanker" and Hughes is a "waste of space". Right. Can we find out why? Why is Hughes a waste of space? Or have you just tagged that on without looking at him because he's a Lib Dem? Of course London is a shithole in some places, it has always been and probably will always be. No candidate will magic that away, and it certainly isn't Ken's fault. Seeing as it appears to be pure prejudice, if you have anything to actually say about Hughes, maybe I can put you right as to why it's wrong.
I would really urge people to put to one side their anti tory prejudice and a) show Tony Blair what you think of his incompetence and b) strengthen Britain's voice in Europe and bring democracy back to your local authorities.
Yep. So vote Lib Dem then.
I will never vote Tory, because I reject the Conservative idea that things should be preserved the way they are. We have not reached the perfect society yet, and consequently, we need to keep evolved, changing and improving, to become more free, more democratic and more fair. That is an objective viewpoint. Tory economic policy has something going for it to some extent, but New Labour have stolen and improved it, so they no longer hold that card. Tory social policy, meanwhile, is authoritarian, discriminatory, illiberal and unfair. Just look at the how Tories just naturally scoff at such issues as minority rights and immigration. They're dinosaurs: outdated, out of touch, despite Howard's attempt to rebrand them as modern. They thrive on misinformation and to some extent prejudice, and the better informed the public become, the less they will vote Tory. No wonder they also want to restrict yet another democratic, tolerant right: freedom of information.
Why would anyone want to vote for a joke party like the Lib Dems? Is it just by the process of elimination? Not only are they a party with idealist bandwagon-jumping 'policies' (word loosely used) based on criticisms of other parties, but now their candidates are getting arrested for fraud:
Lib Dem held in vote fraud probe
A Liberal Democrat candidate in the 10 June local elections in Oldham has been arrested over allegations of attempted voting fraud.
Aftab Hussain, 39, was arrested on Wednesday on suspicion of conspiracy to defraud and theft of ballot papers.
It comes after two men allegedly called at a house in Glodwick on Friday and offered to look after ballot papers for residents - they left with five papers.
The family contacted police the following day to raise concerns.
Liberal Democrat leader in Oldham Howard Sykes confirmed Mr Hussain had been arrested. Mr Hussain is due to answer bail at Oldham police station on 5 August.
Well that does a lot for their credibility. Of course a LibDem supporter will tell you "It doesn't matter! It was only one person!", but if any other party did it (especially BNP) they would be quick to scream "See! They're a bunch of crooks!"
Personally I shall be voting for the Green party. Although not their biggest fan, they seem to be the most humane and sincere.
I don't buy into all that "left wing is good, right wing is bad" (or vice versa) bullshit. An efficient administration owes as much to being well run, free from excess pen pushers and bureaucratic selfishness as it does to having well defined and viable policies.
What an impassioned plea :D Let's take it bit by bit.
Because you're a natural Tory that would vote Tory whatever happened?
So I presume you'll also be supporting the BNP, Greens, UKIP, Lib Dems, Respect, and Independent Candidates? Just to create a balance, you see. Because all of the above parties (with the possible exception of Lib Dems) are further away from Labour party policy than the tories are.
All politicians are opportunists. That's the nature of British politics! You can't honestly think that Labour and Tories just stick by policies because they think they're right. Every Tory leadership since 1997 has opposed Labour on pretty well anything (admittedly, not the war) just for the sake of it, forcing them out of their own policy ground everywhere! And Labour pander to voters incredibly too - its what New Labour was built around. I think you'd find the Lib Dems were natural opponents of the war anyway, if you look at the political ideology of liberalism it would imply a relatively non-interventionist foreign policy. Contrary to popular belief, the Lib Dems have a stable ideology behind their policy and refer back to it on policy (see this report: http://www.libdems.org.uk/documents/policies/Policy_Papers/LiberalDemocracy.pdf) But in the end, despite their opportunism, one has to say, they are on the right side of the key issues. They are the only party that wants to check the growing restriction on civil liberties. They are the only party that wants a fairer system of taxation. They are the only party that presses for constitutional reform to make the UK more democratic. They are the only party that wants to stand up to George Bush and the USA. They are the only party that want a decentralisation of power from national government. The list goes on. These are all policies that grow out of the belief in liberalism, hence their constant references to it, and freedom, in their speeches. Despite their failings as a party, I agree with the policy too much to oppose it. They are far better than the Tories, New Labour, or Old Labour, in my opinion.
Any of the Lib Dem principles? Freedom? Democracy? Liberty? Less state control? Do you mean policy? If so, do you mean the ones I listed above? Or do you mean policy on Europe? And if so, did you even notice this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,3605,1188031,00.html ? The Lib Dems are not walking into Europe blindfolded; they do not want a federal superstate; they want to work with Europe rather than mindlessly pander to the nation's xenophobia in the play that the Tories do. Now that's opportunism.
Was that meant to be an argument? So Ken is a "wanker" and Hughes is a "waste of space". Right. Can we find out why? Why is Hughes a waste of space? Or have you just tagged that on without looking at him because he's a Lib Dem? Of course London is a shithole in some places, it has always been and probably will always be. No candidate will magic that away, and it certainly isn't Ken's fault. Seeing as it appears to be pure prejudice, if you have anything to actually say about Hughes, maybe I can put you right as to why it's wrong.
Yep. So vote Lib Dem then.
I will never vote Tory, because I reject the Conservative idea that things should be preserved the way they are. We have not reached the perfect society yet, and consequently, we need to keep evolved, changing and improving, to become more free, more democratic and more fair. That is an objective viewpoint. Tory economic policy has something going for it to some extent, but New Labour have stolen and improved it, so they no longer hold that card. Tory social policy, meanwhile, is authoritarian, discriminatory, illiberal and unfair. Just look at the how Tories just naturally scoff at such issues as minority rights and immigration. They're dinosaurs: outdated, out of touch, despite Howard's attempt to rebrand them as modern. They thrive on misinformation and to some extent prejudice, and the better informed the public become, the less they will vote Tory. No wonder they also want to restrict yet another democratic, tolerant right: freedom of information. :D :X
socialist cook
03-06-2004, 10:45
As for the Lib Dems.. I am deeply worried you lot think they are a decent choice. All they are are a bunch of opportunist deperados who will do anything and say anything to get your vote..ooh theres a seemingly poplular gap in the debate we'll oppose the war..etc etc. If you look at ANY of the Lib Dems actual principles you can clearly see it would mean the complete destruction of any say we have in Europe to fight for our interests. ( as would Labour!) The only realistic choice for Britain in Europe is Tory. Unless you want either a federal superstate or us out of it all together....
Yes they can seem like bandwagon jumpers to some, but I'll vote Lib Dem in the European elections because to me they are the only really pro European party(Labour is as divided as the Conservatives are on Europe- they just don't have a tendency to form cliques and knock one leader of one month:lol: ) What if some of us like the idea of a more federalised 'international institution' I say this because I don't think the EU will actually turn into a big nation state. Also, the time for strong nation states(anywhere other than the US) is over and we can't wreck international institutions- NATO was bypassed over Kosovo and Iraq, the UN is indefinitely weakened by Iraq. Federal government has its draw backs, but then so do unitary states;) The main advantage that appeals to me is that it brings government closer to the people-which can be no bad thing!
As for Mayor. Norris is again the only decent option. Ken is a wanker. he really is. London is a shit hole in some places. Norris has great ideas, he has it sorted. Hughes seems to me to be a waste of space....
I would really urge people to put to one side their anti tory prejudice and a) show Tony Blair what you think of his incompetence and b) strengthen Britain's voice in Europe and bring democracy back to your local authorities.
Vote Conservative on June 10..even if it is the only time you ever do.
Ah yes Steve Norris who famously doesn't like travelling by public transport;) In the south west too a vote for the Lib Dems, isn't just a vote for a third party- it is a bit of a Lib Dem dominated region.
wheresmejumper
03-06-2004, 10:46
Whoa, talk about impassioned pleading!!!
Right let me take yours but by bit...:
I would not vote Tory no matter what, I didnt vote at all in 1997 because I actually wanted them out but couldn't bring myself to vote Labour.
No I won't be supporting the minority parties. What I want to see is a balanced Council with the three main parties represented. I want to see Labour being held to account and the only way one can do this in Reading is to vote Conservative. The Lib Dems have a couple of seats but they are dead every where else.
Yes politicians are opportunists. I still stand by my views despite your valiant attempts to persuade me otherwise. You see were what you are saying true, for the most part, you would have a case. Yet I fear you have fallen into the trap of their propoganda. The Liberal Democrats are neither quality their name suggests:
Are they 'Liberal'?? If we take Jefferson's famous definition of 'liberalism' ie 'the government that governs best is that which governs least' then let us see....do the Lib Dems actively support the idea that there is too much government and want to cut down on the money it spends and give more freedom back to individuals?
No: They want to introduce a whole new tier of regional and local government which means more politicians, more tax payers money going to it etc. They also want to raise income tax, and introduce a completely new tax, the local income tax. That is not 'liberal' by any definition of the word. They are a Social Democratic Party. Like New Labour.
Are they 'Democrats'?? Well, let me see. I think as they believe in signing up to the new European Constitution and have always argued for closer European integration and the handing over of ancient British democratic powers to a foreign organisation then you could say no. I do like SOME of their constitutional reform ideas. Also their belief in the STV PR system which would give them disproportionate powers in Parliament and (they hope) the bargaining power over who forms a government show them again to be not very 'democratic' (Before you go on a FPP v PR rant I KNOW both systems aren't very democratic...) So they can be questioned on this one too.
You talk a lot about 'freedom' without really defining it very much. And then you slag the Conservatives off as anti freedom and authoritarian etc etc etc..
Well, the Conservative's record on 'freedom' and their beliefs on it, make them the party who believe the most in it. How is this?
Well, during the Conservative government the rates of income tax were reduced dramatically freeing up loads more money into the economy and was one of the economic policies which contributed directly to this period of economic growth and stability. In 1997, you worked for the Government 4 and a half months out of 12. Now, it is 5 and a half. So for one whole month more people work for the government. With the Lib Dems this would inevitably increase due to their plans to raise tax. Are people 'free' when they have to do this?? As Thatcher defined one aspect of freedom 'the freedom for working people to enjoy the fruits of their labours as they choose'.
Talking about civil liberties. Did you know Michael Howard was the most successful Home Secretary since the war?? In his period of office 1993-7 crime fell across the board. He did this by being tough on crime, and introducing new legislation to give the police more powers which have since been revoked by Labour, and hey presto, crime is up again. I KNOW some of these things, like stop and search, arent very nice for the people who are targetted. BUT what is the greatest freedom? to be able to feel safe in your community OR to continually erode the powers of the police fearing a 'civil liberties' backlash from people like lib dems who tend to live in nice, middle class areas and not have to worry about crime..whereas you find on the estates, the people who do very much are in favour of a tougher approach. Because they want their freedom back.
The Tories are NOT 'pandering' to anyone's xenophobia. Xenophobia is a very strong word. Fear of foreigners? Michael Howard?? A Romanian refugees son?? What they want to do is simply this: to enable the growing Europe to integrate at flexible speeds so more decisions can be taken at the national level. To give the governments of the Nation States the right to choose what they think is in their national interests. What is so wrong with that? In fact, enlargement was a British Conservative idea put forward by John Major and Malcolm Rifkind back in 1996. They believed, correctly, that enlargement would allow greater flexibility and put a check on the moves to a 'superstate' by the federalists (moves always backed 100% by the Lib Dems) they were partly right, after enlargement the federalists still want to go ahead. All Michael is saying is: let them if they want to but if we dont want to we shouldnt have to.
