|
Post by OldGit on Apr 25, 2005 19:04:27 GMT 1
Can't say I'm impressed with the Tory party - they are a spent force who are divided within and lead by a man who even his own party members view with suspicion - "Something of the Night" about him..... However, that doesn't mean we have to accept that Labour can just carry on leading the country without being held to account. The Iraq War was Illegal, and has turned into a disaster for the Iraqi people and for the western world in terms of their safety. Over 1500 dead US troops, 85 dead British troops, uncounted numbers of Iraqis and how about the horror besetting the hostages and the god awful executions? Everyday we get reports of another car bomb with 10's of dead and often 100s of injured. For what? So that we could be protected from WMD?? That was what we were told. Blair lied - and he wants us to believe he has made the world a safer place - but for whom? Bush wanted a war to show the world his power after 9/11 - there was no link between Saddam and Al Qaeda, but Bush needed a target and pulled every string to implicate Iraq as a "threat to world security" - well if wasn't then, it sure is now. People might say "its history" "time to move on" etc. But our troops are still out there and the country is in turmoil. "Time to move on" is just a cop out. Time for Blair to tell the truth
|
|
|
Post by CuyahogaBlue on Apr 25, 2005 19:18:47 GMT 1
Bush wanted a war to show the world his power after 9/11 - there was no link between Saddam and Al Qaeda, but Bush needed a target and pulled every string to implicate Iraq as a "threat to world security" - well if wasn't then, it sure is now. Many argue that the Bush Administration had plans to invade Iraq in place before 9/11, and that the World Trade Center/Pentagon attacks were used as a pretext to go after Saddam. The Bush administration did not need to pull strings, they just told the American public thier perception of "truth" and went ahead anyway - Saddam - Wanted Dead or Alive. Why Blair ever got involved will always be a mystery to me.
|
|
|
Post by pawlo on Apr 25, 2005 19:23:52 GMT 1
Let me ask a question. Its not slanted in any direction at all. For all i know Mr B could be telling lies, he could be telling the truth, perhaps,maybe,who knows blah blah blah.
At what point will people feel that they have heard the truth about the war on Iraq?
So far, we have had 3 inquiries into the Iraq war and issues related to it ( sexing up, the scientist and another). All have concluded that the PM did not lie, but acted in good faith ( although, yes he was wrong).
I suspect that if we get one inquiry that concludes that Tony Blair lied, then that will be the one that every one believes, not because its any more accurate than the others, but its what a lot of people want to here and suits the conclusion they have already come to.
|
|
|
Post by timgallon on Apr 25, 2005 21:21:10 GMT 1
Blair lied and people died. Britain has blood on its hands. I have voted Labour in last two elections, i will be voting Lib Dem this time and know many who are doing the same. No WMD. No Al Queda link. International law flouted. Thousands of Iraqi's dead. British servicemen dead. Iraq in chaos. Cost us 3.5 billion quid. Britain hated throughout the musilm world. On the flip side the Yanks have secured oil supplies for their gas guzzling cars for the next twenty years
|
|
|
Post by pawlo on Apr 25, 2005 22:13:30 GMT 1
I have voted Labour in last two elections, i will be voting Lib Dem this time and know many who are doing the same. Good, go for it. In a strange kind of way, i really hope that an awful lot of people follow your stance, chuck your dummy and vote Liberal, then when the ****ing tories get in, you will all see which way your bread is buttered.
|
|
|
Post by pawlo on Apr 25, 2005 22:18:57 GMT 1
On the flip side the Yanks have secured oil supplies for their gas guzzling cars for the next twenty years And whilst we are on the subject of flip sides, it may be worth remembering that our economy depends as much upon the stability of the oil markets as anyone elses.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2005 22:32:18 GMT 1
Good, go for it. In a strange kind of way, i really hope that an awful lot of people follow your stance, chuck your dummy and vote Liberal, then when the ****ing tories get in, you will all see which way your bread is buttered. Harsh. The Liberals are the party that get screwed every year. This year will be no different either. I can't help feeling sorry for them, not only because of the way that they get shafted by the FPTP system but also because they have some really fair policies. Unfortunatley despite this not enough will vote for them because they have less chance of winning than the two main parties.
