|
Post by monkee on May 13, 2010 14:32:44 GMT 1
Believing that the coalition is likely to fail is not the same as wanting it to. I want England to win the World Cup, but I wouldn't put any money on it happening. I don't think the coalition will last anything like 5 years but I'm not convinced there'll be another election this year either. However I do think the Lib Dems will grow weaker as an independent party the longer it goes on. i give it 3 years at the most, only takes a back bench rebellion from either party to queer the deal
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2010 15:45:30 GMT 1
[ I do! Lib Dem policy is now being implemented, i don't know how any Lib Dem voter could have wanted for more, unless they were either deluded enough to think the Lib Dems might get a majority or voted tactically against the Tory's (in which case your not really a Lib Dem voter, your an anti Tory voter). . well jolly good for you!! lets look at this, if lib dem policy is being implemented, then surely conservative policy isnt. on the other hand, if conservative policy is being implemented, then surely lib dem policy isnt. unless of coarse lib dem and conservative policy / manifesto are the same thing, in which case the lib dems and conservatives where telling utter lies throughout the election, which isnt a very good start to their fluffy, but slightly nauseating world of "new politics" is it.
|
|
|
Post by mrbunny on May 13, 2010 15:50:27 GMT 1
[ I do! Lib Dem policy is now being implemented, i don't know how any Lib Dem voter could have wanted for more, unless they were either deluded enough to think the Lib Dems might get a majority or voted tactically against the Tory's (in which case your not really a Lib Dem voter, your an anti Tory voter). . well jolly good for you!! lets look at this, if lib dem policy is being implemented, then surely conservative policy isnt. on the other hand, if conservative policy is being implemented, then surely lib dem policy isnt. unless of coarse lib dem and conservative policy / manifesto are the same thing, in which case the lib dems and conservatives where telling utter lies throughout the election, which isnt a very good start to their fluffy, but slightly nauseating world of "new politics" is it. And Labour didn't lie once in 13 years did they?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2010 15:55:22 GMT 1
And Labour didn't lie once in 13 years did they? [/quote] not unless you know any different?
|
|
|
Post by mrbunny on May 13, 2010 15:57:09 GMT 1
And Labour didn't lie once in 13 years did they? not unless you know any different?[/quote] WMD What about the referendum they promised in 2005 that mysteriously never happened? Try and make out that Labour were whiter than white all you like,you know it is a load of rubbish.They were sleazey untrustworthy liars and that is why they lost the election.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2010 16:03:27 GMT 1
sorry, i didnt realise the enquiry into the iraq war had concluded and given its judgement. What was it?
|
|
|
Post by mrbunny on May 13, 2010 16:05:42 GMT 1
sorry, i didnt realise the enquiry into the iraq war had concluded and given its judgement. What was it? So saying that they had them when they didn't was the truth?
|
|
|
Post by mrbunny on May 13, 2010 16:06:53 GMT 1
Ignoring the referendum they didn't have though?
Typical c***y labourite.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2010 16:17:13 GMT 1
So saying that they had them when they didn't was the truth? absolutely not, what im saying is they where wrong. Lieing about something, and getting something wrong are completely different. If it is ever proved they lied then i will join you in your condemnation (no pun intended) Ignoring the referendum they didn't have though? Typical ****y labourite. Sorry, can you clarify which referendum you mean? can you also give me a clue to ****y is? thanks
|
|
|
Post by monkee on May 13, 2010 16:42:57 GMT 1
And Labour didn't lie once in 13 years did they? not unless you know any different? WMD What about the referendum they promised in 2005 that mysteriously never happened? Try and make out that Labour were whiter than white all you like,you know it is a load of rubbish.They were sleazey untrustworthy liars and that is why they lost the election.[/quote] ok, i'll explain the WMD: right up until the war started, independent experts thought there were wmd. it is a matter of record that: the french built iraq a nuclear reactor there(and gave a sizable amount of uranium the germans helped hussain to build a chemical weapons factory and all the chemicals needed to make mustard gas, sarin, tabun, and tear gasses the italians gave Iraq plutonium extraction facilities that advanced Iraq’s nuclear weapon program Swiss companies aided in Iraq’s nuclear weapons development in the form of specialized machines the United Kingdom paid for a chlorine factory that was intended to be used for manufacturing mustard gas and secretly gave the arms company Matrix Churchill permission to supply parts for the Iraqi supergun ( Arms-to-Iraq affair tory govt??). the usa sold biological samples to Iraq up until 1989, including anthrax, West Nile virus and botulism, as well as Brucella melitensis An Austrian company gave Iraq equipment for enriching uranium, heat exchangers, tanks, condensers, and columns for Iraqi chemical weapons China provided 45,000 munitions designed for chemical warfare thats just the tip of the iceberg though as at least a dozen other countries also supplied weapons and equipment for the production of WMD. with all that information, i think it is safe to suspect that Iraq had not only the means but the motive to use WMD, and had a history of using them. on the referendum, blair promised it on the original EU constitution in 2005 and then legged it. in the mean time, the french and the dutch voted against it, so should we have had a referendum about something that is dead in the water?