Why is that xenophobic???
Although the 'Conservative' party are called such (after Robert Peel's definition that they should 'Conserve all that is best about Britian'), much of the most radical changes in economic and social policy came from them. The right to buy schemes, the trades union reforms, privatisation, (a massive success in most cases), etc etc..however they are pragmatic. Conservatives believe immigration is a good thing but want only skilled, productive people, like Australia or the USA do. That is good for us and the people who want to come. They also believe in a fair, fast and sympathetic treatment of asylum seekers who, by international treaty are obliged to ask for asylum at the first port of call, but they dont they risk life and limb to get to the UK, through Germany, through France and through Italy...why?? Surely there is something wrong there.
There is nothing 'illiberal' or 'xenophobic' or 'prejudiced' about the modern Conservative party's policies or their record. It may be composed of a few unpleasant individuals. But every party is that cannot really be helped,and successful moves have been made to prevent them from holding office unlike Labour who have selected a convicted sex offender to be their candidate here. And as for your original comment, like everyone should I LEND my support to a political party they don't have it for life. In one ward in Reading I really think the Tory candidate is wrong, for personal reasons, so I have advised friends to not vote, or vote for Lib Dem. I like to look at individuals and issues and at the moment the Tories represent about 70% of what I believe.
I also believe in a Republic based on the American system, and an elected Senate instead of the house of lords made up completely of independents. (with membership criteria like age 35+ and nominated by the electorate themselves) I believe in constitutional reform to actually give us a codified constitution celebrating what is best about our country. I wish towns and cities could have elected mayors with their own budgets etc..lots of things that would never see the light of day with the Tories but no one person's views will ever be competely represented by one party...
Rant over... :p
They are the only party that wants to check the growing restriction on civil liberties.
I believe it's already been proven that ID Cards, the terrorism act etc have no effect on the civil liberties of your average joe. They're there to make the nation more secure in a time when the threat of global terrorism is at an all time high. There has already been much debate on this, and it just seems like bandwagon jumping. They wouldn't make any big changes here, especially once they get the MI5 briefings.
They are the only party that wants a fairer system of taxation.
Taking away half of what someone EARNS is hardly fair now, is it? ;)
They are the only party that presses for constitutional reform to make the UK more democratic.
Fair play to them. I don't see what the problem is there though. Go to some corrupt african/middle east country if you want places that need to be more democratic.
They are the only party that wants to stand up to George Bush and the USA.
Even the BNP want to do that.
They are the only party that want a decentralisation of power from national government.
What, and have it centralised in brussels instead? :P
The list goes on.
That'll do.
alexliamw
03-06-2004, 12:23
Interesting points.
Yes politicians are opportunists. I still stand by my views despite your valiant attempts to persuade me otherwise. You see were what you are saying true, for the most part, you would have a case. Yet I fear you have fallen into the trap of their propoganda. The Liberal Democrats are neither quality their name suggests:
Are they 'Liberal'?? If we take Jefferson's famous definition of 'liberalism' ie 'the government that governs best is that which governs least' then let us see....do the Lib Dems actively support the idea that there is too much government and want to cut down on the money it spends and give more freedom back to individuals?
No: They want to introduce a whole new tier of regional and local government which means more politicians, more tax payers money going to it etc. They also want to raise income tax, and introduce a completely new tax, the local income tax. That is not 'liberal' by any definition of the word. They are a Social Democratic Party. Like New Labour.
Admittedly their economic policy is not purely classical liberalism (though, fundamentally, the belief in free markets is an important underpinning of policy that has been more consistent even than Tory belief in this, which has only really picked up consistently since Thatcher). However they still clearly have a foundation upon which they build liberalism, ie values of toleration, rights and freedoms, and yes, to some extent, limited government - the presence of more constitutional checks, less right of the state to interfere with people's civil liberties, decentralisation, the merging of various government departments, which they have some interesting ideas on. Their absorption of the SDP clearly mixed Social Democracy with Liberalism, but I think you would be tremendously over-simplifying to suggest they are just a 'social democratic party, like new Labour'. I refer you back again to the report I linked to, primarily Part 5, which links ideology to policy. You quote Jefferson but I propose that Lib Dems views tally with the liberalism of, say, Mill. As for the specific taxes you mention, that is a replacement to the current unfair system of council tax and would leave the majority of households better off - so don't try to deceive with language about 'a whole new tax'. The new 'tier of regional and local government' is actually a move to decentralisation, which is highly democratic as it brings power closer to the governed.
Are they 'Democrats'?? Well, let me see. I think as they believe in signing up to the new European Constitution and have always argued for closer European integration and the handing over of ancient British democratic powers to a foreign organisation then you could say no. I do like SOME of their constitutional reform ideas. Also their belief in the STV PR system which would give them disproportionate powers in Parliament and (they hope) the bargaining power over who forms a government show them again to be not very 'democratic' (Before you go on a FPP v PR rant I KNOW both systems aren't very democratic...) So they can be questioned on this one too.
The European constitution does not undermine democracy as such - it merely changes the structure of our current system. The fact of the matter is we do not have a democratically enshrined constitution anyway. Besides, the Lib Dems have always said such European policy would go ahead only with a referendum's approval. Closer European integration is clearly designed to give us more power, not less. The constitutional reform is necessary to actually make Britain more democratic. The fact of the matter is under STV the Lib Dems would get a proportional number of seats, which would not disproportionate - the exact opposite - its just people aren't used to them having that number. I realise you may be talking about power from coalition, but the fact of the matter is that coalition would be good for balanced government which was less powerful and more objective, less adversarial and therefore less deceptive; less secret and more open. Of course these are disadvantages to PR, but it is certainly more democratic than FPTP. I don't believe the Lib Dem belief is PR is purely self-interested; it clearly follows ideologically.
Well, during the Conservative government the rates of income tax were reduced dramatically freeing up loads more money into the economy and was one of the economic policies which contributed directly to this period of economic growth and stability. In 1997, you worked for the Government 4 and a half months out of 12. Now, it is 5 and a half. So for one whole month more people work for the government. With the Lib Dems this would inevitably increase due to their plans to raise tax. Are people 'free' when they have to do this?? As Thatcher defined one aspect of freedom 'the freedom for working people to enjoy the fruits of their labours as they choose'.
Clearly taxation is a practical necessity to run government. Lib Dems wants to increase higher rate income tax for those that can afford to pay, and their increases are not huge when weighed against the various cuts. Essentially, they would leave people with more equity overall. Reducing taxes are not the only tenet of freedom; let's not forget that Thatcher hiked indirect taxes in her supply side policy, hitting worst those who could not pay, while decreasing direct taxes to benefit those who could. I agree that Tory economic policy was necessary; but New Labour have clearly improved it, cutting out the dangerous cycle of boom and bust and managing it prudently; avoiding the world recession; getting unemployment to a century low and keeping growth stable and inflation under control. I'm not a fan of New Labour on other policy areas, but I have to take my hat off to them on this one. The only disadvantages has been the floundering of public services; which the Lib Dems seek to correct.
Talking about civil liberties. Did you know Michael Howard was the most successful Home Secretary since the war?? In his period of office 1993-7 crime fell across the board. He did this by being tough on crime, and introducing new legislation to give the police more powers which have since been revoked by Labour, and hey presto, crime is up again. I KNOW some of these things, like stop and search, arent very nice for the people who are targetted. BUT what is the greatest freedom? to be able to feel safe in your community OR to continually erode the powers of the police fearing a 'civil liberties' backlash from people like lib dems who tend to live in nice, middle class areas and not have to worry about crime..whereas you find on the estates, the people who do very much are in favour of a tougher approach. Because they want their freedom back.
You're being extremely selective about statistics here. Need I remind you, with the current Labour ads, that Howard cut police numbers by over 1000. You know as well as I do that all sorts of factors influence crime other than the above, beyond government control, like sociological factors. Like, for example, extreme poverty on council estates, which went up under the Tories. There is a time lag, and the effects of this come in some time later. Of course people wish to feel safe in their community. But what about the people that do suffer from civil liberties policy? What about innocent people wrongly convicted as a result? If you prioritise this lower, that's your opinion - but I don't. You have to work on the causes of crime and get a police force that relies not on authoritarian powers but on good numbers of officers and high efficiency. And to accuse the Lib Dems of living in nice middle class areas where crime doesn't exist, coming from a Tory, is a bit rich.
The Tories are NOT 'pandering' to anyone's xenophobia. Xenophobia is a very strong word. Fear of foreigners? Michael Howard?? A Romanian refugees son?? What they want to do is simply this: to enable the growing Europe to integrate at flexible speeds so more decisions can be taken at the national level. To give the governments of the Nation States the right to choose what they think is in their national interests. What is so wrong with that? In fact, enlargement was a British Conservative idea put forward by John Major and Malcolm Rifkind back in 1996. They believed, correctly, that enlargement would allow greater flexibility and put a check on the moves to a 'superstate' by the federalists (moves always backed 100% by the Lib Dems) they were partly right, after enlargement the federalists still want to go ahead. All Michael is saying is: let them if they want to but if we dont want to we shouldnt have to.
Why is that xenophobic???
On Europe, the idea of 'flexible speeds', essentially, is a dressed up term for Britain lagging behind. We're probably going to have to join anyway; its a question of when, and whether we get to shape how the new Europe is as we go. The Conservatives would prevent us from doing this.
Although the 'Conservative' party are called such (after Robert Peel's definition that they should 'Conserve all that is best about Britian'), much of the most radical changes in economic and social policy came from them. The right to buy schemes, the trades union reforms, privatisation, (a massive success in most cases), etc etc..however they are pragmatic. Conservatives believe immigration is a good thing but want only skilled, productive people, like Australia or the USA do. That is good for us and the people who want to come. They also believe in a fair, fast and sympathetic treatment of asylum seekers who, by international treaty are obliged to ask for asylum at the first port of call, but they dont they risk life and limb to get to the UK, through Germany, through France and through Italy...why?? Surely there is something wrong there.
How does the idea of 'asylum island' tally with this? I would say that was directly pandering to xenophobia. Hmm. A system which means all possible asylum seekers, genuine or not, have to live in criminal's conditions, on a remote island, while their application is processed, and, this is my favourite part, at an increased cost to the taxpayer! How does that help? Too often anti-immigrant/asylum people hide behind a facade of "if they're genuine we'll have them", when either they're lying, or they must just deny that any are geniuine. We have an impartial system to decide whether asylum seekers should be allowed to stay; and in fact we probably have some genuine asylum seekers being turned away at the moment because of the pressure, and the system.
The port of call point is a weak one. In Germany, for instance, unemployment of 12% means they *genuinely* can't take asylum seekers, whereas our booming economy and the fact that immigrants have contributed to it a lot means we can. We need more people - recognised by economists - because our population would be *falling* if it wasn't for immigration. Also, we don't take our fair share of asylum seekers relative to population - we are 11th out of the old 15 EU countries on this. So we should take a certain amount. Just because we are far away doesn't mean we should have done - that's just trying to get out of our responsibility - it has to be shared between European countries.
And how do you tell who is skilled or productive? Many people achieve this by the opportunity of coming to the UK. And surely, on asylum seekers, the principle of providing sanctuary, should render this irrelevant (I accept it is different with regular immigration).
I also believe in a Republic based on the American system, and an elected Senate instead of the house of lords made up completely of independents. (with membership criteria like age 35+ and nominated by the electorate themselves) I believe in constitutional reform to actually give us a codified constitution celebrating what is best about our country. I wish towns and cities could have elected mayors with their own budgets etc..lots of things that would never see the light of day with the Tories but no one person's views will ever be competely represented by one party...
