Election - let's get real

[Sorrel]

- kills a scientist who has evidence that could bring down the Government and then restiricts the investigating judges remit to ensure nothing comes to light

This one's pushing it a bit. At least, it is if the idea of evidence is taken into account.

I'll be voting Labour. I like my local Labour MP - he wrote a nice letter back about Falmer when I wrote to him. I've looked at his voting record in parliament, and I agree with about 80% of the things he's voted for.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

I've looked at his voting record in parliament, and I agree with about 80% of the things he's voted for.

Did he vote for a war on Iraq? Cos a shitload of 'nice' Labour MPs did.

 

[Weezle]

Spoil the paper, don't not vote.

Barnet - i've heard someone else say this. However, i don't understand the point of this. Could you please explain this to me?

 

[enigma]

Screw anyone that subsidises the northeners. The northeners should subsidise the olympic bid.

 

[Sorrel]

Did he vote for a war on Iraq? Cos a shitload of 'nice' Labour MPs did.

He rebelled on one of the votes, but went with the government on the main one. I had misgivings at the time, but I now believe the government policy on Iraq is (and was) correct. So, I'm fine with that.

But then, I like Blair. I think he's a great PM.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

This one's pushing it a bit. At least, it is if the idea of evidence is taken into account.

I'll be voting Labour. I like my local Labour MP - he wrote a nice letter back about Falmer when I wrote to him. I've looked at his voting record in parliament, and I agree with about 80% of the things he's voted for.

Agreed I might be pushing it a bit with the Government killing him directly but they did restrict the investigating Judge. If they have nothing to hide why not left investigate whetever and however he likes ?

 

[Gwylan]

Depends what you mean by nonsense !

If you mean what I've put isn't true then I would suggest you read a fairly non-political aligened paper.

If you mean the points aren't important - they may not be to you and some, by themselves may seem trivial - but to me they are important and show how untruthful, spiteful and corrupt Blair really is.

A mixture of both: some clearly aren't true. some are true but irrelevant.

For the former, here's an example: "kills a scientist .." All the evidence suggests that Kelly killed himself. That's what the inquest found. I agree that the government behaved abysmally but it's clearly not the case that they had had him bumped off.

Or take " hundreds of hours and millions of pounds on outlawing fox hunting". Just not true: it was a manifesto commitment and it was put before Parliament. It has been delayed by amendments and by legal action but it wasn't the government who instigated that but the hunt supporters. BTW, I'm not saying that's not right and proper - it clearly is but you can't blame the government for delays when those have not been the government's doing.

The most obvious bit of nonsense though is the stuff about average wage earnings paying top-level taxes. The average salary is about £24,000 - the highest level of tax paid on that is 22% -scarcely a high tax rate.

Far from having high taxes, the UK is one of the lowest tax regimes in Europe. In fact, one of my biggest gripes with the Blair government is that he hasn't raised taxes.

Then there are the points that are true but meaningless - the subisdy of Labour councils. Yes they do, but so did the Tories. For many years I lived in Wandsworth which had the lowest rate of council tax in the country - the reason was, the Tory govt pumped money into it. As soon as Labour got in, the council tax rose massively as the subsidy was cut - that's politics. You can't blame Labour or Tories for that.

The most bizarre claim of the lot though is the one about having a referendum on the European constitution. I would have thought that a governent that listened to concerns and gave way, depsite initial reservations, is a good government, one prepared to listen. The main gripe against Thatch was that didn't listen to voices against the Poll Tax.

I'm not going to go through them all: you raise some good points but not too many of them.

 

[The Clown of Pevensey Bay]

Do they announce the spoil results in the UK?

Over here they announce them and indeed the media often finds out what was written on them - someone wrote C U N T down the four Fianna Fail candidates in my local area last time, for instance...

A big spoil can often be quite effective as campaigning - 10% spoiled their votes in the referendum on the Republic of Ireland Act in 1948, for instance.

The number of spoils is annouced by returning officers at individual counts, I think. However, the winning candidate and his/her supporters are usualy celebrating so loudly nobody hears them.

And the media rarely includes them as it takes up time/space.

Here's an interesting thing... I think convention requires returning officers to show spoils to candidates and agents just to prove they are spoils or ambiguous "votes".

So an X in the Tory box in Lewes with the words "because you didn't support Falmer Baker you tosser" (or similar) written alongside would be likely to be seen by Norm himself on the night.

And I think it's unlikely it would be counted as a vote for the Tories, either.

 

[sleepynick]

I`ll be voting green.

They're the only party offering a REAL alternative.

 

[cdavis]

I desperately want a "tory" leader.....so it,s Tony Blair for me......!!!!!!

