NationStates Jolt Archive

But with few friends left. Sure, he made history with a third term for Labor, and is well on his way to serving about as long as Maggie Thatcher did. Yet he will have trouble. Labor's margin in parliament is slim, and some Labor MPs even hate him. There are mass defections to the Liberal Democrats. And, of course, there are the Conservatives with a decent amount of seats. It will be a fun four years.

Hey, Bush won too btw.

British politics confuzle me - consdiering that even some of the most conservative parties are socialist

WHOA!
Breaking News!

British politics confuzle me - consdiering that even some of the most conservative parties are socialist
I supported Charles Kennedy, but I know I can't apply my politics without modifications.

Glad to see Blair won again. At least some people are right minded in the UK.

Glad to see Blair won again. At least some people are right minded in the UK.

Was that sarcasm? I don't see how you could base sanity on how people vote in an election, unless they vote for someone who threatens to kill everyone, or something like that.

Being a non-brit, i just have to ask something that's been bugging me as i read about the elections:

what does MP stand for?

last i checked, it was Medical Practitioner, but i'm pretty certain that the whole country is not run by doctors...

...i think...

Being a non-brit, i just have to ask something that's been bugging me as i read about the elections:

what does MP stand for?


Member of Parliament.

Was that sarcasm? I don't see how you could base sanity on how people vote in an election, unless they vote for someone who threatens to kill everyone, or something like that.


Absolutely that was not sarcasm. Your not in the majority i take it. Sorry but anyone that wants to kill his enemies before they kill him is right in my book.

BTW

This board is not full of leftist as some may think. There are conservatives and right minded people that populate nationstates.

Member of Parliament.


ah, that clears things up a bit.

I was pulling for the Tories.

British Blair=American Bush

Both are bad. Both get support they shouldn't.

And Bush approval ratings have reached 50% this week...Or as a school teacher would say, and F

I'd like to congratulate my British friends on choosing a solid candidate. I didn't take a stand, chiefly because I didn't feel informed enough. I didn't mind Howard or Blair, not really picking between the two. I wasn't all that cool with the LibDem candidate, and I think that some of your other parties are actually quite amusing.

For me, it was more a case of Blair lost, while the Labour party won.

Both of which I'm perfectly happy with.

Meh. None of the British candidates really appeal to me. Blair's foreign policy is great, but his economic policy is far too socialist. And the Tories just...can't seem to get it. They can't seem to find what they stand for anymore.

This board is not full of leftist as some may think. There are conservatives and right minded people that populate nationstates.

I dunno, while there are some righties I think a vast majority on these boards are lefties...

British Blair=American Bush

Both are bad. Both get support they shouldn't.
That's a very ignorant statement. At least for Tony Blair. He's done a great job as Prime Minister for a long time now, and yes he brought Britain into the Iraq War where they represent a small percentage of the occupying force, but what about the issues he addresses and the things that he does for Britain on the whole?
Bush, personally, shouldn't have been elected, and I think we're going to see that in the future. Blair, on the other hand, has good reasons to be elected.

I dunno, while there are some righties I think a vast majority on these boards are lefties...

You're quite correct.

I find it funny that Marrakech thinks only the Conservatives are right-minded. Though, he's a rather silly person to begin with.

Absolutely that was not sarcasm. Your not in the majority i take it. Sorry but anyone that wants to kill his enemies before they kill him is right in my book.

BTW

This board is not full of leftist as some may think. There are conservatives and right minded people that populate nationstates.
I believe the issue here was your use of the term "right-minded," which is generally accepted to mean that you are sane or not part of some particularly obscure and anti-social ideological group. A more suitable expression would have probably been "right-leaning," unless it actually was your intention to claim that all those who aren't conservative are obviously not right in the head, which would be grossly ignorant, being as both sides of the traditional political spectrum have their strong points and to claim ones mastery over another without support would be negligent. But I'm assuming that it was just a misinterpretation.

Hey, Bush won too btw.
And Howard (Australian PM) won a month before Bush...Seems we got the Warmongerer Trifecta. How I long for the Iraq schemozzle to be over. Apart from all the death and killing and greed for oil, at least then when we have elections there'll be better odds for wagering on the result.

And Howard (Australian PM) won a month before Bush...Seems we got the Warmongerer Trifecta. How I long for the Iraq schemozzle to be over. Apart from all the death and killing and greed for oil, at least then when we have elections there'll be better odds for wagering on the result.

Could you imagine if Blair lost and we had two Prime Minister Howards? :eek:

I believe the issue here was your use of the term "right-minded," which is generally accepted to mean that you are sane or not part of some particularly obscure and anti-social ideological group...But I'm assuming that it was just a misinterpretation.

I don't think anyone misinterpreted what was said here, we all know he means right winged politics rather than craziness...

I don't think anyone misinterpreted what was said here, we all know he means right winged politics rather than craziness...
I was referring to the original discussion:
Was that sarcasm? I don't see how you could base sanity on how people vote in an election, unless they vote for someone who threatens to kill everyone, or something like that.
Which seemed to imply to me a misterpretation of what was originally being said, so I was commenting on how Marrakech might have better stated his intentions, unless that post was sarcasm and I just didn't catch it?

I was referring to the original discussion:

Which seemed to imply to me a misterpretation of what was originally being said, so I was commenting on how Marrakech might have better stated his intentions, unless that post was sarcasm and I just didn't catch it?

My bad!

My bad!
No problem, reading back I realised that you guys had already sort of gone over that, so it's more my fault for posting so late in the game.

As for the elections, I think I agree with Mukashu. Although I don't know all that much about British politics, I've heard good things about Labour in the past, and I think the declining support due to disagreements over Blair's policies will probably send a message to the party about which direction to not be going in. Or maybe not, like I said I don't know much about their system.

No real surprise, Blair won with a handy (but smaller) majority, last I heard it was gonna be 60 seats. As a surprise, voter turnout apparently reversed it's downward slide, although not by much.

BLAIR WON! Third Term for the Labor Party... But less of the majority. Which means, his people want him to prove his worth!