I agree with a lot of this, although I would want a Parliamentary system not a Presidential one, as it would mean more consensus and less executive power. Also, a system of independents would get corrupted into party divisions, although it is a nice idea. And they would have to finance their own campaigns, as in the US, which would make them vulnerable to pressure group interest and also make only rich candidates really able to stand, also as in the US.
My views are not exactly the same as Lib Dem views either, but they are easily the closest to my views, as the Tories are to yours...
alexliamw
03-06-2004, 12:33
I believe it's already been proven that ID Cards, the terrorism act etc have no effect on the civil liberties of your average joe. They're there to make the nation more secure in a time when the threat of global terrorism is at an all time high. There has already been much debate on this, and it just seems like bandwagon jumping. They wouldn't make any big changes here, especially once they get the MI5 briefings.
Unfortunately it does have an effect on the civil liberties of the innocent person arrested and held without trial. Unfortunately it does have an effect on the civil liberties of the person deported because of intervention by Blunkett, against the law (thankfully, usually overruled by our excellent judicial system). Unfortunately it does have an effect when Blunkett comments on judicial rulings against common practise and changes the law to suit him to pander to public fear.
Taking away half of what someone EARNS is hardly fair now, is it? ;)
I assume you are referring to 50% rate of income tax for high incomes? Well, the current rate is 40%, so the principle is not too different. Refer back to my last reply about taxation and freedom. But you also seem to have your facts wrong - it is only income past a certain point (about £30,000) I believe - so it is not that if you earn over this about all your income is taxed at 50% - it is that the first £30,000 will be taxed at the base rate, and then additional income will be taxed at that rate. So it will never reach half. It is not as if the employers with the person to receive it all and then half is "taken away" - it is assumed that some will go, and after all, the government is linked to a lot of employment. "Taken away" is a value-laden phrase - we all have to pay taxes to keep up services. In fact, without tax, salary would probably be lower anyway.
Fair play to them. I don't see what the problem is there though. Go to some corrupt african/middle east country if you want places that need to be more democratic.
Ah right, so because other countries are less democratic than us, we shouldn't aim to be more democratic ourselves? What a weak point.
What, and have it centralised in brussels instead? :P
If you know about Lib Dem policy, you'll know that the European policy is to work with Europe to co-ordinate together. That is not in the same way a centralisation of power - they aren't contradictory policies, and the local decentralisation takes power to the people.
That'll do.[/QUOTE]
amaranth
03-06-2004, 12:34
In my area, we've had campaign literature from pretty much everyone, except the Lib Dems. I was disappointed.
The town near me is almost covered in UKIP posters. It's driving me slowly mad. They're the only signs we have, except the Tory ones which are above the UKIP ones on lamposts, that being too high up for people to read :lol:
*lisa simpson*
03-06-2004, 12:48
i was worried i'd not get a vote as i moved house during the registration time and thought i'd missed getting on the roll. anyway i'm on it (at my parents' house but only up the road). i'm not 100% sure of all my choices but:
local: don't mind as if anyone other than Tory EVER gets in in kensington and chelsea I will eat my hat and fill it with caterpillars first (hint: don't actually hold me to that ok?)
mayor: definitely Ken. i hated him to begin with, but my god has he made improvements! the buses, like actually work now! also, all the mayoral candidates have been on local bbc radio laying out policy and answering listeners' queries and he was the only one that made any sense really (not to mention the only one that seemed to have a sense of humour about it). 2nd choice simon hughes, as he's closest to ken's view for london.
i see no point voting people in in london who will just overturn ken's changes, which although they were unpopular at the time you can't deny they've made a major difference, so why undo all that? simon hughes is quite similar in outlook so....
europe i'm not really sure.... definitely not UKIP - the only thing they're any good for is comedy value - kilroy on QT was one of the funniest things i've ever seen!! they seem to want to return to victorian stuff. WHY?
I would just like to say that I would rather eat a fat man's shit than ever vote Tory.
Motorcycle Emptiness
03-06-2004, 13:27
In the council elections, I've only got one of three choices, so will definitely be voting Conservative. I've always said I would because Labour have been awful for Britain, and the Liberal Democrats offer nothing in alternative, whereas I've always been a Tory-minded person politcally.
As for the European elections, it would have been Tory until I saw Martin Bell's name on the ballot. Although no literature came through the post about him, I read up on his website and he makes the most sense out of everyone. The only problem with his manifesto is that he is Anti-Stansted expansion, which I happen to support. And yes, it does affect me living under the flightpath.
wheresmejumper
03-06-2004, 13:30
Alex
I really take my hat off to you for taking the time to answer all these points in detail, and you do make a lot of sense.
If you ever want to talk politics or anything on msn then please add me:
hdshaw@hotmail.com
You should be the Lib Dem leader..there almost certainly will be a vacancy after the next election... :)
*lisa simpson*
03-06-2004, 13:36
Alex
I really take my hat off to you for taking the time to answer all these points in detail, and you do make a lot of sense.
If you ever want to talk politics or anything on msn then please add me:
hdshaw@hotmail.com
You should be the Lib Dem leader..there almost certainly will be a vacancy after the next election... :)
can i join in? i could answer points in detail normally but am at work....
however after my exams i will have lots of free time (ie after monday night)... hurrah....
i agree with stansted expansion btw, i used to live under the flightpath...
alexliamw
03-06-2004, 14:01
Alex
I really take my hat off to you for taking the time to answer all these points in detail, and you do make a lot of sense.
If you ever want to talk politics or anything on msn then please add me:
hdshaw@hotmail.com
You should be the Lib Dem leader..there almost certainly will be a vacancy after the next election... :)
Cheers :) I shall add you.
As I will only be 18 or 19 at the time of the next general election (depending on when it's called), that'd probably be a little difficult. :P
Though Charles Kennedy became an MP aged 23...
You should be the Lib Dem leader..there almost certainly will be a vacancy after the next election... :)
The lib dems seem to change leaders less frequently than than the tories. I would image michael howard will get the boot before Charles Kennedy if the tories do badly again.
Unfortunately it does have an effect on the civil liberties of the innocent person arrested and held without trial. Unfortunately it does have an effect on the civil liberties of the person deported because of intervention by Blunkett, against the law (thankfully, usually overruled by our excellent judicial system). Unfortunately it does have an effect when Blunkett comments on judicial rulings against common practise and changes the law to suit him to pander to public fear.
Get real - no one would be arrested and held without trial unless they was sufficient evidence to do so - they're not going to just grab some random guy off the street and lock him away for a laugh - the terrorist act exists so that TERRORISTS can be easily dealt with while skipping all the unnecassary bits. They aren't standard criminals, they're simply people who want to kill as many people as possible. They do exist, you know. It doesn't affect your average citizen.
I assume you are referring to 50% rate of income tax for high incomes? Well, the current rate is 40%, so the principle is not too different. Refer back to my last reply about taxation and freedom. But you also seem to have your facts wrong - it is only income past a certain point (about £30,000) I believe - so it is not that if you earn over this about all your income is taxed at 50% - it is that the first £30,000 will be taxed at the base rate, and then additional income will be taxed at that rate. So it will never reach half. It is not as if the employers with the person to receive it all and then half is "taken away" - it is assumed that some will go, and after all, the government is linked to a lot of employment. "Taken away" is a value-laden phrase - we all have to pay taxes to keep up services. In fact, without tax, salary would probably be lower anyway.
But how is making high earners pay a higher rate of tax "fair"? They earn the money and most of the time have worked very hard to do so, why should they be penalised (i.e. be entitled to less of their salary) by paying a higher percentage of tax than those who never did anything at school and work as a butcher all their lives or something ? "They don't need all that money" isn't a valid answer, since your needs are based on how much you have.
Ah right, so because other countries are less democratic than us, we shouldn't aim to be more democratic ourselves? What a weak point.
But we already have a fully functional democracy here. What do you suggest, referendums on social issues? Considering the majority of the public think what their tabloid tells them to think, that isn't really a good idea. Democracy is flawed in that it assumes the majority of people are correct the majority of the time, but since that obviously isn't the case (is there even a "right"?) and a small amount of people actually REALLY think for themselves, it is best off for democracy to be somewhat limited. Remember 49.9999..% of people are stupider than average.
You missed the "They are the only party that wants to stand up to George Bush and the USA." one.
If you know about Lib Dem policy, you'll know that the European policy is to work with Europe to co-ordinate together. That is not in the same way a centralisation of power - they aren't contradictory policies, and the local decentralisation takes power to the people.
The lib dems seem to unquestionably back the EU constitution which effectively throws away Westminter's power and offers no real benefits. The EU common market was great for Britain's economic recovery but it doesn't need to be taken further - monetary, military, policing and law issues should remain controlled by the houses of parliament, not some frogs in belgium.
wheresmejumper
03-06-2004, 14:24
can i join in? i could answer points in detail normally but am at work....
Of course! add away!!
alexliamw
03-06-2004, 14:40
Your posts are riddled with prejudice - I may not have agreed with wheresmejumper (sounds silly to say that but sorry, I don't know your real name), but he was at least articulate, convincing and relatively objective...
Get real - no one would be arrested and held without trial unless they was sufficient evidence to do so - they're not going to just grab some random guy off the street and lock him away for a laugh - the terrorist act exists so that TERRORISTS can be easily dealt with while skipping all the unnecassary bits. They aren't standard criminals, they're simply people who want to kill as many people as possible. They do exist, you know. It doesn't affect your average citizen.
They are arrested and held without trial precisely if there *isn't* enough evidence to convict them, but they have suspicions. The "unnecessary bits" - what, like proving they're actually guilty? :rolleyes:
But how is making high earners pay a higher rate of tax "fair"? They earn the money and most of the time have worked very hard to do so, why should they be penalised (i.e. be entitled to less of their salary) by paying a higher percentage of tax than those who never did anything at school and work as a butcher all their lives or something ? "They don't need all that money" isn't a valid answer, since your needs are based on how much you have.
You really are prejudiced, aren't you? "those who never did anything at school and work as a butcher all their lives or something ?" Well, firstly, let me tell you, there are far less well-paid jobs than a butcher! But there are many worthy but not very well-paid jobs (well, at least, ones that don't stretch into the top bracket). Teachers, nurses...It only makes sense that people with more money should have to pay a higher rate - without this policy you'd either have to have a high general rate of tax, or very bad public services indeed. No mainstream party would actually suggest that rate should be the same for all earners.
But we already have a fully functional democracy here. What do you suggest, referendums on social issues? Considering the majority of the public think what their tabloid tells them to think, that isn't really a good idea. Democracy is flawed in that it assumes the majority of people are correct the majority of the time, but since that obviously isn't the case (is there even a "right"?) and a small amount of people actually REALLY think for themselves, it is best off for democracy to be somewhat limited. Remember 49.9999..% of people are stupider than average.
But the issues I were talking about were things like decentralisation, PR, etc. They would be make the UK more democratic - but they wouldn't verge into mob rule as you seem to be suggesting, nor do I see how the current system is better, even from a point of view where you don't care about public opinion.
You missed the "They are the only party that wants to stand up to George Bush and the USA." one.
Of the three main parties, they are the only party that wants to do this. The Conservatives and Labour are both natural bedfellows of Bush at the moment.
The lib dems seem to unquestionably back the EU constitution which effectively throws away Westminter's power and offers no real benefits. The EU common market was great for Britain's economic recovery but it doesn't need to be taken further - monetary, military, policing and law issues should remain controlled by the houses of parliament, not some frogs in belgium.