|
|
|
Post by timgallon on Apr 25, 2005 22:38:33 GMT 1
Good, go for it. In a strange kind of way, i really hope that an awful lot of people follow your stance, chuck your dummy and vote Liberal, then when the ****ing tories get in, you will all see which way your bread is buttered. I'd rather vote on principle and have my conscious clear than vote for lying arse who may only be slightly better than another arse. You may feel comfortable sweeping Iraq under the carpet and acuse others of chucking there dummies out but Blair's lived by the sword and i dont care if he dies by it either.
|
|
|
Post by meoleshrew2 on Apr 25, 2005 22:43:20 GMT 1
Interesting answer from Kennedy on if he were in charge would he remove the troops when the UN mandate ran out, yes he said, so he was asked you are saying sorry its Britain first, yes again, whatever the situation in iraq at that time. Its easy being on the opposition isnt it. No having to realy take account of what the world would do/say or the relationship with the states let alone the economy. Can't wait for the tax questions look out anyone on high earnings
|
|
|
Post by meoleshrew2 on Apr 25, 2005 22:57:57 GMT 1
oops their council tax plans are being shredded, local income tax would be worse than the poll tax ever was, you will be back to be paying even if you live at home with your parents, I'm glad I started to watch it. One chaps bill would go up to 4000 a year more than triple what he is paying now, but its ok cos you won't have debts from university I really didn't realise thier tax plans were that high, far go for being honest though 10/10 for honesty 0/10 for tax policy
|
|
|
Post by MartinB on Apr 26, 2005 7:06:07 GMT 1
Let me ask a question. Its not slanted in any direction at all. For all i know Mr B could be telling lies, he could be telling the truth, perhaps,maybe,who knows blah blah blah. At what point will people feel that they have heard the truth about the war on Iraq? Before the Invasion started in Iraq I had major concerns over whether there were any WMD. How do you prove you haven't got something? It seemed at the time to me that USA had loads of troops sitting waiting to go into Iraq. That was costing millions each day to sit there and do nothing. In my opinion Bush decided he had to force the issue on a cost ground and to do what Daddy couldn't. For me the Iraq war is not an issue, funding of PPA time for teachers, my work pension terms and conditions being worsened and the looming Pension Crisis are far more important. As we have all said in a previous thread if you had to trust politicians to vote you would never vote.
|
|
|
Post by OldGit on Apr 26, 2005 7:18:10 GMT 1
I don't buy the argument that voting Lib Dem will let the Tories in. There is little doubt that Labour will win - precisely because the Conservative Party is a relic with no credibility. Its time people gave the Lib Dems a chance and buried the Tories. The best we can hope for is a massively reduced labour majority (what Brian Sedgemore the Labour MP who has just defected to Lib Dems calls "giving Blair a bloody nose") and a boost in Lib Dem standings to become the Opposition. Labour lied about Iraq They lied about Tuition fees They brought in Private Partnerships to fund hospitals and schools They promised us a "joined up policy on Transport" They said they would not increase taxation They are spending billions on Health - yet the Nurses are leaving and recruitment can't keep pace? MRSA/MSSA continues to be a real threat They wasted precious time in Parliament on Fox-hunting bills The CSA is still a joke Any time any member of the Cabinet tries to speak their mind they get shafted Time for more than a bloody nose
|
|
|
Post by MartinB on Apr 26, 2005 7:33:43 GMT 1
Totally agree, this election isn't about who wins but what Labour's majority in Parliament is.
I think it depends which area you live in. When I lived in Winchester and wanted to keep the Tory majority down voting for Labour would have been as much use as a ham sandwich at a Jewish wedding.