Meh. None of the British candidates really appeal to me. Blair's foreign policy is great, but his economic policy is far too socialist. And the Tories just...can't seem to get it. They can't seem to find what they stand for anymore.

they need to review what the American Republicans have accomplished ... then they too can dominate their government with unending will

hee, it's quite interesting seeing that the Americans by default support the most right wing candidates... not unexpected, but interesting. You are aware that the British public wouldn't stand for an American style right wing government, and I've yet to meet a British person who would support the destruction of most of the left-wing institutions, like the NHS. Even Magaret Thatcher didn't dare privatise it, just introduce more capitalist methods.(interestingly enough, when those methods were applied EVERYONE hated them and labour done well by promising to reverse them :D )

I'm, glad to see the lib-dems, the most socialist part in Britain making solid gains, and labour, who seemed to turn into tory-lite (something which in general I would actually support, but they have a strange skew on it), losing a lot of ground. Conservatives gained as well, mind, I think the main party gains in this election are down to dis-satisfaction in the labour party, more than actual policies, to be honest.

Remember though, that Blair has already said that he is not going to fight another election, and it's almost a foregone conclusion that Brown, who is more "old labour" than Blair, will take up position as PM. A lot of people will have voted Brown, rather than Blair.

Could you imagine if Blair lost and we had two Prime Minister Howards? :eek:
Uber confusing! And both racist, I hear. Must be a theme.

I voted for Moster Raving Looney.

Personally, I could have cared less. Blair was a pivotal ally to the US, but guys like him are easy to find. His policies are far too socialist. The Tories may have been better, but they have too little cohesion to make a difference.
And of course, the Lib Dems are appaling. Then again, they seem to be a silent majority. I hope Britain has fun with them, as the Lib Dems will take Britain to hell on a fast car.

Originally Posted by UberPenguinLand
Was that sarcasm? I don't see how you could base sanity on how people vote in an election, unless they vote for someone who threatens to kill everyone, or something like that.

In that case, I'd like to declare anyone who voted UKIP or BNP insane.

I voted Lib Dem!
It was a shame to see the Tories gain so many seats though, I was secretly hoping for the Lib Dems to become the new opposition, and see the Tories consigned to the dustbin of history where they belong...

Still, it's all more evenly-matched now, Tony will have to watch his back all the more now, especially with his greatly-reduced majority. We could see that hip young gunslinger under greater control yet!

I would have liked Lib-Dem in even though I knew they didn't have much chance. At least they gained some seats, the Tories aren't in and Labour have a smaller majority and therefore it should be a bit more evenly matched in Parliament.

Not that it matters that much because all the parties are basically blurring into one big central mishmash with no real left or right wing views.

Personally, I could have cared less. Blair was a pivotal ally to the US, but guys like him are easy to find. His policies are far too socialist. The Tories may have been better, but they have too little cohesion to make a difference.
And of course, the Lib Dems are appaling. Then again, they seem to be a silent majority. I hope Britain has fun with them, as the Lib Dems will take Britain to hell on a fast car.

Speaking as a Brit, I can tell you now, with no equivocation, that the Tories would savage the country rotten! Remember Thatcher? Remember how she basically destroyed UK industry, seriously crippling the economy and wiping out a generation in Northern Britain? This has had grave repercussions, mainly in the fact that now the rest of the UK's economy is totally dependent on London, and its financial district. Were industry still safe, other cities would have more power, more say, more freedom...

Which is basically how Maggie wanted it, one could say...

No, the Liberal Democrats have the only policies and reasonable stances that would lift the UK to a real world importance, a focus on education and welfare that would put the (supposedly worker-based) Labour party to shame!

British politics confuzle me - consdiering that even some of the most conservative parties are socialist
Meh. We have no socialists of note in Britain.

Speaking as a Brit, I can tell you now, with no equivocation, that the Tories would savage the country rotten! Remember Thatcher? Remember how she basically destroyed UK industry, seriously crippling the economy and wiping out a generation in Northern Britain? This has had grave repercussions, mainly in the fact that now the rest of the UK's economy is totally dependent on London, and its financial district. Were industry still safe, other cities would have more power, more say, more freedom...

Which is basically how Maggie wanted it, one could say...

No, the Liberal Democrats have the only policies and reasonable stances that would lift the UK to a real world importance, a focus on education and welfare that would put the (supposedly worker-based) Labour party to shame!
Maggie Thatcher was great for the UK. She did not save the UK from financial collapse, but she removed many economic barriers that would've made it collapse. She revitalized the economy, slashed taxes, and spurred its natural economic evolution into a post industrial economy. She also got the nation back on the world stage, where it went missing from since the Suez Crisis.

Meh. We have no socialists of note in Britain.
Not die hard socialists, no. But there are several in British politics that want to retake many sectors of the economy.

In that case, I'd like to declare anyone who voted UKIP or BNP insane.

Sounds about right to me ;)

I don't mind Tony Blaire leading Britan. Hell, I'd rather be under him than our inbred oiler for a prez.

Well, I'm proud to say that I used my first vote to vote Conservative. Our guy lost by about 10,000 votes though. Darned working class areas of town!

Why can't Americans spell 'Labour'... You're talking politics here, not what the party originally believed in yadda yadda yadda. It's a name, with a capital letter. 'Labor'. WTF is that? Sorry for pedantics - I just dislike American spelling. It's so shit poor. =D

Maggie Thatcher was great for the UK. She did not save the UK from financial collapse, but she removed many economic barriers that would've made it collapse. She revitalized the economy, slashed taxes, and spurred its natural economic evolution into a post industrial economy. She also got the nation back on the world stage, where it went missing from since the Suez Crisis.

And also screwed up the NHS, housing and the public's view of the police resulting in more crime. Yay Thatcher :rolleyes:

Maggie Thatcher was great for the UK. She did not save the UK from financial collapse, but she removed many economic barriers that would've made it collapse. She revitalized the economy, slashed taxes, and spurred its natural economic evolution into a post industrial economy. She also got the nation back on the world stage, where it went missing from since the Suez Crisis.


Actually I think you'll find that a lot of people in the UK would say that Maggie Thatcher was bad for individuals in terms of economy, because she sent unemployment sky-rocketing. In this country, slashing taxes isn't always considered a good thing. I find it very interesting that all the Americans here find Blair too 'socialist', when over here he is slated for taking the Labour party too far right. Many people in this country are angry that there is no real left-wing alternative left, even the Lib-Dems are still reasonably centralist in terms of our spectrum. Going back to your earlier post, I don't think all politicians would be a Bush lapdog as eagerly as Blair is. Charles Kennedy for one was dead set against getting us involved in an illegal war just for the sake of appeasing the biggest kid in the playground.