You say "the majority of the public think what their tabloid tells them to think", then start going on about "frogs" - what hypocrisy! That aside, though, it doesn't throw about Westminster's power, don't be ridiculous - whatever you think of it, key policy areas are retained and neither Labour nor the Lib Dems would sign it unless they were. There are many benefits - whether you believe they outweigh the disadvantages is another matter - such as pooled knowledge, pooled money, pooled forces, greater power on the world stage, and our helping to shape Europe. No party wants to give up monetary or judicial issues, and as for military and policing it only makes sense to work together, share information, etc, but again we wouldn't actually be giving up control..
wheresmejumper
03-06-2004, 14:51
He is after all a Ghost, his posts are bound to be a bit old fashioned and prejudiced....
'frogs in Belgium' :lol: :lol:
http://www32.brinkster.com/omrlp/images/merchandise/VoteInsanity.jpg
End of argument
"those who never did anything at school and work as a butcher all their lives or something ?" Well, firstly, let me tell you, there are far less well-paid jobs than a butcher! But there are many worthy but not very well-paid jobs (well, at least, ones that don't stretch into the top bracket). Teachers, nurses...It only makes sense that people with more money should have to pay a higher rate - without this policy you'd either have to have a high general rate of tax, or very bad public services indeed. No mainstream party would actually suggest that rate should be the same for all earners.
Hooray!
I would get more involved with this but am at work.
They are arrested and held without trial precisely if there *isn't* enough evidence to convict them, but they have suspicions. The "unnecessary bits" - what, like proving they're actually guilty? :rolleyes:
Suspicions? Yeah, I bet hundreds of people are lynched each day for "looking suspicious". "Excuse me sir, you're looking a bit suspicious, therefore I'm afraid i'll have to lock you up without trial." Whatever.
You really are prejudiced, aren't you? "those who never did anything at school and work as a butcher all their lives or something ?" Well, firstly, let me tell you, there are far less well-paid jobs than a butcher! But there are many worthy but not very well-paid jobs (well, at least, ones that don't stretch into the top bracket). Teachers, nurses...It only makes sense that people with more money should have to pay a higher rate - without this policy you'd either have to have a high general rate of tax, or very bad public services indeed. No mainstream party would actually suggest that rate should be the same for all earners.
Hahaha, it's called an EXAMPLE, not a predudice. Noowt wrong with using a butcher with no higher education as an example. I'm sure some butchers went to university, graduated and then decided to become a butcher. Somewhere.
Anyway, you don't need a massive gap between the tax rates for the rich and poor. Surely it's unfair to do that. Although I agree with the idea of scrapping council tax for local income tax, 50% on income over 30k is grossly unfair to the rich. Unless there's a similar rate for the poor. Key word - Equality!
But the issues I were talking about were things like decentralisation, PR, etc. They would be make the UK more democratic - but they wouldn't verge into mob rule as you seem to be suggesting, nor do I see how the current system is better, even from a point of view where you don't care about public opinion.
And I don't see how your proposed super decentralised system is "more democratic".
Of the three main parties, they are the only party that wants to do this. The Conservatives and Labour are both natural bedfellows of Bush at the moment.
Well why didn't you say "3 main parties" in the first place? The UKIP are more popular than the liberal democrats at the moment approaching june 10th according to yougov, you know.
http://ukip.manicmonday.co.uk/abc_news/img.php?id=132
You say "the majority of the public think what their tabloid tells them to think", then start going on about "frogs" - what hypocrisy! That aside, though, it doesn't throw about Westminster's power, don't be ridiculous - whatever you think of it, key policy areas are retained and neither Labour nor the Lib Dems would sign it unless they were. There are many benefits - whether you believe they outweigh the disadvantages is another matter - such as pooled knowledge, pooled money, pooled forces, greater power on the world stage, and our helping to shape Europe. No party wants to give up monetary or judicial issues, and as for military and policing it only makes sense to work together, share information, etc, but again we wouldn't actually be giving up control..
A tabloid didn't teach me the word "frogs" :P
Sounds very idealistic - the benefits are all "possible benefits" whereas the disadvantages are set in stone. And since the vast majority of the british public wouldn't support the EU constitution, it's a bit undemocratic isn't it? ;)
Suspicions? Yeah, I bet hundreds of people are lynched each day for "looking suspicious". "Excuse me sir, you're looking a bit suspicious, therefore I'm afraid i'll have to lock you up without trial." Whatever.
Well done for posting the most naive thing I've ever read.
:D I'm glad my writings are appreciated on here. I'm off now to float away in a warm bubble of happiness, I may be back this evening though if all is well :P
maradona
03-06-2004, 15:30
Federal government has its draw backs, but then so do unitary states;) The main advantage that appeals to me is that it brings government closer to the people-which can be no bad thing!
While federal government can bring government closer to the people, the current situation with the EU is that the opposite is true...
Matt_o_Mac
03-06-2004, 16:05
I can't vote, they sent my postal forms to somewhere in bath apparently.
I phoned them up, and asked oh have you sent my forms and we check addresses and stated that i did not live in bath i live in bournemouth.
so i won't be voting sadly, unless they can retrieve them, and who said that postal voting was safe. :rolleyes:
suicide_alley
03-06-2004, 16:15
Think I'm voting for the greens because I think they're the only party i see as having any ideals close to my own. I will never vote tory ever because one minute they're anti-europe, then pro, then i dont know.
I wont vote Labour because I dont want to see a super Europe state although I honestly believe that wont happen for another 10-15 years. Also I see this Government as just doing what they please despite public outcry at subjects such as Iraq.
I will never even contemplate voting the racist scum I see as BNP as I dont think they really have any valid issues and its sad that in this country 15 years ago they were seen as racist and now as a valid party fighting for the UKs beliefs.
UKIP well I dont belive in pulling out of Europe then setting up trade agreements for the fact that we would become isolated and more inclined to be part of any of Americas future plans for world domination...erm I mean well just that exactly :p
Matt_o_Mac
03-06-2004, 16:18
Well why didn't you say "3 main parties" in the first place? The UKIP are more popular than the liberal democrats at the moment approaching june 10th according to yougov, you know.
http://ukip.manicmonday.co.uk/abc_news/img.php?id=132
A tabloid didn't teach me the word "frogs" :P
Sounds very idealistic - the benefits are all "possible benefits" whereas the disadvantages are set in stone. And since the vast majority of the british public wouldn't support the EU constitution, it's a bit undemocratic isn't it? ;)
I firstly notice the link has UKIP - which i guess is Uk Independance Party, secondary....... your points all seem pretty naive how the hell can you tax a low income family more than they have. Your sliver spoon thats lodged in your anus is affecting your brain.
Remove Please :rolleyes:
Oh and on the case of europe, i see it as this if everyone else joins a EU consituation(not slept for a while ignore the spelling) and we get left out what business in a vibrant exciting europe would pay full price to get something built here. Its not good business.
This country will become a bankrupt 51st state if we don't join the europeon consitution or at least allow "our dear old pound" to be consigned to the waste bin and replaced with the euro.
Oh and The UKIP is backed by such british greats as Robert "backstabbing" Kilroy Silk, turned his back on workers who got him office to become a joke on morning tv.
Joan Collins - when did she last spend a month in britain, oh and she called travelling with us commoners vile.
And Patrick Moore - who hasn't actually been alife since 1982
suicide_alley
03-06-2004, 16:21
I can't vote, they sent my postal forms to somewhere in bath apparently.
I phoned them up, and asked oh have you sent my forms and we check addresses and stated that i did not live in bath i live in bournemouth.
so i won't be voting sadly, unless they can retrieve them, and who said that postal voting was safe. :rolleyes:
That is absolutly rediculous!!! I'm sorry to hear about that mate but I knew exactly this would happen when the foolish notion was dreamed up of postal voting.
Dont worry soon we'll have computer voting you can only imagine the chaos hackers will wreak.
I can't vote, they sent my postal forms to somewhere in bath apparently.
I phoned them up, and asked oh have you sent my forms and we check addresses and stated that i did not live in bath i live in bournemouth.
so i won't be voting sadly, unless they can retrieve them, and who said that postal voting was safe. :rolleyes:
How annoying! I saw a vox pop on the news the other night where one lady suggested that postal voting forms weren't being sent out in certain areas on purpose because *they* don't want certain people to vote. Sounds implausible but who knows? Perhaps some shady lessons have been learned from monkey boy Bush and his mates.
*lisa simpson*
03-06-2004, 16:26
Alex i wholeheartedly agree with you but...
or very bad public services indeed
you mean we don't have those already???? ;) :rolleyes:
and Ghost: Suspicions? Yeah, I bet hundreds of people are lynched each day for "looking suspicious". "Excuse me sir, you're looking a bit suspicious, therefore I'm afraid i'll have to lock you up without trial." Whatever.
um, have you been living on mars? how about *ahem* 'random' stop and search in this good old UK which at the moment targets about 75% ethnic minorities, and although the Met has been trying to eliminate racism, the figures for this year show that stop and search was carried out on 30% MORE black people, 28% (or there abouts) MORE asian people and only about 14% MORE white people in the last year..... so um, i think your little argument has just fallen flat.
alexliamw
03-06-2004, 16:40
Suspicions? Yeah, I bet hundreds of people are lynched each day for "looking suspicious". "Excuse me sir, you're looking a bit suspicious, therefore I'm afraid i'll have to lock you up without trial." Whatever.
Erm, well, shock horror - occasionally the police can be wrong! It has been known for someone to be arrested on more evidence than just "looking suspicious", and then aquitted, because the evidence was a red herring, or turned out to be unreliable, or inconclusive. Except without trial they would never have the chance to be acquitted. And the reason they wouldn't be brought to trial would be that there wouldn't be enough evidence to *convict* them. Even proponents of the scheme admit this: this just say its a sacrifice to make "in case" they turn out to be guilty.
Anyway, you don't need a massive gap between the tax rates for the rich and poor. Surely it's unfair to do that. Although I agree with the idea of scrapping council tax for local income tax, 50% on income over 30k is grossly unfair to the rich. Unless there's a similar rate for the poor. Key word - Equality!
Well, if you do believe in economic equality (which I don't, actually - it is unfeasible and ultimately unfair), then you actually agree with high taxation for the rich then! To redress the economic inequality....seriously, when people say "economic equality" it means people having the same amount of money.
And I don't see how your proposed super decentralised system is "more democratic".
Well, you can't have thought about it much then. The closer decisions are to a person, the more say they have, because the more localised the choices they are making. So a Conservative area can get Conservative policies; a Lib Dem are can get Lib Dem policies; a Labour area can get Labour policies. Instead of all the centralised decision making which means they all get the policies that were voted for overall. It's more power over their own lives. Simple.
Well why didn't you say "3 main parties" in the first place? The UKIP are more popular than the liberal democrats at the moment approaching june 10th according to yougov, you know.
That was one poll out of hundreds, and the Lib Dems are actually up on last time, its Labour that has lost out. Sadly for the UKIP this does not make them one of the three biggest parties; they have no Parliamentary seats; and this is purely a reflection on people's opinions on Europe, for the European elections. They are making gains but the Lib Dems will still beat them in the end I'm sure.
Sounds very idealistic - the benefits are all "possible benefits" whereas the disadvantages are set in stone. And since the vast majority of the british public wouldn't support the EU constitution, it's a bit undemocratic isn't it? ;)
The disadvantages are only possible. It really depends how far the constitution went. But anyway, no party advocates the EU constitution without a referendum. So actually it won't be going ahead if the majority of the British public are against, will it?
although the Met has been trying to eliminate racism, the figures for this year show that stop and search was carried out on 30% MORE black people, 28% (or there abouts) MORE asian people and only about 14% MORE white people in the last year..... so um, i think your little argument has just fallen flat.