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2010 16:58:17 GMT 1
not unless you know any different? WMD What about the referendum they promised in 2005 that mysteriously never happened? Try and make out that Labour were whiter than white all you like,you know it is a load of rubbish.They were sleazey untrustworthy liars and that is why they lost the election. ok, i'll explain the WMD: right up until the war started, independent experts thought there were wmd. it is a matter of record that: the french built iraq a nuclear reactor there(and gave a sizable amount of uranium the germans helped hussain to build a chemical weapons factory and all the chemicals needed to make mustard gas, sarin, tabun, and tear gasses the italians gave Iraq plutonium extraction facilities that advanced Iraq’s nuclear weapon program Swiss companies aided in Iraq’s nuclear weapons development in the form of specialized machines the United Kingdom paid for a chlorine factory that was intended to be used for manufacturing mustard gas and secretly gave the arms company Matrix Churchill permission to supply parts for the Iraqi supergun ( Arms-to-Iraq affair tory govt??). the usa sold biological samples to Iraq up until 1989, including anthrax, West Nile virus and botulism, as well as Brucella melitensis An Austrian company gave Iraq equipment for enriching uranium, heat exchangers, tanks, condensers, and columns for Iraqi chemical weapons China provided 45,000 munitions designed for chemical warfare thats just the tip of the iceberg though as at least a dozen other countries also supplied weapons and equipment for the production of WMD. with all that information, i think it is safe to suspect that Iraq had not only the means but the motive to use WMD, and had a history of using them. on the referendum, blair promised it on the original EU constitution in 2005 and then legged it. in the mean time, the french and the dutch voted against it, so should we have had a referendum about something that is dead in the water? [/quote] What he said. im not trying to make out they are whiter than white. Labour got plenty wrong, probably got up to a bit of no good as well. what i wont accept, which is what you always seem to be banging on about, is that Labour are the only party to ever not fullfil an election pledge, the only party to ever act with vested interest, the only party to ever be economical with the truth, the only party to "spin" the facts (you remember who invented spin doctors i assume?), the only party to have ever made mistakes in government. I have made this pledge before, and i will make it again wit you. If the iraq inquiry finds that any Labour officials, be it Tony or Gordon, Lied about the Iraq war, i will post a full apology for my stance and join in the condemnation they will have deserved. on the other hand, if the inquiry finds that they did not lie and acted properly, then will you come on the board and post an apology for your smears? sounds fair to me.
|
|
LufbraSalop
Midland League Division One
. [H:3]
Posts: 468
|
Post by LufbraSalop on May 13, 2010 17:07:54 GMT 1
[ I do! Lib Dem policy is now being implemented, i don't know how any Lib Dem voter could have wanted for more, unless they were either deluded enough to think the Lib Dems might get a majority or voted tactically against the Tory's (in which case your not really a Lib Dem voter, your an anti Tory voter). . well jolly good for you!! lets look at this, if lib dem policy is being implemented, then surely conservative policy isnt. on the other hand, if conservative policy is being implemented, then surely lib dem policy isnt. unless of coarse lib dem and conservative policy / manifesto are the same thing, in which case the lib dems and conservatives where telling utter lies throughout the election, which isnt a very good start to their fluffy, but slightly nauseating world of "new politics" is it. And if they'd have somehow cobbled together a coalition with labour it would have been the same! What exactly are you advocating or are you just bashing for the sake of it?
|
|
|
Post by nicko on May 13, 2010 17:11:09 GMT 1
"My argument is simple: if progressives are to avoid being marginalised by an ideologically barren Conservative party, bereft of any discernible convictions other than a sense of entitlement that it is now their turn to govern, then the progressive forces in British politics must regroup under a new banner. I believe that liberalism offers the rallying point for a resurgent progressive movement in Britain."