 

[itszamora]

Re: Re: Election - let's get real

But the Lib Dems aren't going to win the election, whatever happens, so whether or not they'd be a viable government is irrelevant. I'd be more than happy to vote for them, had Belloti & Baker never been born. To be honest, I'm not entirely sure. But I absolutely, 100% will NOT be voting Tory.

Same here, I would definitely vote Lib Dem were it not for those two wristers. As it is, I just don't know.

 

[simonsimon]

Originally posted by Westdene Seagull

"As yet 'm still undecided but I certainly won't be voting Labour !! How could I vote for a party that :

- took us into an illegal war"

Get real.The war was solely about future use of fossil fuels.
Thatcher closed down nearly all of the mines and North Sea Oil and Gas reserves are now runing out.

 

[bigc]

Dave Lepper doesnt deserve to lose because of the Iraq war. He was anti it. and he doesnt deserve to lose because of a potential falmer-f*** up. he was pro it.

plus he's a really nice guy

des turner=bit of a twat really.lol

 

[PaoloRossiJohnson]

It's interesting how Blair is only ever judged on one subject - Iraq and its consequences.

Although it's very difficult to do so, if one took that particular subject out of the equation, how would he measure up against, say, Thatcher or Major (the only other two PMs in this generation) or Michael Howard (the only other contender) on domestic, social, economic, European or international (except Iraq) policies and issues...?

Exactly.

 

[PaoloRossiJohnson]

I can remember Callaghan, Wilson and Heath. What generation?

A 'generation' is usually taken to mean 25 years.

25 years ago = 1980 = one year after The Greengrocer's Daughter came to power...

OK, you could stretch a 'generation' (in the context of TLO's post on page 1 of this thread) to include the latter years of Jimbo, but defny not Wilson & Heath.

Sorry...

 

[GNF on Tour]

It's interesting how Blair is only ever judged on one subject - Iraq and its consequences.

Although it's very difficult to do so, if one took that particular subject out of the equation, how would he measure up against, say, Thatcher or Major (the only other two PMs in this generation) or Michael Howard (the only other contender) on domestic, social, economic, European or international (except Iraq) policies and issues...?

Could not agree more. Iraq may or may not have been a mistake but judge the Labour party on everything, not just one issue (and if we had not gone in then Saddam would still be murdering Marsh Arabs and Kurds, but that seems ok with some people!!)

What about:

Min Wage
Social Justice
Kyoto
etc
etc
etc

Some people have short memories. Twenty years ago I was crying watching the Nine O'Clock News as those bastard coppers led by Thatcher were beating the shit out the miners and in doing so dividing our country to a degree that still has not been healed. Howard was part of that. If you want a return to a fat cat culture where we arogantly piss on our neighbours then fine, vote Tory.

 

[Pavilionaire]

I am a Lib Dem voter and will be voting for them again, even though I am extremely pissed off with Baker (and Bellotti before him). These individuals are not, IMHO, typical or representative of mainstream Liberal views and policies and, besides, every party has their cretins.

I expect the Tories will gain 15-odd seats, Lib Dems up 5, Labour down 20. That's if the Tories are lucky.

I'd also encourage everyone to vote, even if it is to vote for the least worst option, or to write 'Baker is a c u n t' on your ballot paper.

 

[bigc]

I like Pavilionaire's attitude.

just vote people! Its not that much trouble

cos if you dont they will just spend more taxpayers money trying to figure out why you dont, so if you do, it saves you money!

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

Get real.The war was solely about future use of fossil fuels.
Thatcher closed down nearly all of the mines and North Sea Oil and Gas reserves are now runing out.

No. We have discussed this many times. Saddam was a bad man. And he hid lots of nasty weapons that he could use at any time against us.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Could not agree more. Iraq may or may not have been a mistake but judge the Labour party on everything, not just one issue (and if we had not gone in then Saddam would still be murdering Marsh Arabs and Kurds, but that seems ok with some people!!)

What about:

Min Wage
Social Justice
Kyoto
etc
etc
etc

Agree with the second part of your post. Under any other circumstances, voting Labour would be a no-brainer. However, The Labour Party has completely failed to bring B.Liar to account for misleading (for 'misleading' read 'lying to') parliament and the British people over Iraq. As a result, a large number of British servicemen lost their lives, as did many thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians. Of course, many Iraqis would have had a grim time under Saddam, but since when was it Britain's job to help bring about regime change by launching an illegal invasion of a sovereign state? Especially at the request of a dodgy right-wing U.S. administration? This isn't going to go away. The only way the Labour Party can bring about closure over Iraq is by giving us B.Liar's head on a pole. Until then they will be counting the cost in millions of lost votes.