Sad but true fact: new police recruits are told that carrying out random searches on young black men is more likely to result in them arresting someone. And unfortunately in many urban areas - like the shit hole I live in - it's true. Obviously in an ideal world this wouldn't be the case but *shrugs* there you go. Of course this does give some fucknut fascist bastard coppers carte blanche to arrest and batter anyone they don't like the look of, but people like that are becoming a minority in the police force these days.
the fun blame monster
03-06-2004, 17:38
Get real - no one would be arrested and held without trial unless they was sufficient evidence to do so - they're not going to just grab some random guy off the street and lock him away for a laugh - the terrorist act exists so that TERRORISTS can be easily dealt with while skipping all the unnecassary bits. They aren't standard criminals, they're simply people who want to kill as many people as possible. They do exist, you know. It doesn't affect your average citizen.Now who's being naive? Of course people have been put in jail without trial, sometimes for a year or more, then quietly released on no charge.
But how is making high earners pay a higher rate of tax "fair"? They earn the money and most of the time have worked very hard to do so, why should they be penalised (i.e. be entitled to less of their salary) by paying a higher percentage of tax than those who never did anything at school and work as a butcher all their lives or something ? "They don't need all that money" isn't a valid answer, since your needs are based on how much you have.Bullshit. Most people in society work fucking hard every day of their lives for almost no reward. They do crappy jobs that they hate just so that they can feed themselves and their families, pay their mortgages and stuff. Those who become rich are almost always either the benficiaries of inherited wealth or else they are just lucky. If you're so naive as to think that there is any real and definite link between "working hard" and monetary success then you should transport yourself back to the 1950's as soon as possible. They SHOULD pay a much higher rate of taxation; not only is it economically better, it's also the thing that anyone with a functioning social conscience can see is the best option.
:lol:
Sorry, I'm in too much of a state of hysterics to make a proper articulate reply to the previous lot of messages. Some guy dressed as a clown just sprayed a load of laughing gas into my room, honest.
*lisa simpson*
03-06-2004, 18:36
:lol:
Sorry, I'm in too much of a state of hysterics to make a proper articulate reply to the previous lot of messages. Some guy dressed as a clown just sprayed a load of laughing gas into my room, honest.
to quote mr cocker: huh, you're so funny, but i don't see anyone else smiling in here.
i'm sorry to sound flippant but i think it's amazing anyone can find the fact that some people work their arses off for fucking pittance and others earn a fortune and then have titles on their passports that exempt them from tax fucking funny.
as for the constitution, one point i do think is valid is that constitutions by their nature cover countries, rather than areas, maybe why the uk doesn't have on, however it seems to work in the us which is a collection, but i think europe is perhaps more diverse...
wheresmejumper
03-06-2004, 18:38
My my this is getting interesting...
I just want to come back on two points raised His Spookiness..namely the taxation issue and stop and search:
1. Taxation: It is well regarded by economists and politicians alike that there needs to be different rates of tax for different rates of income. Now, back in the 1970s the system was a HUGE mess. The basic rate was 30% and the higher rate up to 90% (yes it was true!) this basically stagnated the British economy causing massive inflation which in turn led to massive wage demands from the powerful trade unions, loads of strikes ergo the entire British economy was f-cked...then along came Thatcher and in one fell swoop she abolished the highest rates of tax, made one higher rate of 40% and cut the basic to 25%. This led to masses more money floating around the economy, more jobs were created over the long term, (albeit her over zealousness did lead to the early 80s recession as businesses struggled to cope with the urgent need to modernise) and as a result the Govt was able to raise MORE money through tax. Therefore in the 1980s the Thatcher govt has MORE money to spend on schools n hospitals n coppers n the old folk than before basically because they CUT tax. The knock on effect of doing so kick started an economic boom and so meant most people were better off. It wasn't until the mid 90s that the long term fruition of this policy was apparent. Now, with a free market service driven economy we have full employment and tax revenues are the highest ever. Also an interesting side effect, although in the 1980s the gap between the richest and the poorest grew to a record size, the bottom 10% of society saw a real terms rise in their wealth bigger than any since the war. Why? Mainly because their tax burden was lowered. However, since 1997 this has fallen again. OK so Thatcher introduced VAT but that was taxing the consumption of wealth rather than the creation of it....
Now if Ghost was PM, we would have a system where everyone paid the same rate of income tax. This would have two side effects, assuming the higher rate is abolished. The country would be awash with money. This would lead to massive inflation as prices stuggled to keep up. With no money for public services the NHS and schools would crumble. We would see a recession like never before. Thatcher and Joseph and Lawson knew one thing, the control of the money supply is the key to economic prosperity....the money supply is like the fuel in a jet engine..if you want it to go faster you put more in, slow it down take it out..if you just pump fuel in wantonly it will blow up. as would our economy.
The higher rate has to be set at a level that people are comfortable with. 40% is about right. However, I would argue that increasing it to 50% for those say, on 100K plus would have little damaging effect. You dont want your talent to go abroad (as they did in the 70s) nor do you want to punish those who create the wealth that puts food on everyone's table.
I would also in combination with doing this raise the higher rate up from 30K to maybe 50K ...basically someone on £35K in somewhere like Reading with a wife who doesnt work cos she is looking after children doesnt go very far. a 150K mortgage and all the fuel bills or season ticket costs to commute and very soon you are living on fresh air. I think this needs to be looked into, and in so doing the Lib Dems are slightly on the right track...
As for Stop and Search: People moan about it, yes people get stopped and searched for no reason. A lot of them are black. It does at times seem racist. HOWEVER the evidence is overwhelming that Stop and Search cuts crime. Black and ethnic leaders on the roughest estates basically begged the police to bring it back when it was abolished cos overnight crime went through the roof. It needs to be kept, and expanded. However coppers need to be polite and respectful. 'Excuse me sir, could you just tell me where you are going?' or 'could I just look in your pockets please' rather than 'OY You! Get up against that wall!' etc etc...also a more visible policing strategy needs to be used to stop the 'us and them' feeling communities have. I have been 'stopped and searched' the copper was polite and I didnt really mind. Sensitivity is required rather than abolishing a perfectly good and successful idea because of a few bad examples of abuse...
Anyway thats me again...lets see what transpires... :P
*lisa simpson*
03-06-2004, 18:45
1. Taxation: It is well regarded by economists and politicians alike that there needs to be different rates of tax for different rates of income. Now, back in the 1970s the system was a HUGE mess. The basic rate was 30% and the higher rate up to 90% (yes it was true!)
actually, at one point it was 108% - i kid you not. hence people were paying more than earning. oops.
As for Stop and Search: People moan about it, yes people get stopped and searched for no reason. A lot of them are black. It does at times seem racist. HOWEVER the evidence is overwhelming that Stop and Search cuts crime. Black and ethnic leaders on the roughest estates basically begged the police to bring it back when it was abolished cos overnight crime went through the roof. It needs to be kept, and expanded. However coppers need to be polite and respectful. 'Excuse me sir, could you just tell me where you are going?' or 'could I just look in your pockets please' rather than 'OY You! Get up against that wall!' etc etc...also a more visible policing strategy needs to be used to stop the 'us and them' feeling communities have. I have been 'stopped and searched' the copper was polite and I didnt really mind. Sensitivity is required rather than abolishing a perfectly good and successful idea because of a few bad examples of abuse...
indeed - i have no problem with the principle of it, after all i've been mugged with a knife, it just seems that really it needs balance, ie the authorities need to realise that actually white/female/straight/conservative looking people CAN be criminals too :)
maradona
03-06-2004, 20:40
1. Taxation: It is well regarded by economists and politicians alike that there needs to be different rates of tax for different rates of income. Now, back in the 1970s the system was a HUGE mess. The basic rate was 30% and the higher rate up to 90% (yes it was true!) this basically stagnated the British economy causing massive inflation which in turn led to massive wage demands from the powerful trade unions, loads of strikes ergo the entire British economy was f-cked...then along came Thatcher and in one fell swoop she abolished the highest rates of tax, made one higher rate of 40% and cut the basic to 25%. This led to masses more money floating around the economy, more jobs were created over the long term, (albeit her over zealousness did lead to the early 80s recession as businesses struggled to cope with the urgent need to modernise) and as a result the Govt was able to raise MORE money through tax. Therefore in the 1980s the Thatcher govt has MORE money to spend on schools n hospitals n coppers n the old folk than before basically because they CUT tax. The knock on effect of doing so kick started an economic boom and so meant most people were better off. It wasn't until the mid 90s that the long term fruition of this policy was apparent. Now, with a free market service driven economy we have full employment and tax revenues are the highest ever. Also an interesting side effect, although in the 1980s the gap between the richest and the poorest grew to a record size, the bottom 10% of society saw a real terms rise in their wealth bigger than any since the war. Why? Mainly because their tax burden was lowered. However, since 1997 this has fallen again. OK so Thatcher introduced VAT but that was taxing the consumption of wealth rather than the creation of it....
Now if Ghost was PM, we would have a system where everyone paid the same rate of income tax. This would have two side effects, assuming the higher rate is abolished. The country would be awash with money. This would lead to massive inflation as prices stuggled to keep up. With no money for public services the NHS and schools would crumble. We would see a recession like never before. Thatcher and Joseph and Lawson knew one thing, the control of the money supply is the key to economic prosperity....the money supply is like the fuel in a jet engine..if you want it to go faster you put more in, slow it down take it out..if you just pump fuel in wantonly it will blow up. as would our economy.
So many words, yet such little understanding of economics ;)
Culture_Claire
03-06-2004, 22:38
i'm not old enough to vote for a 3 months, but i was reading all the leaflets that came, and talking to the anoying conservative woman who distrupted my revision and i find it hard to believe anything..
only thing made me laugh, this labour guy who was trying to win votes was proud that he'd spent 4500 pounds on a garden.... it was so rediculas.. maybe in a city it would win votes but we live in the flipping countryside, right by snowdonia etc.. theres gardens everywhere.. stupid politicians
wee bisom
04-06-2004, 02:21
I would just like to say that I would rather eat a fat man's shit than ever vote Tory.
:D :D
dailegs11
04-06-2004, 02:23
So a fat man's shit is funny? Or is the fact you wouldn't like to vote tory on any grounds, funny? :rolleyes: ;)
wee bisom
04-06-2004, 02:31
Actually, the fat man’s shit is no different to the super skinny model’s shit. The point is the tories are the devil incarnate. Never trust a tory.
I was there when they dismantled this country.
The labour party are just carrying on the job the tories started.
sorry, I havent the time right now to join in with the discussion right now.
Quick summary:
the labour party are fucked now
the lib dems ‘ll never get in
but remember, whatever they may say, however nice they appear to be,
the tory’s are the devil incarnate. They eat babies, and miners and steel industries and dockyards and single mums and eh babies.
I want to vote for Ken Loach.
He said that he subjected himself to the EU candidacy in a moment of madness...
and if he ever got in he has a doctors sick note in his pocket!
RESPECT DUE
dailegs11
04-06-2004, 02:40
How can politicians be doing a job for this country when they're "dismantling" it, is beyond me.
wee bisom
04-06-2004, 02:53
eh?
you're obviously very very young
and don't remember the big bad wolf called 'Thatcher'.
and whatever gave you the idea that politicians are 'doing a job for the country'? They're looking after their career and self interests mainly.
socialist cook
04-06-2004, 10:28
They eat dockyards (they privatised the one in Plymouth so that now workers can look forward to annual layings off and then rehiring again- so no longer is it a job for life).
He said that he subjected himself to the EU candidacy in a moment of madness...
and if he ever got in he has a doctors sick note in his pocket!