Where I live now it is a close run seat between the Tories and Labour, so voting Lib Dem would be a waste of time.
|
|
|
Post by oranjemob 1 on Apr 26, 2005 7:46:38 GMT 1
Let me ask a question. Its not slanted in any direction at all. For all i know Mr B could be telling lies, he could be telling the truth, perhaps,maybe,who knows blah blah blah. At what point will people feel that they have heard the truth about the war on Iraq? So far, we have had 3 inquiries into the Iraq war and issues related to it ( sexing up, the scientist and another). All have concluded that the PM did not lie, but acted in good faith ( although, yes he was wrong). I suspect that if we get one inquiry that concludes that Tony Blair lied, then that will be the one that every one believes, not because its any more accurate than the others, but its what a lot of people want to here and suits the conclusion they have already come to. The initial hearing was held by a Parliamentary sub-committee, with a built in Labour majority, and even then they couldn't ignore: "We further conclude that the jury is still out on the accuracy of the September dossier until substantial evidence of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, or of their destruction, is found." and "We conclude that the February dossier was badly handled and was misrepresented." The Hutton Report was a complete whitewash that embarrased even the most toadying Blairites, and insulted the memory of the man. The Butler report was so tied down by it's rediculously limited 'terms of reference' that the guy was in a straight jacket. But even so the following came out: The report reveals new information about the way in which thin and at times inaccurate intelligence was turned into prime ministerial certainty. In a devastating litany of mistakes, omissions and hyperbole, it says: · Downing Street stretched the available intelligence to "the outer limits". · The claim that biological or chemical weapons could be deployed within 45 minutes should not have been included in the dossier, and led to suspicions that it had been inserted "because of its eye-catching character". · The government's September 2002 dossier setting out the case for war had the "serious weakness" of omitting many crucial caveats about the dubious nature and limitations of much of the intelligence. The language in the dossier suggested the intelligence was "fuller and firmer" than it was. · Britain had only a handful of "main sources" on Iraq and the quality of much of their information has since been challenged by the intelligence services themselves. Reports from a key source were withdrawn in July last year as "unreliable". Maybe none of the above actually says "Tony Blair lied", but given the restrictions placed upon the enquiries, it , and countless volumes of other evidence, make it clear to all but the most biased, that this Prime Minister, and his cohorts, deliberately mis-lead the British people, and he is therefore, despite any successes of this administration, unfit to govern.
|
|
|
Post by pawlo on Apr 26, 2005 10:52:11 GMT 1
Some exerts from the Butler report 2004, which the tories wouldnt support, but still use as a stick to beat Tony Blair.
""photographic evidence contradicts that all R400A bombs (filed with anthrax and botulinum toxin)were destroyed in july 2001. It is unlikely that ongoing iraqi excavation will resolve this issue"
"it seems highly probable that destruction of bulk agent, including anthrax, stated by iraq to have occured in july 1991, did not occur"
"in 2002, UN security council resolution 1441, determined that iraqs possession of WMD constitutes a threat to international peace and security."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2005 12:17:47 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Apr 26, 2005 12:21:20 GMT 1
It is very easy for a retiring MP to have one last swansong in the papers now they have earned their £50k a year for 5 years with the one party
Changing sides now means nothing - he took his money rather than stood up for his principles
A pointless move, just like Marsden swapping back to labour from the Lib Dems, no-one cares
Claire Short is the person who really stood up and spoke up on the issue of Iraq and she will be returned to parliament by her local constituents
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2005 12:31:43 GMT 1
It is very easy for a retiring MP to have one last swansong in the papers now they have earned their £50k a year for 5 years with the one party Changing sides now means nothing - he took his money rather than stood up for his principles A pointless move, just like Marsden swapping back to labour from the Lib Dems, no-one cares Claire Short is the person who really stood up and spoke up on the issue of Iraq and she will be returned to parliament by her local constituents Of course there was Mr Marsden who stood up against the war in Afghanistan too....