The Prime Minister Tony Charles Lynton Blair

Prime Minister Tony Blair [Photo: Terry O'Neill]1997 - Present

born: 6 May 1953

"Education is the best economic policy there is."

The son of a barrister and lecturer, Tony Blair was born in Edinburgh, but spent most of his childhood in Durham. At the age of 14 he returned to Edinburgh to finish his education at Fettes College. He studied law at Oxford, and went on to become a barrister himself.

After standing unsuccessfully for the Labour Party in a by-election, Blair went on to win the seat of Sedgefield in the 1983 General Election, aged 30.

Tony Blair made a speedy rise through the ranks, being promoted first to the shadow Treasury front bench in 1984. He subsequently served as a trade and industry spokesman, before being elected to the Shadow Cabinet in 1988 where he was made Shadow Secretary of State for Energy. In 1989 he moved to the employment brief.

After the 1992 election Labour's new leader, John Smith, promoted Blair to Shadow Home Secretary. It was in this post that Blair made famous his pledge that Labour would be tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime.

John Smith died suddenly and unexpectedly in 1994, and in the subsequent leadership contest Tony Blair won a large majority of his party's support.

Blair immediately launched his campaign for the modernisation of the Labour Party, determined to complete the shift further towards the political centre which he saw as essential for victory. The debate over Clause 4 of the party's constitution was considered the crucial test of whether its members would commit to Blair's project. He removed the commitment to public ownership, and at this time coined the term New Labour.

The Labour Party won the 1997 General Election by a landslide, after 18 years in Opposition. At the age of 43 , Tony Blair became the youngest Prime Minister since Lord Liverpool in 1812.

The government began to implement a far-reaching programme of constitutional change, putting the question of devolution to referendums in Scotland and Wales.

An elected post of Mayor of London was established at the head of a new capital-wide authority, and all but 92 hereditary peers were removed from the House of Lords in the first stage of its reform. The government has also implemented an investment programme of £42 billion in its priority areas of health and education.

Tony Blair was re-elected with another landslide majority in the 2001 General Election.

He is married to the barrister Cherie Booth QC, and they have four children. Their youngest, Leo, was the first child born to a serving Prime Minister in over 150 years.

Maggie Thatcher was great for the UK. She did not save the UK from financial collapse, but she removed many economic barriers that would've made it collapse. She revitalized the economy, slashed taxes, and spurred its natural economic evolution into a post industrial economy. She also got the nation back on the world stage, where it went missing from since the Suez Crisis.
Um, well. She was very good if you have a limited interest in national affairs.

Try telling the miners that she was great.

British politics confuzle me - consdiering that even some of the most conservative parties are socialist
Kind of like the Republicans. Just the American "right" is better at hiding its socialism.

Also you must understand that politics in Europe is traditionally more socialist than America.

And, of course, there are the Conservatives with a decent amount of seats. It will be a fun four years.
Not really. The Tories didn't even break the 200 mark which they were hoping for.

Being a non-brit, i just have to ask something that's been bugging me as i read about the elections:

what does MP stand for?

last i checked, it was Medical Practitioner, but i'm pretty certain that the whole country is not run by doctors...

...i think...
MP=Member of Parliament

General Doctors are usually called GP = General Practitioner

Absolutely that was not sarcasm. Your not in the majority i take it. Sorry but anyone that wants to kill his enemies before they kill him is right in my book.
That's a rather paranoid way of looking at it.

Meh. None of the British candidates really appeal to me. Blair's foreign policy is great, but his economic policy is far too socialist.
Foreign policy Neoconservatism is a natural complement to domestic Socialism.

I didn't mind Howard or Blair, not really picking between the two. I wasn't all that cool with the LibDem candidate, and I think that some of your other parties are actually quite amusing.
You're aware that Brits were electing local MPs, not the Prime Minister? It's not like the US Presidential election. The only people who elected Blair directly were the people of Sedgefield, his home constituency.

And Howard (Australian PM) won a month before Bush...Seems we got the Warmongerer Trifecta.
I prefer "Axis of Evil". :D

they need to review what the American Republicans have accomplished ... then they too can dominate their government with unending will
Agreed. Labour need to refine their propaganda machine, fear-making skills and demagogical tactics.

Blair was a pivotal ally to the US, but guys like him are easy to find. His policies are far too socialist.
Which policies do you have in mind?

Maggie Thatcher was great for the UK. She did not save the UK from financial collapse, but she removed many economic barriers that would've made it collapse. She revitalized the economy, slashed taxes, and spurred its natural economic evolution into a post industrial economy. She also got the nation back on the world stage, where it went missing from since the Suez Crisis.
Yeah, what does El Perro know about how good Thatcher was for Britain? It's not as if he lives there or anything. Oh wait...

The Falklands war was mainly a tool used by Thatcher to advance her own career. It's quite possible that the Conservtaives would have lost the 1983 election without that war. I suppose the lives of hundreds of British Navy sailors was worth Maggie's oh-so-important agenda, right?

Speaking as an American, I am disappointed in finding that the UK re-elected someone as cooperative with Bush as Blair.

Frankly, I am not so familiar with the domestic policy issues of the UK, but what I have heard makes me slightly puzzled at the naming conventions of the UK parties. "Labour" does not seem sufficiently communistic for my liking, and "Liberal" seems perhaps not liberal enough in general.

Or am I misreading them? Please, enlighten me.

Frankly, I am not so familiar with the domestic policy issues of the UK, but what I have heard makes me slightly puzzled at the naming conventions of the UK parties. "Labour" does not seem sufficiently communistic for my liking, and "Liberal" seems perhaps not liberal enough in general.

Or am I misreading them? Please, enlighten me.

Their names mean very little. Labour were originally for helping the working class and wealth distribution etc. Not anymore. Now they're 'New Labour' which basically means they're just the same as the Tories. They're supposed to be left wing but when they did suggest true left wing ideas they got rejected and have been growing more and more right wing since.

The Liberal party isn't really that liberal compared to the rest either, just kind of liberal on personal issues.

Like I said earlier in the thread they're basically all blurred into some central mishmash with no real left or right wing views. They all stand for basically exactly the same things with just slightly different ideas on some things. There was actually a programme which read out the aims of the three main parties and asked people to try and figure out which party it was. No-one could really tell them apart and got them wrong most of the time.