RESPECT DUE
Although funny as it is that Ken Loach has said that doesn't it also let down the people he may represent- in that because of his refusal to take a seat they don't get a voice in the European parliament. (For all the criticisms and there are many, I still think MEP's can do a good job, and one of the areas of that is by representing our views)
Personally I don't think Respect are going to get anywhere, on the strength of their Party Election Broadcast they have the vaguest aims(more schools, more hospitals) and use words like "commensurate". Call me an ignorant pig, but I don't think that type of vocabulary will persuade voters. :P
So a fat man's shit is funny? Or is the fact you wouldn't like to vote tory on any grounds, funny? :rolleyes: ;)
Neither are funny. Are they?
However both are rather unpleasant.
wheresmejumper
04-06-2004, 10:53
Actually, the fat man’s shit is no different to the super skinny model’s shit. The point is the tories are the devil incarnate. Never trust a tory.
I was there when they dismantled this country.
The labour party are just carrying on the job the tories started.
but remember, whatever they may say, however nice they appear to be,
the tory’s are the devil incarnate. They eat babies, and miners and steel industries and dockyards and single mums and eh babies.
Just had to prize myself off the floor and try and stop myself rolling around in laughter. Your post sounds like an old Billy Bragg song but without the catchy tune...
So the Tories (note the correct use of the plural!) DISMANTLED this country did they?? What absolute twaddle. I assume you mean the dismantling of our economy based as it was on outdated uncompetitive heavy manufacturing and replaced it with a flexible service driven one. Well yes they did that. However the evidence clearly shows this was the for the good, with few exceptions.
Anyway a few facts for you:
1. In the periods of the Wilson and Callaghan Labour governments many times more miners were thrown out of work and pits closed than under the Thatcher government.
2. Britain moved up from seventh to fourth in the most prosperous nations in the world under the Tories (based on how much money everyone would have if it were all shared out equally)
3. The poorest in society saw their real incomes grow by a faster rate than ever before.
4. No Tory, as far as I know, has ever eaten a baby, or a miner...
Now I am not going to say they were perfect, they made mistakes but on balance they were a pretty good government. That's why I lend them my support now cos I still agree with a lot of what they say.
maradona
04-06-2004, 12:01
Anyway a few facts for you:
1. In the periods of the Wilson and Callaghan Labour governments many times more miners were thrown out of work and pits closed than under the Thatcher government.
Another fact you neglect to mention is that the economy is more than miners and that nder Thatcher there was record levels of unemployment.
2. Britain moved up from seventh to fourth in the most prosperous nations in the world under the Tories (based on how much money everyone would have if it were all shared out equally)
A. But the money is not shared out equally so it means little if the advances in wealth are made by only a small minority of the population
B. Most of the improvements in comparision to other countries were the result of North Sea oil and gas revenues and nothing to do with things like the Laffer Curve and similar items of voodoo economics - Most of the improvements in fact were made despite Tory economics!
the fun blame monster
04-06-2004, 12:33
Now I am not going to say they were perfect, they made mistakes but on balance they were a pretty good.Do you live in Britain? If so, can I ask where? If you go to the North, and you go to towns like Burnley, Bradford and Blackburn, those towns are dead. They have an air of misery and loss about them. They're horrible places to live. And the reason lies entirely at the door of Margaret Thatcher. She closes down the industries....and what does she replace them with? NOTHING. There was NO attempt made to revitalise these places after their core industries were taken away from them...what makes me laugh is that people spout theoretical bullshit about "service-based economies" and "uncompetitive heavy manufacturing" but these are REAL PEOPLE and REAL FAMILIES that were damaged, impoverished by the Thatcher government.
I always find that the language and the discourse of economics is so inadequate for describing anything, it's so dry and full of jargon that it removes any of the reality and humanity from what's going on.
wheresmejumper
04-06-2004, 12:38
Do you live in Britain? If so, can I ask where? If you go to the North, and you go to towns like Burnley, Bradford and Blackburn, those towns are dead. They have an air of misery and loss about them. They're horrible places to live.
I was actually born in Burnley General Hospital and brought up in Barrowford just outside Nelson....so yeah I know what they are like. But these places were dying long before Thatcher....
Burnley's pit was closed by the Labour government in the late 1960s and the cotton industry had been bleeding jobs and closing mills since the 1950s. My Mum started work in 1963, when she was 15, and was the first generation to not automatically go into the mill. Both parents stuggled to find lasting work up until the early 1980s when my Dad set up his own company and earned enough so my mum could take time out to train as a nurse. Those things were directly influenced by Conservative policies. I agree successive governments before and after Thatcher could have done more to soften the blow, move govt departments like the Inland Revenue there or do what they have done in Northern Ireland and pay companies to relocate etc etc..I would argue for a town like Burnley to have an elected mayor who can fight the town's case and win funding. It's just too far away from London and so forgotten about....
:(
She just pulled the plug, then? Well that was nice of her. :rolleyes:
the fun blame monster
04-06-2004, 12:58
She just pulled the plug, then? Well that was nice of her. :rolleyes:Exactly.
alexliamw
04-06-2004, 14:05
Getting back on-topic, here's an interesting question:
Say Livingstone loses the mayoral election. What will Blair, and the Labour party, do with him then? :D
But if you don't want Livingstone in, you MUST vote Hughes. Here's why:
1. At the moment Stephen Norris is in second in the polls on first-choice votes, just marginally over Simon Hughes.
2. However, Norris won't get enough second choice votes to win the overall 50% majority off Livingstone (polls show this clearly) so Livingstone would win.
3. However, Hughes is set to get 50% of second-choice votes.
4. Therefore, if Hughes could nudge into second on first choice votes, he would win on his massive volume of second-choice votes.
No other candidates other than Hughes can win it from Livingstone.
wee bisom
04-06-2004, 16:12
Although funny as it is that Ken Loach has said that doesn't it also let down the people he may represent- in that because of his refusal to take a seat they don't get a voice in the European parliament. (For all the criticisms and there are many, I still think MEP's can do a good job, and one of the areas of that is by representing our views)
I take your point and of course your right, but in his defense I think that Ken Loach made the joke knowing full well that he is last on the list of RESPECT MEP's and will definitely not get voted into the Euro Parliament.
Personally I don't think Respect are going to get anywhere, on the strength of their Party Election Broadcast they have the vaguest aims(more schools, more hospitals) and use words like "commensurate". Call me an ignorant pig, but I don't think that type of vocabulary will persuade voters. :P
Also I think RESPECT will get nowhere, but I don't think they expect to. The RESPECT party is built on the bones of the STOP THE WAR campaign. It's my feeling that they are looking for a protest vote from people to warn the LABOUR party that there is a large normally Labour voting public out there who are not enraptured by Tony Blairs' New Labour who also need a voice.
I come from what was a hard line labour voting community in Scotland. We never had any doubts about which party represented the people. In the past few years, I can't say that anymore and I really have a voting dilemma. I don't ever want to see the Tories in again but I can no longer say that the 'New' Labour Party represents my thoughts and beliefs. However I don't want the Tories to get in via the back door. I think now might be a good opportunity to give them a VOTING SCARE and let them know that the power is still ultimately with the people.
RESPECT DUE :cool:
http://www.harryhill.fsbusiness.co.uk/stouffer.gif
Motorcycle Emptiness
04-06-2004, 16:34
It's getting frustrating how many candidates around this area - both council and european - are saying that they will fight Stansted Expansion if only for the sake of credibility.
I support the expansion of Stansted - but have no option it would seem but to vote for someone who is against it.
socialist cook
04-06-2004, 16:34
Also I think RESPECT will get nowhere, but I don't think they expect to. The RESPECT party is built on the bones of the STOP THE WAR campaign. It's my feeling that they are looking for a protest vote from people to warn the LABOUR party that there is a large normally Labour voting public out there who are not enraptured by Tony Blairs' New Labour who also need a voice.
Its my feeling that because they are built on the bones of the stop the war coalition that provides a reason for why they won't get anywhere :P The mass movement that was shown in last february's protests has been marginalised and magnified by those who are left over and wish to cling to some moral authority-plus I don't have much respect for the leadership of Respect (hehe alliteration:lol: ) and to be honest apart from your example of Ken Loach I think many will see Respect as the usual 'trots' again- sorry to use that phraseology but someone in the media will use it sooner or later.
I don't ever want to see the Tories in again but I can no longer say that the 'New' Labour Party represents my thoughts and beliefs. However I don't want the Tories to get in via the back door. I think now might be a good opportunity to give them a VOTING SCARE and let them know that the power is still ultimately with the people.
That's the same reasoning being used by the UKIP, unfortunately the celebrities the UKIP use are more recognised by the left wing luminaries respect use. Oh, and I think its funny that the 'whining' (my dislike i do apologise, he's very intelligent though) George Monbiot pulled out of supporting Respect when it was finally floated as a political party.
alexliamw
04-06-2004, 16:49
The RESPECT party is built on the bones of the STOP THE WAR campaign.
You should read this:
www.stopthecoalition.com
RESPECT don't stand in Scotland, though, do they? One of their broadcasts said they didn't and to vote SSP I think...
wee bisom
04-06-2004, 17:34
I don't live in Scotland anymore.
Re: the article. I'm not interested in defending or attacking individuals who may have extreme political views. I am very aware of the socialist organisations who are happy to try to expand their base from popular causes such as STOP THE WAR. But the STOP THE WAR COALITION that was BIGGER than all of them and their activities. I think if we can utilise some of that energy to expose and register a deep disappointment in the LABOUR party, then that is a positive conclusion to the movement.
Socialist Cook
I know that the coalition that forms the RESPECT party is formed from a large section of so called 'TROTS', I assume you mean The Socialist Workers' Party. And I also don't particularly 'like' George Galloway. Personal likes/dislikes seems to hardly matter now since I HATE Tony Blair.
Take the Mayoral elections. I'll will use my first vote for Ken because I believe he still is a principled man. But where do i place my second vote? If I vote Lib Dems (who won't get in) I may be assisting the tories. None of the other parties are in any danger of coming close. At least if I vote RESPECT it will get registered as a dissenting LABOUR vote.
what else would you suggest?
alexliamw
04-06-2004, 17:38
But where do i place my second vote? If I vote Lib Dems (who won't get in) I may be assisting the tories.
Not true at all.
1. At the moment Stephen Norris is in second in the polls on first-choice votes, just marginally over Simon Hughes.
2. However, Norris won't get enough second choice votes to win the overall 50% majority off Livingstone (polls show this clearly) so Livingstone would win.
3. However, Hughes is set to get 50% of second-choice votes.
4. Therefore, if Hughes could nudge into second on first choice votes, he would win on his massive volume of second-choice votes.
Anyway, voting Hughes second, even if Norris and Livingstone are the top two, wouldn't aid the Tories, because it would only do that if otherwise you were voting Livingstone second (as only those two second-choice votes will matter), which won't be the case as you're putting him first.
wee bisom
04-06-2004, 17:45
Sorry, I don't get that. If they're second choice votes, how do you know that the first choice wasn't Ken?
Also I specifically want to register a PROTEST vote to labour. Voting LIB DEM is just a GAIN for the LIB DEMS if you see what I mean.
My brains are getting stewed ;)
socialist cook
04-06-2004, 17:47
Socialist Cook
I know that the coalition that forms the RESPECT party is formed from a large section of so called 'TROTS', I assume you mean The Socialist Workers' Party. And I also don't particularly 'like' George Galloway. Personal likes/dislikes seems to hardly matter now since I HATE Tony Blair.
