|
Post by shrewforever on Apr 11, 2005 15:21:40 GMT 1
and Mr Howard and his mates are going to match Labours' public spending plans......... throw in a few extra thousand policemen and policewomen....... spend 3 billion more on defence than Labour....... AND CUT our taxes by 4 billion as well....... Obvious the man is a lawyer and not an accountant,or am I missing something....... Thats it from me on this subject, but thought I'd just play Devils advocate and start another "General Election"thread.......... Feel free to let battle commence....... Let em have it Sister....
|
|
|
Post by lazyshrew on Apr 11, 2005 15:30:01 GMT 1
Thats a bit unusual for conservatives. They normally go for a reasonably balanced buget. The "only spend what you've got" theory. Which never worked. Dodgy. He's not thought this through very well has he.
|
|
|
Post by pawlo on Apr 11, 2005 15:32:06 GMT 1
Me Lets face it, the mans a joke. IMO they know full well they are not going to win, so they might as well pledge every household in Britain a new farrari just to make themselves sound good. Unfortunately, they just make themselves look more rediculous than they are. 3 million on defence, 4 billion in tax cuts. 7 billion pounds saving from cutting bureacracy
|
|
|
Post by dachs on Apr 11, 2005 15:34:12 GMT 1
That labour leaflet with just his face on it next to John and Maggie's is enough for me. No thanks Michael.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2005 15:38:08 GMT 1
We could of course put our support to Mr Blair who spent millions (billions?!) of Britains money going to war with Iraq for no truthful reason
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Apr 11, 2005 15:40:39 GMT 1
We could of course put our support to Mr Blair who spent millions (billions?!) of Britains money going to war with Iraq for no truthful reason Bad example Phil the Tories supported the war
|
|
|
Post by oranjemob 1 on Apr 11, 2005 15:43:46 GMT 1
There are going to be some very shocked Labour Party 'strategists' on May 6th. All scratching their heads and asking "How the f*** did that happen?"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2005 15:48:59 GMT 1
Bad example Phil the Tories supported the war Fair enough, I supported the war at the time, that doesn't make it right though does it?
|
|
|
Post by pawlo on Apr 11, 2005 15:50:54 GMT 1
We could of course put our support to Mr Blair who spent millions (billions?!) of Britains money going to war with Iraq for no truthful reason With the backing of the Tories. What i dont get about this war thing is that every report, every investigation has shown that the intelligence provided was wrong. Nothing has ever proved that Blair deliberately lied to anyone, he just acted on the information available and that information turned out to be incorrect. Is that Blairs fault? Personally, i dont miss Saddam, and whilst i am not happy with that war, or ANY war, the country to me certainly seems a better place than in 1997
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Apr 11, 2005 15:53:54 GMT 1
Fair enough, I supported the war at the time, that doesn't make it right though does it? Not at all. Poor information, and veyr little public support is bad news. A million people on the streets of London but they walked all over us. What really riles me is that we say it is all for "democracy" and for a "freedom for the people of Iraq" Absolute balls, there are many dictatorships in this world but we have only attacked Iraq If we did want to defend liberty and freedom we would have invaded Zimbabwe and removed Mugabe from power. It was only ever about oil. The proof? Has any western government ever questioned the Saudi Arabian dictatorship? The lack of a free press? The lack of religious liberty? Not at all. They are useful dictators because they sell us oil, and sod their people if we can stay rich
|
|
|
Post by blue 44 on Apr 11, 2005 15:57:16 GMT 1
Bad example Phil the Tories supported the war True they did but on the basis of a dodgy dossier and lies about weapons of mass destrusction My own view is that if Blair will lie about that he will lie about anything .There was a brilliant Panorama programme a few weeks ago exposinng what went on but hardly anyone watches Panorama these days As far as the Tory election plans are concerned they sayhave been costed and verified by independant auditiors but personally I wouldnt believe a word any politician says on spending plans but we can be sure Tax will go up under Labour
|
|
|
Post by oranjemob 1 on Apr 11, 2005 15:57:16 GMT 1
Nothing has ever proved that Blair deliberately lied to anyone, he just acted on the information available and that information turned out to be incorrect. Is that Blairs fault? Do you honestly believe that Pab I certainly don't, and I really don't think you do either.
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Apr 11, 2005 16:03:52 GMT 1
the question of who is the most honest is a real red herring
they are all blatant liars or they would have never lasted this long
the question is not who do we trust, but it is whose lies are the most credible, and who do we prefer to be lied to by
|
|
|
Post by pawlo on Apr 11, 2005 16:15:35 GMT 1
How come when i try to quote orangemobs post blue44s comes up Anyway, well actually im not sure if i do or if i dont believe him. I just dont know. No one, judges or whatever, have actually proved any deception by Blair. If im wrong then fine, show me the evidence, my mind is open on this. Whatever the outcome, it wont change my view on who i trust with my vote however. But what i do know is it will take more than michael howard or the tory press to convince me one way or the other.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2005 16:17:48 GMT 1
I think there should be a "hung" parliament.
Who would you hang first? ;D
|
|
|
Post by blue 44 on Apr 11, 2005 16:18:28 GMT 1
the question of who is the most honest is a real red herring they are all blatant liars or they would have never lasted this long the question is not who do we trust, but it is whose lies are the most credible, and who do we prefer to be lied to by You may well be right but if you are we are in a desperate state as a nation arent we -or has it always been the same ? And its probably also worth saying that because a lie is more credible its not necesarily more true- if you get my drift!
|
|
|
Post by Rob on Apr 12, 2005 12:31:59 GMT 1
Taxes will go up in the next budget who ever wins. Only the Lib DeEms have any credibility my actually admitting that they will ask the rich to contribute more to build a fairer society.
|
|
|
Post by blue 44 on Apr 12, 2005 12:49:48 GMT 1
And not just the rich Rob- Local income tax will mean that a lot of people who dont consider themselves rich ie 1st year teachers will pay an awfulTEXTl lot more than they would have otherwise in Council Tax But I hasten to say I have nothing against THe Lib Dems and may vote for them possibly
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Apr 12, 2005 15:17:46 GMT 1
True they did but on the basis of a dodgy dossier and lies about weapons of mass destrusction Exactly our kid... ...and lets not give the old 'the intelligence was wrong', there was plenty more information within the original dossier that was omitted...and it was left out because they wanted us to believe the threat was greater than what it was. You really think folk would have supported the war if the original dossier had been used as the reason to invade Iraq? The intelligence services didn't remove this additional information, the government did. WMD deployed in 45 minutes my arse...he's as rum as they come that Blair...and if you believe its got owt to do with spreading democracy throughout the region then yer need yer head looking at (look at Saudi Arabia). Its nowt but a continuation of actions to make sure those petrodollars continue to move west...nowt else... Although I dont think much of Bush it was good of him to take a stance over Isreal's planned settlements within the West Bank...at last the USA are getting tough (more so than usual) on this...so fair play to him there I guess...but I digress... ;D
|
|