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Apr 26, 2005 12:53:53 GMT 1
we hardly ever hear about Afghanistan now which is strange
If Marsden had held a by election his change of allegiance would have been fair enough - but you are right, he did stand up for what he believed in - he just ignored the spirit of the electoral process in doing so
|
|
|
Post by oranjemob 1 on Apr 26, 2005 13:11:04 GMT 1
Some exerts from the Butler report 2004, which the tories wouldnt support, but still use as a stick to beat Tony Blair. ""photographic evidence contradicts that all R400A bombs (filed with anthrax and botulinum toxin)were destroyed in july 2001. It is unlikely that ongoing iraqi excavation will resolve this issue" "it seems highly probable that destruction of bulk agent, including anthrax, stated by iraq to have occured in july 1991, did not occur" "in 2002, UN security council resolution 1441, determined that iraqs possession of WMD constitutes a threat to international peace and security." Sorry Pab, but none of this counteracts the fact that Blair lied. I don't give a stuff about the Tories, their moral standpoint or what they did or didn't support. Blair is a liar, and should be booted out.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2005 14:16:26 GMT 1
It is very easy for a retiring MP to have one last swansong in the papers now they have earned their £50k a year for 5 years with the one party Changing sides now means nothing - he took his money rather than stood up for his principles A pointless move, just like Marsden swapping back to labour from the Lib Dems, no-one cares Claire Short is the person who really stood up and spoke up on the issue of Iraq and she will be returned to parliament by her local constituents Without trying to undermine you Dave, I'd have been interested to have seen your response had the MP in question been from the Tory party. Btw - in addition to our discussions about rising house prices the other day. The Tories have said they would raise the stamp duty threshold to £250k
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Apr 26, 2005 16:05:19 GMT 1
Without trying to undermine you Dave, I'd have been interested to have seen your response had the MP in question been from the Tory party. you would not have made that comment if you weren't trying to undermine me And as for stamp duty - If you bought a £200k house it would cost £800 less in tax under that plan, which is quite a bit of cash but in the grand scheme of things does not add up to much, not on a mortgage that high What we need is a clear and defined housebuilding policy, one which the Tories or Labour do not seem capable of producing or delivering £800 either way won't get either party off the hook in terms of where exactly our young people are going to live in the future But as someone whose mortgage is over 4 times my earnings I am currently more scared of a return to the high interest rates.
|
|
|
Post by MartinB on Apr 26, 2005 18:35:44 GMT 1
Dave, think yourself lucky you have got a mortgage.
Even with 4 x salary you need to be earning over £25000 a year where I live to have a sniff of a chance of buying a property.
Realistically you need to be earning £30000+
Cheapest rent for a 1 bedsit is £450 per month. How do young people stand a chance of setting up home on their own?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2005 18:37:44 GMT 1
Dave, think yourself lucky you have got a mortgage. Even with 4 x salary you need to be earning over £25000 a year where I live to have a sniff of a chance of buying a property. Realistically you need to be earning £30000+ Cheapest rent for a 1 bedsit is £450 per month. How do young people stand a chance of setting up home on their own? Prices down South are ridiculous. I couldn't believe how affordable houses in Salop seemed when I started looking a few weeks ago.
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Apr 26, 2005 18:52:04 GMT 1
I recalled before the war started that Tony Blair said that a blood price would need to be paid for the friendship with the USA. Somehow at the time you realised he wasn't talking about his own.
I thought Tony Blair's comment on the Brian Sedgemoor defection was fairly illustrative of his petulant character, "They aren't particularly interested in someone they have never heard of who's not even standing as a candidate at the general election."
Like many of the Westminster chattering classes Tony Blair is only interested in people he has never heard of when there's a vote in it for him.