Take the Mayoral elections. I'll will use my first vote for Ken because I believe he still is a principled man. But where do i place my second vote? If I vote Lib Dems (who won't get in) I may be assisting the tories. None of the other parties are in any danger of coming close. At least if I vote RESPECT it will get registered as a dissenting LABOUR vote.
what else would you suggest?
I have to confess that I do not know how the voting is taking place in the mayoral elections, I didn't think there was a space to vote for your first candidate and then your second. I think the Lib Dems do have a chance of getting in to the London assembly because I don't think its taken on first past the post(I will apologise if it is). Many disillusioned Labour voters that I know would vote Liberal Democrat now not just because of their supposed ' we had an anti war stance don't you know' but because they are the only explicit pro European pro EU pro federalist party. If you don't tend to agree with the Lib Dems on Europe then perhaps you should look elsewhere... I'm sorry I don't have an answer..but in the end its your vote and none of us can say you should vote for a certain party. ;)
alexliamw
04-06-2004, 18:00
Sorry, I don't get that. If they're second choice votes, how do you know that the first choice wasn't Ken?
Sorry, I wasn't being clear.
OK. Just to explain to anyone who doesn't understand, the system works like this. Voters have a first-choice and second-choice candidate. If anyone has over 50% of first-choice votes, they win. However, this is unlikely to happen. So all but the top two are eliminated, and any second-choice votes for the Top two from those eliminated votes are redistributed. Someone then ought to have 50%, and they win.
No-one can get more first-choice votes than Livingstone. But Hughes, according to the polls, has lots and lots of second-choice votes. If he can edge out Norris on first-choice votes, he could therefore win it.
Voting Hughes second is not a vote for the Tories. It is the very fact that Norris has very few second-choice votes indeed that means he can't win this election. Assuming Livingstone and Norris get through as the final two, the whether you vote Lib Dem or Respect as your second choice is irrelevant and neither will benefit or damage either Livingstone or Norris. So voting Lib Dem does not help the Tories. At all. Norris has far too few second-choice votes anyway.
The other possibility is that Livingstone and Hughes could be the top two. If this case, you certainly can't be helping the Tories by voting Hughes second, as they haven't even made the two two!
The only thing which could help Livingstone against anyone in either scenario is if you put *him* second. However, you clearly can't do this, as you are putting him first. That's what I meant.
wee bisom
04-06-2004, 18:10
I still feel misunderstood. :rolleyes:
I'm not considering voting for RESPECT as an anti war vote (although I did oppose the war). And the RESPECT coalition is a short lived thing. If you look at the list of very generalised statements on their mayoral campaign leaflets, they couldn't possibly fulfill any of them. They don't have that kind of control as mayor. They know that they are asking people to register a PROTEST VOTE, not JUST about the war, but the way that we are being lied to about everything and about how different things could be if real funding was directed towards real issues.
In a perfect world I'd like a proper LABOUR party again and an opposition party that has a different set of policies.
Probably, that's now impossible. Probably, I need to accept that and move on.
However, I'd still like to give the bastards a FRIGHT before I do!! ;)
alexliamw
04-06-2004, 18:22
No, the main point I was making was that you saying that voting Lib Dem would help the Tories was not true. Of course, if you prefer Respect, that's up to you.
The canvassing around these parts is almost always terrible, we've only had two leaflets so far and both of those were for the Plaid Cymru candidate. Fair play, he did go door to door as well but I'm not sure it's good for the party image to have someone who was quite clearly drunk. :S
Fair play, he did go door to door as well but I'm not sure it's good for the party image to have someone who was quite clearly drunk. :S :lol:
Nobody's come to our door except one of the local Tory candidates Rob Wilson who always looks so bloody smug :mad: Apparently the converstation went like this:
Mum: We're paid up members of the Labour Party, we won't be voting for you.
RW: Don't worry about it.
Mum: I'm not.
But my mum didn't tell me he was at the door, she said she thought I'd say something rude to him...which I might well have done, smug git :rolleyes: So I guess it's possible other people came too but my mother never told me...hmmmmm...not fair really cos I can vote too...hmmmm...
Terminal Young Thing
04-06-2004, 23:12
Sorry, I wasn't being clear.
OK. Just to explain to anyone who doesn't understand, the system works like this. Voters have a first-choice and second-choice candidate. If anyone has over 50% of first-choice votes, they win. However, this is unlikely to happen. So all but the top two are eliminated, and any second-choice votes for the Top two from those eliminated votes are redistributed. Someone then ought to have 50%, and they win.
They do that in France too. I have been revising :) :rolleyes:
maradona
05-06-2004, 00:36
I still feel misunderstood. :rolleyes:
I'm not considering voting for RESPECT as an anti war vote (although I did oppose the war). And the RESPECT coalition is a short lived thing. If you look at the list of very generalised statements on their mayoral campaign leaflets, they couldn't possibly fulfill any of them. They don't have that kind of control as mayor. They know that they are asking people to register a PROTEST VOTE, not JUST about the war, but the way that we are being lied to about everything and about how different things could be if real funding was directed towards real issues.
In a perfect world I'd like a proper LABOUR party again and an opposition party that has a different set of policies.
Probably, that's now impossible. Probably, I need to accept that and move on.
However, I'd still like to give the bastards a FRIGHT before I do!! ;)
I've heard people give the same excuse for why they are considering voting BNP
But IMO a vote for the Green party or the Lib Dems would be more worthwhile as a protest vote than one cast for the extremist hatred of the BNP or Respect. Plus you could look at yourself in the mirror the next day and know you did not contribute to stop a fascist like Griffen or Galloway getting elected...
Interesting article by Nic Cohen in the latest issue of the new stateman on why Respect are a bunch of cunts ;) http://www.newstatesman.com/site.php3?newTemplate=NSArticle_NS&newDisplayURN=200406070018
http://photos1.blogger.com/img/45/925/640/6.jpg
alexliamw
05-06-2004, 00:43
Interesting article - same points in places to www.stopthecoaltion.com. Have you read that?
wee bisom
05-06-2004, 01:27
I've heard people give the same excuse for why they are considering voting BNP
But IMO a vote for the Green party or the Lib Dems would be more worthwhile as a protest vote than one cast for the extremist hatred of the BNP or Respect. Plus you could look at yourself in the mirror the next day and know you did not contribute to stop a fascist like Griffen or Galloway getting elected...
Interesting article by Nic Cohen in the latest issue of the new stateman on why Respect are a bunch of cunts ;) http://www.newstatesman.com/site.php3?newTemplate=NSArticle_NS&newDisplayURN=200406070018
http://photos1.blogger.com/img/45/925/640/6.jpg
I feel quite insulted by your remarks.
I'm trying to poll peoples' opinions on RESPECT in order to work out what I do on polling day. I havent decided yet and it's important to me. And you take the attitude that it's an 'EXCUSE' TO VOTE FASCIST.
You know fuck all about me.
You don't know if I'm black, white, Jewish or Martian.
The Socialist Workers Party, I think they behave a bit too much like a cult than a political party. I sometimes read their paper. But then I sometimes read the Guardian, the Independent, the Telegraph, watch the news, listen to radio debates. I don't subscribe to any party. The SWP are pretty ineffective in real politics and always have been. But they're a thorn in the side of the 'New' Labour Party and that's why I think they are a healthy addition to our political landscape. I'm interested in Respect for the same reasons (and yes I know the SWP are now part of RESPECT).
and that article just doesn't add up.
"The leaders of the anti-war movement have calculated that power will come from tying themselves to the Islamist resurgence." In the UK? oh fuck off.
and the end of the article
"...there is a tender part of my heart that hopes that they don't, and that Respect scores a sensational breakthrough on Thursday. For if it fails to capitalise on its huge advantages, the only course for the left will be to take a long, hard look at itself in the mirror and confront what it has become. And you would not wish that hideous punishment on anyone."
that's just a contradiction. Why would he want it to 'capitalise on it's huge advantages' if he dislikes the party so much and so surely he should want the LEFT to take that long hard look at itself.
The thing is I know people who are working for RESPECT, they are NOT facsists. I do not RESPECT Galloway, I've already said this, but then I don't have a thing for any of our potential leaders and we're not voting for party leaders on June 10th.
Finally, I can't believe that the LEFT (which is not the RIGHT) is facing such critcism and yet no-one here seems to be interested in attacking our New Labour party (which is now the RIGHT) and the TORIES (also the RIGHT).
I've calmed down now. Just don't call me a fascist. I might have to kill you.
www.kcas.tk fully support Kilroy in his electoral campaign.
If you go to the North, and you go to towns like Bradford and those towns are dead
Bradford sucks. However, if you wish to clump Huddersfield and the surrounding areas in with these "dead" towns then you have an argument on your hands.
:lol:
I'm really not joking either. :eek:
Nobody's come to our door except one of the local Tory candidates Rob Wilson who always looks so bloody smug :mad: Apparently the converstation went like this:
Mum: We're paid up members of the Labour Party, we won't be voting for you.
RW: Don't worry about it.
Mum: I'm not.
hehe... he doesn't sound too bothered does he, did he just drift into politics or something?
"meh...I'm not fussed whether you vote for me or not, really"
maradona
05-06-2004, 22:47
I feel quite insulted by your remarks.
I'm trying to poll peoples' opinions on RESPECT in order to work out what I do on polling day. I havent decided yet and it's important to me. And you take the attitude that it's an 'EXCUSE' TO VOTE FASCIST.
You know fuck all about me.
You don't know if I'm black, white, Jewish or Martian.
I don't see why you should be insulted with what I said because I didn't say you were fascist, I said Galloway was a fascist. Which he is!
The Socialist Workers Party, I think they behave a bit too much like a cult than a political party. I sometimes read their paper. But then I sometimes read the Guardian, the Independent, the Telegraph, watch the news, listen to radio debates. I don't subscribe to any party. The SWP are pretty ineffective in real politics and always have been. But they're a thorn in the side of the 'New' Labour Party and that's why I think they are a healthy addition to our political landscape. I'm interested in Respect for the same reasons (and yes I know the SWP are now part of RESPECT).
and that article just doesn't add up.
"The leaders of the anti-war movement have calculated that power will come from tying themselves to the Islamist resurgence." In the UK? oh fuck off.
Where is the innaccuracy in that? - There is an Islamist resurgence in the UK (maybe not a REsurgence but there is growth in Islamist groups) as well as abroad and elements within the left - ie 'Respect' - have allied themselves with deeply conservative and reactionary Islamist groups.
and the end of the article
"...there is a tender part of my heart that hopes that they don't, and that Respect scores a sensational breakthrough on Thursday. For if it fails to capitalise on its huge advantages, the only course for the left will be to take a long, hard look at itself in the mirror and confront what it has become. And you would not wish that hideous punishment on anyone."
that's just a contradiction. Why would he want it to 'capitalise on it's huge advantages' if he dislikes the party so much and so surely he should want the LEFT to take that long hard look at itself.
The thing is I know people who are working for RESPECT, they are NOT facsists. I do not RESPECT Galloway, I've already said this, but then I don't have a thing for any of our potential leaders and we're not voting for party leaders on June 10th.
Finally, I can't believe that the LEFT (which is not the RIGHT) is facing such critcism and yet no-one here seems to be interested in attacking our New Labour party (which is now the RIGHT) and the TORIES (also the RIGHT).
First of all I'll criticise the left if i want. Second of all if a corrupt fascist like Galloway is trying to cloak himself in progressive and leftist politics then is that not something that should be criticised? Which begs the question what is worthy of being criticised if thats not? I would have thought anyone of leftist or progressive persuasion should be against this happening!
You are sort of proving the point that Cohen made that some of a left wing persuasion are refusing to recognise the danger they are doing to their own politics and values by supporting and being in partnership with groups and forces that are (in theory at least) against most of their own core values. But this is nothing new, today it's radical Islamist groups, in much the same way that previous generations allied themselves to Nazism and Stalinism.