No, the Liberal Democrats have the only policies and reasonable stances that would lift the UK to a real world importance, a focus on education and welfare that would put the (supposedly worker-based) Labour party to shame!


Hopefully, it shouldn't be too much longer before the Lib Dems actually stand a chance of becoming the main oppposition, or even the government.

With the highest overall share of the vote, and their highest number of seats since the 1920s, people might begin to take them seriously.

Hopefully, it shouldn't be too much longer before the Lib Dems actually stand a chance of becoming the main oppposition, or even the government.

I heard a figure quoted the other day that said 40% of people would vote Lib Dem if they thought they had a chance of winning. A figure like that, even if the % was an exaggeration, must be very frustrating for Charles Kennedy!

I voted Labour this time around because, while I don't really like Tony Blair, I dislike Michael Howard for all his negative campaigning... and yes I have to confess, I too did not vote Lib Dem because I didn't think they had a chance.

Next time, who knows - second place certainly wouldn't be unthinkable for them.

Kind of like the Republicans. Just the American "right" is better at hiding its socialism.

Also you must understand that politics in Europe is traditionally more socialist than America.


Not really. The Tories didn't even break the 200 mark which they were hoping for.


MP=Member of Parliament

General Doctors are usually called GP = General Practitioner


That's a rather paranoid way of looking at it.


Foreign policy Neoconservatism is a natural complement to domestic Socialism.


You're aware that Brits were electing local MPs, not the Prime Minister? It's not like the US Presidential election. The only people who elected Blair directly were the people of Sedgefield, his home constituency.


I prefer "Axis of Evil". :D


Agreed. Labour need to refine their propaganda machine, fear-making skills and demagogical tactics.


Which policies do you have in mind?


Yeah, what does El Perro know about how good Thatcher was for Britain? It's not as if he lives there or anything. Oh wait...

The Falklands war was mainly a tool used by Thatcher to advance her own career. It's quite possible that the Conservtaives would have lost the 1983 election without that war. I suppose the lives of hundreds of British Navy sailors was worth Maggie's oh-so-important agenda, right?

I wonder if the people of the Falkland Islands would agree with your assessment-remember who was running Argentina at the time? Remember that those Islanders are British Subjects???

Thatcher would have been derelict in her duty to let BRITISH SUBJECTS become the playthings of a brutal military dictator named Augusto Pinochet!
(or maybe you don't give a rats-ass about those of your countrymen who happen to not live in your particular corner of Great Britain, eh?)

Labor's margin in parliament is slim
Interesting to see how many people think a majority of 67 in a British Parliament is 'slim'. It is not a hung parliament, nor is it even close to a hung parliament. There were times not aeons ago where a majority of 20-30 was considered large enough. 67 is a huge majority, it's just being outshone by the previous majority of 161 - which was sodding huge, having been the secondary result of the 1997 landslide victory.

Also, the majority of 67 is a majority over all the other MPs combined. There is little doubt that, when considering the similarities between Lib Dem and Labour on many voting issues (at least compared to lib dem and tory similarities), the actual majority in parliament over real issues will be much greater.

<snip>Very true, but to be fair I think people are talking in context. 67 is a big majority when you look at it in itself, but it's - what? 93 or something? - less than Blair had, so it can be considered a small majority in comparison.

Very true, but to be fair I think people are talking in context. 67 is a big majority when you look at it in itself, but it's - what? 93 or something? - less than Blair had, so it can be considered a small majority in comparison.

the important point is not the size of majority but the number of hard lefties in the labour party. If they number more than 33, then they can block any of Tony's legislation. Don't forget the massive back bench rebellions over tuition fees, amongst other things.

Where do I start?

We were indeed right to go into Iraq, Saddam Hussein was a tyrannical despot in serial breach of UN resolutions on a variety of issues and the UN are now too ineffective with idle promises. However, I would like to point out that Labour were not the only party supporting the war in Iraq. The Conservatives also did. The problem is that Tony Blair, no matter what he says, misled the public, directly or indirectly, over the reasons for war in Iraq. He was not upfront. The Conservatives would not have mucked about with the pretence of WMDs so much.

Labour have FAILED spectacularly to live up to the promises of their last manifestos. Crime (especially that of a violent nature) is up, NHS waiting lists are up, taxes are up, MRSA is up, uncontrolled and unfair immigration is up (genuine refugees being beaten in by economic migrants). The economy is strong, I'll give Gordon Brown that. How can we trust a party that promised no top up fees and no tax rises after the introduction of top up fees and 66 stealth tax rises? The Labour government is dishonest and fails to deliver.

The Liberal Democrats had some very good policies on tax and welfare. They even had an honest candidate in Charles Kennedy who seemed genuinely to be a nice guy. The problem with the Lib Dems is their EU policies. They intended to sign us up to the EU Constitution, handing over loads of powers over our nation to the EU, to undemocratic bureaucrats in Brussels. Surely the first step towards a federated Europe- NIGHTMARE! They would have us join the Euro for christs sake! The pound is currently one of the strongest currencies in the world and joining a European nation would be dreadful for our strong economy. They also intended to deplete an already thinned military which cannot afford to have any more defence cuts. It is spread too thin. The Lib Dems would cut the last tranche of the Eurofighter, scrap 6 warships and get rid of 4 regiments. The military could not take these cuts in the dangerous world we live in.

As for these negative policy criticisms... that is how the system works! The Conservatives identify the problems in the country that Labour have created and set about to solve them, by having 5000 more policemen starting training within the first few months and 40,000 extra overall. They would streamline the bloated bureaucracy that Labour created, making public services more efficient with the money going to the frontline- nurses, doctors and teachers. This would mean that tax rises would be minimised saving the taxpayer billions over Labour's plan. The Conservatives stood for accountability with a clear timetable for action saying when things would be done with targets in terms of days, weeks and months and a promise that ministers who failed to deliver would be replaced. They were going to give power back to headteachers to address frankly shocking disruption in schools. They would put into place an immigration system like Australia's with a quota that allows more political refugees in than before over purely economic migrants. The economic migrants would be given precedence if they could fill a position in our shockingly bad trade gap. Just remember, the countries these people are leaving need these skilled people. By letting them all in we are taking skilled people from worse off (at times) nations. The system means that we will have more control to prevent the flood of illegal immigrants sneaking in. The famous liberal Rawls once said that a country could not continue to sustain an infinite intake of migrants (or something to that effect).