Whichever party forms the next government the chances are that it will not have make an indelible imprint on our fortunes. So let's consider carefully what it is that we can affect and what we cannot affect.
I will be casting my vote for the sitting MP, Matthew Green. I think he's done a good job on the whole and has got involved in local issues and, by the by, has a similar opinion as my own about the local council.
Meanwhile the social effects of the free movement of capital across national borders will be ameleriorated by increasing levels of state intervention and restrictions on individual freedoms.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2005 19:18:30 GMT 1
£800 either way won't get either party off the hook in terms of where exactly our young people are going to live in the future Surely 1% of 200k is 2k not £800? In that case 2k makes the difference between being able to but a deposit down on a house or not - it's a large amount of money.
|
|
|
Post by meoleshrew2 on Apr 26, 2005 19:22:19 GMT 1
Surely 1% of 200k is 2k not £800? In that case 2k makes the difference between being able to but a deposit down on a house or not - it's a large amount of money. Stamp duty at the mo starts a 120k then you pay 1% for anything over that then it goes up too 2% I think, you don't pay on the whole amount, I think?
|
|
|
Post by pawlo on Apr 26, 2005 21:39:45 GMT 1
Sorry Pab, but none of this counteracts the fact that Blair lied. I don't give a stuff about the Tories, their moral standpoint or what they did or didn't support. Blair is a liar, and should be booted out. Please, someone show me the extract from any of the reports that says that Tony Blair lied. If someone will do that then i will happily accept that i am wrong on this. Like i said in a previous post, i honesty dont know the truth about this. But i am more interested in facts than in peoples own opinions on the matter.
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Apr 26, 2005 23:02:54 GMT 1
and back to home ownership prices went up under the tories like they did under labour house prices were expensive then and they are now - it all depends on how you view it. I just don;t see how you can distinguish between the parties on that issue, or blame either. We are victims of being in a strong economy in a small land locked island. You got a job when you finished uni. Go to a country with cheap property prices and see if you can earn what you currently earn. London is one of the greatest cities in the world if what the press and movies show is true. People go there for work and the great lifestyle, and yet then complain about the house prices. I don't get it, if you want cheap property go and live on an estate in Wakefield. You say you are blaming labour for being in power when property prices rose, which ignores the previous 40 years of prperty inflation under successive governments, but you can't show me anything in any other party's policies that will improve the situation of house price inflation You are correct to point out the issue with my incorrect stamp duty though, I thought it was on the difference not the whole amount, my mistake, but even then, 2k is not the solution And no I don't think myself lucky to have a mortgage. I chose a massive reduction in wages and to live in Shrewsbury and I can afford a house here. But I can only afford a house by driving a skip of a car and not doing many of the things my friends do because I can't afford it. That is my choice and I made it and I am happy with it. If Phil wants a house he can get a job in Telford earning 25k a year and buy himself a nice three bedroom house next to me and with that he could buy a decent car compared to mine too!
|
|
|
Post by MartinB on Apr 27, 2005 5:55:45 GMT 1
Dave, not blaming Labour for the problem but they are in power. It's their problem to sort out. That's the thing with Government you are RESPONSIBLE. You can't just pick and choose which issues you are responsible for. In the first 6 years of Government Labour blamed everything people didn't like on the Tories. For example when pensioners go a rise in state pension of 60p a week, it was the tories fault becuase it was their spending plans. The fact Labour had been in power for 3 years and had stuck to the Tories spending plans because they were clearly working wasn't wasn't said, just it was the Tories fault. Labour had had plenty of time to change things if they wanted to. The issue is young people need to be able to live somewhere, a problem not addressed by the GOVERNMENT for 8 years. Up until 8 years ago people could afford to buy properties (just) now they can't. This is an issue for me as is future pensions. This Government has made the pension crisis worse and is burying it's head in the sand with a spend now, pay later policy. I for one am not looking forward to the pay later.
|
|