Nick Clegg Oublished 17 Sept 2009. True. But then Clegg did say during the election campaign that in the event of a hung Parliament he would talk to the party that won the most seats. He was true to his word I'll give him that. A someone who voted Lib Dem I was hoping the coalition wouldn't come off, but it did and lets give 'em a chance. We are in exciting times politically. There has been major concessions by both sides, notable a referendum on AV and the Lib Dems dropping their opposition to Trident. I'm happy that the amount people earn before being taxed will increase to 10k (eventually) but un-happy about inheritance tax, but that's one of those things. Good luck to 'em I say. It will fall apart sooner rather than later because of the deeply ideologically en-trenched bitter "old order" who will try and break it up the first chance they get, no doubt helped by the national media and their nasty little agendas. I must say also that Matron isn't taking this very well.
|
|
|
Post by MarkRowley on May 13, 2010 17:15:55 GMT 1
Interesting times ahead and perhaps a new era for politics that none of us will have seen before if Libs and Tories can genuinely work together and get away from the tribal argumentative style that has dogged our political system, most particularly in the past 10-15 years as the era of lobbyists, spin, "experts", and 24 hour news channels have been at the fore (and also evidenced by our plastic socialists on here who are still completely one-eyed in seeing the Tories as Thatcher 20 years on ) Clegg and Cameron are bright guys, the same age from similar backgrounds and can hopefully make it a success. Pleased to see Ken Clarke in a senior position, a man who is genuinely respected on all sides. I have to say I shed no tears whatsoever that complete ****s such as Balls, Mandelson and Campbell are no longer involved in running our country. Labour also showed that for all their fine words in opposition they were just as happy to take the lucre of big business and bury their noses in the trough of fiddles, expenses, cons and dubious dealing as the former shamed Tory politicians they had promised us they would be different from. Blair's decade in charge was all style over substance and his legacy is how he manipulated the nation into a war to please his mate George who wanted to have a war like his dad. I first encountered Blair when attending a conference when he was Shadow Home Secretary in the early 90's and thought he was a smarmy barstard then. As someone mentioned earlier, John Smith's untimely passing deprived the nation of a potentially great PM. Brown I think is an honourable and decent man, but he has been at the wheel as our economy has died on its arse. Part of that is down to worldwide factors but a large part of it is down to his policies and the loose financial controls/absence of City regulation that he favoured as Chancellor and PM, leaving us in a right pickle, even before you start looking at the many billions of debt relating to PFI schemes etc that are off balance sheet His absence of charisma would always count against him in these times when everything appears to be measured in personality rather than skill or talent. Can't see beyond David Millband as next Labour Leader, and will be interesting to see how they try and form an effective opposition on their own without the usual 3rd party support.
|
|
|
Post by mrbunny on May 13, 2010 17:21:24 GMT 1
I must say also that Matron isn't taking this very well. You can say that again.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2010 17:23:58 GMT 1
[ And if they'd have somehow cobbled together a coalition with labour it would have been the same! What exactly are you advocating or are you just bashing for the sake of it? I said on this board after the election result that Gordon should go and Labour should not get involved in the " door knocking" (i think was the phrase i used) that clegg was doing at the time. i thought it was a bit embaressing. dont think im advocating anything (am i?) what do you think im advocating not bashing for the sake of it, im debating politics as i have on countless occassions before. you joined in the debate and i argued against your position. dont see the problem
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2010 17:30:52 GMT 1
[ I must say also that Matron isn't taking this very well. im taking it very well mate thank you. i knew it was coming for at least 6 months and had resigned myself to defeat. If anything, Im suprised how well Labour did. Glad im not a conserv.............sorry, lib dem voter though, must be a terrible boner to get your hopes up like that for it all to fall apart on polling day. Still, they managed to clinch some kind of power by climbing into bed with cameron and his crew. thats the important thing really isnt it.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on May 13, 2010 18:47:17 GMT 1
I must say also that Matron isn't taking this very well. You can say that again. Might have strengthened your case if you'd engaged in the debate. But all you seem to have done is throw out a few half-baked comments and then kept quiet when others have responded with reasoned arguments. One up to Monkee and Matron unless you have got a response to those arguments.