The point is that apathy and ignorance in this country has led to Mr Blair being elected again. He could say he was a granny mugging paedophile and still get elected. The media has once again misportrayed people especially the Conservatives.

I close on the fact that this Conservative party is NOT the same as Maggie Thacher's. That started about 25 years ago and ended about 12 years ago. PEOPLE CHANGE. The Conservatives have learnt from their mistakes and based their re-examined policies on public concerns. Thanks to the biased BBC (and others) the Conservatives have been shafted again.

I heard a figure quoted the other day that said 40% of people would vote Lib Dem if they thought they had a chance of winning. A figure like that, even if the % was an exaggeration, must be very frustrating for Charles Kennedy!

I voted Labour this time around because, while I don't really like Tony Blair, I dislike Michael Howard for all his negative campaigning... and yes I have to confess, I too did not vote Lib Dem because I didn't think they had a chance.

Next time, who knows - second place certainly wouldn't be unthinkable for them.

Does this mean we get to divide the UK up into red & blue & yellow boroughs/counties/districts too? ;)

(I can see the next thread: will there be a Civil War in the UK?) :D

Labour have FAILED spectacularly to live up to the promises of their last manifestos. Crime (especially that of a violent nature) is up, NHS waiting lists are up, taxes are up, MRSA is up, uncontrolled and unfair immigration is up (genuine refugees being beaten in by economic migrants). The economy is strong, I'll give Gordon Brown that. How can we trust a party that promised no top up fees and no tax rises after the introduction of top up fees and 66 stealth tax rises? The Labour government is dishonest and fails to deliver.

The Liberal Democrats had some very good policies on tax and welfare. They even had an honest candidate in Charles Kennedy who seemed genuinely to be a nice guy. The problem with the Lib Dems is their EU policies. They intended to sign us up to the EU Constitution, handing over loads of powers over our nation to the EU, to undemocratic bureaucrats in Brussels. Surely the first step towards a federated Europe- NIGHTMARE! They would have us join the Euro for christs sake! The pound is currently one of the strongest currencies in the world and joining a European nation would be dreadful for our strong economy. They also intended to deplete an already thinned military which cannot afford to have any more defence cuts. It is spread too thin. The Lib Dems would cut the last tranche of the Eurofighter, scrap 6 warships and get rid of 4 regiments. The military could not take these cuts in the dangerous world we live in.

As for these negative policy criticisms... that is how the system works! The Conservatives identify the problems in the country that Labour have created and set about to solve them, by having 5000 more policemen starting training within the first few months and 40,000 extra overall. They would streamline the bloated bureaucracy that Labour created, making public services more efficient with the money going to the frontline- nurses, doctors and teachers. This would mean that tax rises would be minimised saving the taxpayer billions over Labour's plan. The Conservatives stood for accountability with a clear timetable for action saying when things would be done with targets in terms of days, weeks and months and a promise that ministers who failed to deliver would be replaced. They were going to give power back to headteachers to address frankly shocking disruption in schools. They would put into place an immigration system like Australia's with a quota that allows more political refugees in than before over purely economic migrants. The economic migrants would be given precedence if they could fill a position in our shockingly bad trade gap. Just remember, the countries these people are leaving need these skilled people. By letting them all in we are taking skilled people from worse off (at times) nations. The system means that we will have more control to prevent the flood of illegal immigrants sneaking in. The famous liberal Rawls once said that a country could not continue to sustain an infinite intake of migrants (or something to that effect).

The point is that apathy and ignorance in this country has led to Mr Blair being elected again. He could say he was a granny mugging paedophile and still get elected. The media has once again misportrayed people especially the Conservatives.

I close on the fact that this Conservative party is NOT the same as Maggie Thacher's. That started about 25 years ago and ended about 12 years ago. PEOPLE CHANGE. The Conservatives have learnt from their mistakes and based their re-examined policies on public concerns. Thanks to the biased BBC (and others) the Conservatives have been shafted again.

I'm not a Labour supporter, but:

-Crime is down overall. Not even the Tories claim that anything other than violent crime is up, and that figure is disputed, because the British Crime Survey said violent crime was down. It may just be that more incidents are being reported.

-NHS waiting lists are down. Not even the Tories contest that.

-What is 'unfair immigration?' Asylum claims are down, but as they are in no way linked to economic immigration (there being no quotas), I find it hard to accept your claim that genuine asylum seekers are being elbowed out by 'unfair immigration,' whatever that is.

-Also, the Labour Party never promised not to raise taxes, only income tax. Disingenuous, you might say, but they didn't actually lie. If they'd meant that they wouldn't raise taxes at all they would have said it.

-'The economic migrants would be given precedence if they could fill a position in our shockingly bad trade gap' - I don't actually know what this means. Do you know what a trade gap is?



Anyway, the reason that Labour isn't socialist anymore is because everyone can now see that socialism was dragging this country down into a deep hole, and that Thatcherite economics pulled us out of it. The Labour party had to accept that fact and live with it. The question was then how to run a country in a way that benefitted the ordinary people if socialism didn't work. New Labour was the answer, or more precisely the Third Way was the answer, as New Labour was just a branding exercise to clean the party of it's crusty-brown Michael Foot associations. The idea of the Third Way was to harness the free market and find a balance whereby the economy could flourish and the benefits of that would genuinely benefit everyone, rather than remaining concentrated in the hands of a few, as they had under Thatcher.

In many ways this has worked quite well. Although it would appear at a glance that wealth has not really been better concentrated with the working class, the increased spending in health and education is effectively redistributive, and this makes up the real legacy of the New labour project. While they have improved the lives of ordinary people they have also managed to produce an economy with the same rate of growth in terms of GDP per capita as the USA, a supposedly more entrepreneurial economy.

The Falklands war was mainly a tool used by Thatcher to advance her own career. It's quite possible that the Conservtaives would have lost the 1983 election without that war. I suppose the lives of hundreds of British Navy sailors was worth Maggie's oh-so-important agenda, right?