(btw depending on where your constituency if Galloway is on Respects list for the area then a vote for Respect is a vote for Galloway given that he will be first on their list - so you might not be voting for him as party leader but you will be voting for him as candidate!)
I've calmed down now. Just don't call me a fascist. I might have to kill you.
Again, i didn't call you a fascist!
I was just giving some helpful advice (;) ) so that you wouldn't be duped into supporting a political party which while <i>parts</i> of its rhetoric is from the 'left', much of the political content and the allies it has are decidedly right-wing.
GibsonRiff
07-06-2004, 14:43
I would vote Respect, even though they are anti-euro (alledgedly) because they have the same views as me. They don't like the amount of England flags as it shows nationalism and also, could indicate that people are supporting the Iraq war. The reason I think they're anti-euro is the fact that since other countries have gone into the Euro, everything has been more expensive, and this is a disadvantage for poorer countries or people. I would also vote green cos of their environmental issues. Vote for any socialist party really, then we all get a fair chance in everyday life.
alexliamw
07-06-2004, 14:50
I would vote Respect, etc etc
Have you actually read the last two pages or so of this thread? If so, I'm appalled you could vote Respect. If not, read them!
GibsonRiff
07-06-2004, 15:17
I have just read thew New Statesman article and it's just a form of propaganda against Respect. The fact that the party is against the Iraq war and the St George flags is brilliant. I can't stand them and despise war. As for the fact that the chap who did this article was saying that they're homophobic, then how??!I still believe that thay are a step in the right direction. Nowhere near righties and certainly not fascists. If I'm accused of being fascist, That will be the biggest insult ever, as I cannot stand fascism, racism, sexism, homophobia etc. I suppose in a way because of the uncertainty about Respect, the safe vote would be Green or other Social parties. Should be some Communist parties too but I doubt there are.
And yes, I despise Tories, UKIP and BNP oh, and New Labour, in fact, I disagree with some issues by LibDem too.
Motorcycle Emptiness
07-06-2004, 15:48
I sent my two postal votes in today - council and European.
I would vote Respect, even though they are anti-euro (alledgedly) because they have the same views as me. They don't like the amount of England flags as it shows nationalism and also, could indicate that people are supporting the Iraq war.
If that is their view and is also your view, then you, my friend are a complete twat, and whoever these people are too.
It doesn't show nationalism, you imbecile, it shows patriotism. Wales is packed to the rafters with Welsh flags- there are far more Welsh flags up in Wales than there are English flags in England.
I bet you wouldn't oppose the number of Welsh flags though, would you?
Jesus Christ, you people really are the shits.
the fun blame monster
07-06-2004, 17:15
If that is their view and is also your view, then you, my friend are a complete twat, and whoever these people are too.
It doesn't show nationalism, you imbecile, it shows patriotism. Wales is packed to the rafters with Welsh flags- there are far more Welsh flags up in Wales than there are English flags in England.
I bet you wouldn't oppose the number of Welsh flags though, would you?
Jesus Christ, you people really are the shits.yeah, there's a reason for this. It's called cultural context. Everything - and I mean everything - takes place within a sociological and cultural framework. In Britain, that context with regards to patriotism and nationalism is that England has a long history of dominating and repressing Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland. It's therefore only natural that those countries will want to display their own national identity now that they finally have the chance. There's also the context of the English flag having been hijacked by hooligans and thugs over the years, making people reluctant to identify themselves with it. And with a lot of far-right groups and hooligans still using the flag for their own pernicious ends, I don't see that attitude changing too soon.
Having said that, I don't particularly mind the English flag waving per se. Although I think it's dangerous for people to locate their identity in their nation too much, in itself I don't really care if people want to wave a flag about. It's the attitude that so often seems to accompany if that bothers me; an aggressive attitude, one of "yeah, we're the best and you all suck!" I mean, why does everything have to be a competition? It seems that all too often, talk of one's own country is implicitly accompanied by comments on how much worse OTHER countries are. And I hate that attitude no matter WHAT the country in question is.
And it's also the implicit assumption, when a flag is flown by a political party or at a state occasion, that I as a citizen, and everyone else, is somehow tied to the flag and has to feel an affinity with it. I don't feel an affinity to the English flag, and I never have, particularly.
yeah, there's a reason for this. It's called cultural context. Everything - and I mean everything - takes place within a sociological and cultural framework. In Britain, that context with regards to patriotism and nationalism is that England has a long history of dominating and repressing Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland. It's therefore only natural that those countries will want to display their own national identity now that they finally have the chance. There's also the context of the English flag having been hijacked by hooligans and thugs over the years, making people reluctant to identify themselves with it. And with a lot of far-right groups and hooligans still using the flag for their own pernicious ends, I don't see that attitude changing too soon.
Having said that, I don't particularly mind the English flag waving per se. Although I think it's dangerous for people to locate their identity in their nation too much, in itself I don't really care if people want to wave a flag about. It's the attitude that so often seems to accompany if that bothers me; an aggressive attitude, one of "yeah, we're the best and you all suck!" I mean, why does everything have to be a competition? It seems that all too often, talk of one's own country is implicitly accompanied by comments on how much worse OTHER countries are. And I hate that attitude no matter WHAT the country in question is.
And it's also the implicit assumption, when a flag is flown by a political party or at a state occasion, that I as a citizen, and everyone else, is somehow tied to the flag and has to feel an affinity with it. I don't feel an affinity to the English flag, and I never have, particularly.
I still feel that, no matter how other countries feel, the English have the right to wave their own flag.
It is too much the case now that being English is accompanied by an almost apologetic air.
The English are still hated by just about everyone for what their parents/grandparents/ancestors did, and that's wrong.
That said, I do agree that the cross of St. George is associated a bit much these days with the shaven headed, beer-bellied lager lout at away international games.
The best solution that I can think of, if it really got to the point where, due to hooliganism, foreigners really did get mortally offended by the Cross of St. George, is to leave the cross to the hooligans and adopt the three lions on a red background as a flag. It's far more noble too.
Either way, I say that denouncing the English flag, and attempting to remove/suppress it, is racism, pure and simple.
yeah, there's a reason for this. It's called cultural context. Everything - and I mean everything - takes place within a sociological and cultural framework. In Britain, that context with regards to patriotism and nationalism is that England has a long history of dominating and repressing Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland. It's therefore only natural that those countries will want to display their own national identity now that they finally have the chance. There's also the context of the English flag having been hijacked by hooligans and thugs over the years, making people reluctant to identify themselves with it. And with a lot of far-right groups and hooligans still using the flag for their own pernicious ends, I don't see that attitude changing too soon.
Having said that, I don't particularly mind the English flag waving per se. Although I think it's dangerous for people to locate their identity in their nation too much, in itself I don't really care if people want to wave a flag about. It's the attitude that so often seems to accompany if that bothers me; an aggressive attitude, one of "yeah, we're the best and you all suck!" I mean, why does everything have to be a competition? It seems that all too often, talk of one's own country is implicitly accompanied by comments on how much worse OTHER countries are. And I hate that attitude no matter WHAT the country in question is.
And it's also the implicit assumption, when a flag is flown by a political party or at a state occasion, that I as a citizen, and everyone else, is somehow tied to the flag and has to feel an affinity with it. I don't feel an affinity to the English flag, and I never have, particularly.
Yeah, I'm sure all the english people who wave their flag are doing it to celebrate repressing other countries and all the welsh people who wave their flag are doing it to celebrate freedom from english tyranny. Whatever dude.
the fun blame monster
07-06-2004, 19:18
Well...yeah. I think that, say, most people who proudly fly the Welsh flag are doing so as an assertion of their "Welshness", a national (although I hesitate to use the word, but for simplicity's sake I will) consciousness. That hasn't really been possible (to assert an identity of "Welshness" as separate from England and the rest of Great Britain) until relatively recently. Obviously, different Welsh people will have different opinions on how much a "Welsh" identity exists, to what extent they are free from England, etc., but that's just natural debate.
I don't see what the issue is. Like I said, I don't really like it when people locate their identity in their nationality too much, I think it's rather dangerous, but I don't mind flag waving per se. It's the implicit superiority that OFTEN seems to accompany it that leaves a bad taste in my mouth. And I hate that superiority no matter WHAT country is doing it, be it America, England, Wales or bloody Mongolia.
Wow this thread is burning a hole in my pocket, I should really get broadband! Fantastically educational though for a no-brain like me. Two points did spring to mind whilst reading the thread:
1) Why in the world would anyone vote Tory to 'balance' Labour's power. Most of Labour's policies, ie creating a 'market' in schooling and hospitals (cos when I contract cancer or suffer a heart-attack, I'm really going to want to start scouring Which magazine for the best place to go, and is it really the parents who choose the schools or the other way around?) and eradicating university grants (so as to make comparatively lower paid professions like nursing and teaching more popular I assume??) are stridently conservative. If anything I'm looking around for a party who aren't taking a populist conservative, mememe stance, without having to sink to the depths of voting for a prick like Galloway.
2) Why does everyone get in such a tis about 'being run by a European super-state' when we clearly have only limited control over our own political system as it is? If Rupert Murdoch wants to oppose a political issue all he has to do is use his massive media empire to oppose it, and he does constantly. Big business will happily throw cash at various parties at the same time in order to get access to the PM / knighthoods / special treatment (rally racings ciggy sponsership) whoever gets in. Our involvement in the Iraq war was as much to do with keeping in with the U.S and keeping alive some supposed 'special relationship' which seems a bit like the 'relationship' between a bully and his sidekick if you ask me - sad! We are part of Europe already. We buy and sell goods in Europe, we spend most of our holidays in Europe and are directly affected by decisions made in the European Parliament, whether we choose to take an active part in the decisions made is up to us and we can complain all we like, if we can't act like adults and take an active part in it rather than just whinging about bloody huns invading 'again' and our British traditions being undermined why should they consider us at all?
I'm currently a bit lost as to who to vote for in the elections, everyone seems to be having a go but I don't think the British media helps, it's all so reactionary, how can a proper debate take place in that context? I do think a lot of politicians and political parties are totally opportunist but even when someone comes up with an interesting idea they get bombed down. The main papers are always going on about standing up for the common man but I don't feel they represent my interests any more than the supposedly bent politicians do, it's maddening!
I'm off, scared of the bill! :S ;)
Ok, taking those votes into accounts, the FD results look like :
http://img1.photobucket.com/albums/0903/tmcon/tim.jpg
And if this was the vote in a general election, the house would look like this [/peter snow] :
http://img1.photobucket.com/albums/0903/tmcon/etim2.jpg
Other ignored.
socialist cook
10-06-2004, 15:34
:cool: Tim you should get yourself on telly tonight- upstage Peter Snow!
I have voted today, and felt it was a bit of an anticlimax really, but I'll definitely vote every time now:D
Hehe the opposition would be the Greens:lol:
Also having Respect directly opposite the BNP is genius- the extreme left could scowl at the extreme right :mrgreen:
i voted for Labour in the locals
i voted for Labour, Green Party and Respect for the Europeans
alexliamw
10-06-2004, 16:03
And if this was the vote in a general election, the house would look like this [/peter snow] :
http://img1.photobucket.com/albums/0903/tmcon/etim2.jpg
Other ignored.
Genius! :D
But aren't the government and opposition the wrong way round on the illustration there? Government is on the left looking at it from that angle surely...
margot tenenbaum
13-06-2004, 12:48
If I was entitled to vote I would've gone with the Liberal Democrats.
I'm not too bothered by Labour though, just hate the Tories.
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.