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on May 13, 2010 19:06:27 GMT 1
I see that the coalition have decided to 'half'scrap the rise in NI.
Employees pay, employers don't.
Shape of things to come?
|
|
|
Post by monkee on May 13, 2010 19:23:44 GMT 1
You can say that again. Might have strengthened your case if you'd engaged in the debate. But all you seem to have done is throw out a few half-baked comments and then kept quiet when others have responded with reasoned arguments. One up to Monkee and Matron unless you have got a response to those arguments. dont lump me in with the red wedge i am just happy stirring the debate
|
|
|
Post by mrbunny on May 13, 2010 19:34:56 GMT 1
You can say that again. Might have strengthened your case if you'd engaged in the debate. But all you seem to have done is throw out a few half-baked comments and then kept quiet when others have responded with reasoned arguments. One up to Monkee and Matron unless you have got a response to those arguments. Sorry was watching the cricket,more important than a messageboard. As i have had a few watching it i will wait for another day to make a reasoned point.OK with you is it?
|
|
|
Post by Feedo Gnasher on May 13, 2010 19:36:28 GMT 1
Might have strengthened your case if you'd engaged in the debate. But all you seem to have done is throw out a few half-baked comments and then kept quiet when others have responded with reasoned arguments. One up to Monkee and Matron unless you have got a response to those arguments. Sorry was watching the cricket,more important than a messageboard. As i have had a few watching it i will wait for another day to make a reasoned point.OK with you is it? Another good win wasn't it
|
|
|
Post by mrbunny on May 13, 2010 19:43:33 GMT 1
Sorry was watching the cricket,more important than a messageboard. As i have had a few watching it i will wait for another day to make a reasoned point.OK with you is it? Another good win wasn't it Bloody brilliant.Good to see the other bowlers do it when Bresnan was expensive too.
|
|
|
Post by WindsorShrew on May 13, 2010 20:09:45 GMT 1
sorry, i didnt realise the enquiry into the iraq war had concluded and given its judgement. What was it? Something about wearing womens clothing at work being wrong.... honest !
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2010 20:48:20 GMT 1
I,m looking forward to seeing the form the new Referendum Bill will take. Will all the alternatives be made available, ( apparently there are multi various forms of the Alternate vote). Or, if the vote gives the wrong answer, will we be given the Irish opportunity to vote again until we come up with the right answer?
I'm not against a new voting system, but do not understand the alternatives. I need to sit down with someone who can explain things slowly and clearly..... how many on here can honestly say they understand.
|
|
|
Post by eclipsechaser on May 13, 2010 20:57:32 GMT 1
2012 is getting nearer! what disasters are yet to come this year, they ae slowly building up to the climax Whatever your on, just lay off it for a while. Head , Sand , Stick !
|
|
|
Post by rob5251 on May 13, 2010 21:49:07 GMT 1
Mr Bunny and Matron, you two sound like Clegg and Camron in a months time. Calm down.
|
|
|
Post by eclipsechaser on May 13, 2010 22:27:06 GMT 1
What has been extremely strange is that Clegg's and Brown's policies are very similar and estranged to Camerons's BUT Would you believe it , Clegg has hopped into bed with Cameron ! Well why would he do that ? Clegg has done more U-turns than most governments in my lifetime . He has turned on all his electorate and most of his manifesto ? WHY ? He has done it so he can have power ( I want position and prerstige and sod all else ) !! Nothing more , Nothing less ! He has sold out . He could have gone to either party and demanded electorate reform which would have been for Their good for ALL subsequent elections but NO ! He has sold his and his party principles down the river . He had 59 seats reduced to 55 and it will be down to 30 ish when the next election comes which I predict will be in 18 months .
|
|
|
Post by eclipsechaser on May 13, 2010 22:28:18 GMT 1
Con Dem is a good combination. What about combining Dave and Nick ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2010 6:21:01 GMT 1
What has been extremely strange is that Clegg's and Brown's policies are very similar and estranged to Camerons's . which is the other thing really isnt it. if Labour and the limp dems had formed an alliance, well they are both left of centre parties, they have made alliances in the past and more often than not, in opposition to the tories have joined forces and shared common ground of which there is plenty. indeed much of the lib dems ideology and history is born out of socialist principles. other than a huge power craving, what have the tories and lib dems ever shared, what common ground is there other than a bitter resentment of Labours success or popularity and the utter lack of theirs?
|
|