Seeing as the Falklands want to be part of Britain just like Gibraltar, if it gets invaded by a military dictatorship (as i believe Argentina was at the time) then you have to defend it. Are you suggesting that we just let people on the falklands be ruled by argentina because we weren't a dictatorship or it's not part of mainland britain? Lets have the Isle of Wight invaded then.

I don't see how any one can be happy with the present Labour government when in the past they have completely over ruled democracy in order to introduce new acts as and when they please. For instance the Hunting Act was pushed through again and again until the commons could eventually bypass the lords, despite a 59% majority of the public saying that they were in favour of it. The war in Iraq was just another chapter in their government that showed complete ignorance to public opinion. Blair only uses referendums when he knows he will win. And to add insult to injury, he's now being asked to step down by his own party, which mean that the people will get a completely different government from the one that they voted for- especially if Brown gets the job. However, i agree that none of the other parties really had the 'real alternative', as a conservative supporter i was embarassed at how immature and puerile the conservatives negative campaign became, and i think that Howard stepping down is the right thing to do - we need a strong candidate though if Conservatives are ever going to recover from the last eight years.

Well it's pretty clear now that these boards can't be accused of being overly leftitst!

There are quite a few posters on this topic who seem to be under the misapprehension that Tony Blair is the leader of a left wing party. They have dropped the "New" from their name since 1997 - they would have been better to have dropped the "Labour". None of the main parties in the UK, including the Lib Dems, can be called socialist at all. It's been said that they are all the same, and they are in most important respects. If you want to vote for something different, then you have officially "wasted" your vote because we don't have proportional representation. We have the gloriously undemocratic First Past the Post electoral system instead.

The public services have suffered majorly, instead of tax and spend (our taxes actually going towards hospitals, schools, etc) the government is privatising and letting the company that promises to use the least amount of money do the job. The company that is the lowest bidder also needs to make a profit, so corners are cut ruthlessly, and the actual quality of the service falls terribly.

The British rail network is an example of a service that is completely ill-suited to privatisation. Since it was contracted out to private companies, both the safety record and the problems with delays and cancellations have been far worse. It's not an area in which you can really make an argument for "choice" either, only one train can run on one line at a time. You just cannot have the choice of a Virgin train or a First train or a GNER train on each journey, there would then need to be triple the amount of train track throughout the nation, at the very least, and this would cause severe problems as well as just being unnecessary. The train tracks are now owned by different companies than those that own the trains, surely a recipe for disaster if for whatever reason the two companies have bad relations and can't co-operate well. The whole thing is a shambles, started by the Conservatives and continued by New Labour, with their equal love of Thatcherite privatisation.

The NHS is another great example, and most people don't realise it, but PFI schemes already have been introduced in British hospitals. Again, we are talking about an avenue in which choice is simply not an issue for most people. If something goes wrong health-wise, you want to get to the nearest hospital as soon as possible where you expect to have good treatment from good doctors. It is severely unfair for this to be dependent upon how wealthy someone is, and that's why the NHS was created. But parts of the NHS are being bought up by the private sector - the government have sold hospital buildings and schools to private companies, who then maintain said buildings at the lowest costs possible for sometime, but at the end of an agreed number of years they are perfectly entitled to raze the place to the ground if it's not profitable.

There is a reason why we have a public sector. The money from the government should go directly towards creating and maintaining things like schools and hospitals, not into the hands of companies who are only interested in how much of a cut they can take for themselves as profit. Also the government can be held accountable in ways that companies cannot. The manager of the First transport company isn't democratically elected, after all, and has no responsibility despite the huge amount of power he has.

What is the use of having a democratic government if it sells off all of its power to undemocratic bodies?


Sorry if this is long and rambling, but a lot of people seem to think that nationalisation of ANYTHING is inherently a bad thing and don't realise that there is an argument in favour of having a public sector at all!

I agree with you, since the railways were privatised the govenment has still poured vast amounts of money into the system because the private companies that own it say they need subsidies to run a public service.

I'm glad the labour party got such a kicking. With such a large majority before, the govenment was inherrently unstable and off balance, strongly tipping towards Blair. Now he has less of a majority there should at least be less of a chance he can push anything through pretty much by himself.

I congratulate Tony Blair for his third term as prime minister of the UK.
I hope that his premiership may last long. He is a great statesman and very charismatic figure. I think people are only going to realize that when he steps down (in 2008 or so).

I hope that his premiership may last long. He is a great statesman and very charismatic figure. I think people are only going to realize that when he steps down (in 2008 or so).

I reckon Tony will give it a year for posterity and then be disappeared by MI5. He will then go on a murderous rampage across South America using the name "La Chupacabra". His son Leo will be at the forefront of operations, while his other kids are involved in gang warfare on the Arizona border. Cherie becomes a eunuch.

Davie Blunkett becomes a pirate and part-time F1 driver.

People said that Hitler was charismatic- it didn't mean that it was a good idea to have him in charge of a country- luckily we live in a democracy- something that tony blair needs to be reminded of, hopefully his comparitavely poor results in this last election will give him a kick in the direction of this realisation.

I get your point but I wouldn't really compare Hitler with Tony. Not much anyway. He hasn't got a moustache for a start.

I give Tony about 6 months if not sooner. Brown will be wanting to get into office as soon as possible in order to get the country to forget the war stuff and back the labour party for the next election... the longer you have Blair in power the worse the labour party looks.

No but his wife has. I think your right, it's just a bit sneaky as Brown stands a lot more to the left than Blair ever has, and despite their (many) faults, the 'new' labour government was voted in for who they were.

People said that Hitler was charismatic- it didn't mean that it was a good idea to have him in charge of a country- luckily we live in a democracy- something that tony blair needs to be reminded of, hopefully his comparitavely poor results in this last election will give him a kick in the direction of this realisation.
And who decides whether one person is charismatic? The people do that. Undoutably most people - even his critics - would admitt that Blair is a great political talent and that he has charisma. Though his reputation is damaged he managed a very good result and an historic victory.
Historic experience proves that following the opinion of the majority is not always a good idea. And it also shows that one can not trust a dictatorship. Prime minister Blair showed wisdom and courage by standing with the United States, strengthening this important "special relationship" US-UK and by building a bridge between the US and (at least some countries in) continental Europe. This is going to be the task for Blair in the coming years to strengthen the strengthen the transatlantic relationship and to keep the US and Europe together.

There are quite a few posters on this topic who seem to be under the misapprehension that Tony Blair is the leader of a left wing party. They have dropped the "New" from their name since 1997 - they would have been better to have dropped the "Labour". None of the main parties in the UK, including the Lib Dems, can be called socialist at all. It's been said that they are all the same, and they are in most important respects.

What absolute nonsense.

Let me first draw you to a quote on the back coverof the Labour Party Manifesto:

"Our vision is claer: a country mor equal in its opportunities, more secure in its communities, more confident in its future" Tony Blair.

Now compare that with this direct quote:

"Our principles haven't changed, our values haven't changed" Michael Howard

Now that seems to me and the majority of observers a stark difference if you consider traditional Tory principles and values ;)

Undoutably most people - even his critics - would admitt that Blair is a great political talent and that he has charisma. Though his reputation is damaged he managed a very good result and an historic victory.
Historic experience proves that following the opinion of the majority is not always a good idea. And it also shows that one can not trust a dictatorship. Prime minister Blair showed wisdom and courage by standing with the United States, strengthening this important "special relationship" US-UK and by building a bridge between the US and (at least some countries in) continental Europe. This is going to be the task for Blair in the coming years to strengthen the strengthen the transatlantic relationship and to keep the US and Europe together.


What are you saying? First you say that it was an historic victory, than you say that you can't trust the opinion of the majority (the majority that just voted him in presumably), then are you calling him a dictator? Make sense please.

I used to think the was was necessary but I think I've changed my mind, even if the new Iraq government is elected it's simply antagonised terrorists and made the country distrust the govenment. It's also strained relations between the E.U. and the U.S.A and got a whole load of people killed into the bargain....

Blair?.... - Blurgh!

People said that Hitler was charismatic- it didn't mean that it was a good idea to have him in charge of a country- luckily we live in a democracy- something that tony blair needs to be reminded of, hopefully his comparitavely poor results in this last election will give him a kick in the direction of this realisation.

Hitler was indeed charmismatic, and the people of Germany elected him for several good reasons: he looked towards the future looking at the failings of the past. Exactley what the UK did on Thursday.

I don't call a 67 seat majority "poor results" considering there have been instances in the past such as February 1974 where Wilson won the election with a minority government, with a majority of -33. Sounds weird, but compared to this government Thursday's eresult was a landslide.

And who decides whether one person is charismatic? The people do that. Undoutably most people - even his critics - would admitt that Blair is a great political talent and that he has charisma. Though his reputation is damaged he managed a very good result and an historic victory.
Historic experience proves that following the opinion of the majority is not always a good idea. And it also shows that one can not trust a dictatorship. Prime minister Blair showed wisdom and courage by standing with the United States, strengthening this important "special relationship" US-UK and by building a bridge between the US and (at least some countries in) continental Europe. This is going to be the task for Blair in the coming years to strengthen the strengthen the transatlantic relationship and to keep the US and Europe together.
I honestly don't see any charisma in the man-him and his hideous smile make me nauseous. Blair invaded Iraq in the name of democracy, and, in doing so turned his back on democracy in his own country. Blair is nothing more than Bush's lapdog, our army and resources have been used, and our fragile links with the rest of Eurpoe damaged further.

I don't call a 67 seat majority "poor results" considering there have been instances in the past such as February 1974 where Wilson won the election with a minority government, with a majority of -33. Sounds weird, but compared to this government Thursday's eresult was a landslide.


I think he lost a large number of seats though right.... somewhere near eighty wasn't it, and depending on whether the backbenchers are pro-Blair or not will be the real test of the majority. I think many of the labour backbenchers are disillusioned with him, and, without the large number of supporters he drew on form his large majority before this election, he won't be able to pretend that everyone supports him.

*edited for quote.

What absolute nonsense.

Let me first draw you to a quote on the back coverof the Labour Party Manifesto:

"Our vision is claer: a country mor equal in its opportunities, more secure in its communities, more confident in its future" Tony Blair.

Now compare that with this direct quote:

"Our principles haven't changed, our values haven't changed" Michael Howard

Now that seems to me and the majority of observers a stark difference if you consider traditional Tory principles and values ;)

What people say is very different to what people actually do.

And if you asked the Tories whether they wanted equality, security and confidence I'm pretty damn sure they'd say yes. Because that's what everyone wants to hear and that's how you get votes.

There is nothing ridiculous about saying they're all the same and none are really socialist. It's true.

What are you saying? First you say that it was an historic victory, than you say that you can't trust the opinion of the majority (the majority that just voted him in presumably), then are you calling him a dictator? Make sense please.

I used to think the was was necessary but I think I've changed my mind, even if the new Iraq government is elected it's simply antagonised terrorists and made the country distrust the govenment. It's also strained relations between the E.U. and the U.S.A and got a whole load of people killed into the bargain....
!
Well: I prefer politicians who say what they do and do what they say and who are not running behind opinion polls. Blair truly did that in the Iraq crisis. He made a though decision and didn´t go the populistic way like Chirac or Schroeder.
The majority isn´t always right, neither is the minority for that matter. Therefore I think that a representative democracy to be the best political system. The representatives are given a mandate for four or five years to govern within the borders of law and then the people have to choose again. Whether the government is popular or unpopular within the term doesn´ t matter. Only this systems allows governments to take necessary decisions which are often unpopular.
In respect to the Iraq war: It revealed the problems in the relationship BETWEEN european countries more than anything else. This is an issue which needs to be adressed. But one thing was shown during this dispute. The EU can only work in cooperation with the United States. An EU which defines itself as counterbalance to it is going to fall apart.
Therefore I think the UK is in a good position also within the EU since it is the bridge to the US.

I think he lost a large number of seats though right.... somewhere near eighty wasn't it, and depending on whether the backbenchers are pro-Blair or not will be the real test of the majority. I think many of the labour backbenchers are disillusioned with him, and, without the large number of supporters he drew on form his large majority before this election, he won't be able to pretend that everyone supports him.

*edited for quote.

We lost 47 seats, which is to be virtually expected after 2 terms and the War.

What absolute nonsense.

Let me first draw you to a quote on the back coverof the Labour Party Manifesto:

"Our vision is claer: a country mor equal in its opportunities, more secure in its communities, more confident in its future" Tony Blair.

Now compare that with this direct quote:

"Our principles haven't changed, our values haven't changed" Michael Howard

Now that seems to me and the majority of observers a stark difference if you consider traditional Tory principles and values

Dosn't seem that stark to me. Howards stepped down anyway so virtually anything you say now trhat he quoted can be counted as dissmissable.

What absolute nonsense.

Let me first draw you to a quote on the back coverof the Labour Party Manifesto:

"Our vision is claer: a country mor equal in its opportunities, more secure in its communities, more confident in its future" Tony Blair.

Now compare that with this direct quote:

"Our principles haven't changed, our values haven't changed" Michael Howard

Now that seems to me and the majority of observers a stark difference if you consider traditional Tory principles and values ;)

What you have picked up on are two throwaway lines from the manifestos, these lines are fundamentally meaningless. They don't promise anything, they don't commit either party to anything. They're just there to attract the eye of the core voter for each party.

If you can show me some clearly divergent policies between the parties, that would be another story...

People should have voted for lennin...a vote for lennin is a vote for the future! give communism another try its only killed millions!

but seriously, None of our partys are very strong in my opinon. Labour has led this country to stupid things and is now the ass child of America. Tories just had a campagin of slaggin off Labour and Howard had crazy eyes! also stupid ideas. LibDems had some good points but were never going to get in! its not a surpirse that Labour won again...damn them...

Well: I prefer politicians who say what they do and do what they say and who are not running behind opinion polls. Blair truly did that in the Iraq crisis. He made a though decision and didn´t go the populistic way like Chirac or Schroeder.
The majority isn´t always right, neither is the minority for that matter. Therefore I think that a representative democracy to be the best political system. The representatives are given a mandate for four or five years to govern within the borders of law and then the people have to choose again. Whether the government is popular or unpopular within the term doesn´ t matter. Only this systems allows governments to take necessary decisions which are often unpopular.
In respect to the Iraq war: It revealed the problems in the relationship BETWEEN european countries more than anything else. This is an issue which needs to be adressed. But one thing was shown during this dispute. The EU can only work in cooperation with the United States. An EU which defines itself as counterbalance to it is going to fall apart.
Therefore I think the UK is in a good position also within the EU since it is the bridge to the US.

He didn't go the populist way because he thought he would be proved right in the end. He thought we would find WMD's and was convinced that siding with America would be best for the country as a whole. The major problem that this has caused is that it has proved that the USA can do whatever it likes, with regards to ignoring the U.N, and get away with it. I'm disapointed that we went along with them. Even though we did try to get a second resolution.

The problem with the E.U. is that no-one wants to commit to it properly because they each like there own little countries. The British, I know, are mostly against it because they don't want to lose the pound or have to eat frogs legs for breakfast or numerous other ridiculus non-auguments. We are in a unique position but it is not one which we can hold for long I think. One day we will have to commit to either the USA or the EU in a way which alienates the other...

He didn't go the populist way because he thought he would be proved right in the end. He thought we would find WMD's and was convinced that siding with America would be best for the country as a whole.
The problem with the E.U. is that no-one wants to commit to it properly because they each like there own little countries. The British, I know, are mostly against it because they don't want to lose the pound or have to eat frogs legs for breakfast or numerous other ridiculus non-auguments. We are in a unique position but it is not one which we can hold for long I think. One day we will have to commit to either the USA or the EU in a way which alienates the other...
I think that the transatlantic relationship is out of utmost importance for the future of Europe and its stability. Without the US involved it is not going to work. Therefore it is important to keep the Americans in. Britain has strengthen its relations with the US. Now it would be the task to work on relations within Europe.
I think the concern in Britain is to be ruled out of Bruxelles. An understandable concern. The european relations are a complicated affair, since they are now 25 players on the field and in 2007 27 players. It is not going to be possible to unite them. Especially because of that it is important to keep a close relationship to the US and to bind Europe and North America together. Britain has the historic task of building the new transatlantic relationship of the 21 rst century.
And with this role Britain really is in a key position.

I think that the transatlantic relationship is out of utmost importance for the future of Europe and its stability. Without the US involved it is not going to work. Therefore it is important to keep the Americans in. Britain has strengthen its relations with the US. Now it would be the task to work on relations within Europe.
I think the concern in Britain is to be ruled out of Bruxelles. An understandable concern. The european relations are a complicated affair, since they are now 25 players on the field and in 2007 27 players. It is not going to be possible to unite them. Especially because of that it is important to keep a close relationship to the US and to bind Europe and North America together. Britain has the historic task of building the new transatlantic relationship of the 21 rst century.
And with this role Britain really is in a key position.

Yes but don't you think that it is excessive that we had to strengthen ties with the US by starting a war?

Originally posted by Westmorlandia

I'm not a Labour supporter, but:

-Crime is down overall. Not even the Tories claim that anything other than violent crime is up, and that figure is disputed, because the British Crime Survey said violent crime was down. It may just be that more incidents are being reported.

-NHS waiting lists are down. Not even the Tories contest that.

-What is 'unfair immigration?' Asylum claims are down, but as they are in no way linked to economic immigration (there being no quotas), I find it hard to accept your claim that genuine asylum seekers are being elbowed out by 'unfair immigration,' whatever that is.

-Also, the Labour Party never promised not to raise taxes, only income tax. Disingenuous, you might say, but they didn't actually lie. If they'd meant that they wouldn't raise taxes at all they would have said it.

-'The economic migrants would be given precedence if they could fill a position in our shockingly bad trade gap' - I don't actually know what this means. Do you know what a trade gap is?

The British Crime Survey is an unreliable source of evidence for crime figures anyway, but even so violent crime is up and that is worrying to me. Critics have repeatedly said that it underestimates crime figures.

Michael Howard, leader of the Conservatives contested it in Parliament in his now infamous speech when he said "NHS waiting lists, UP!". The Labour figures have been criticised as misleading and if you ask many people waiting they will say the same thing. That is why the Conservatives created the policy to subsidise privatisation, but that issue is another matter.

There has often been articles in the news highlighting the number of political asylum seekers sent home. The Conservative plans were to take a fair number of political migrants, in fact an increased proportion. Whilst there are currently no limits, the standards to get in are set such that the number will be more limited. Unfortunately the system before this election favoured economic migrants.

In the Financial Times in September 1995, Tony Blair said that he was not going to raise taxes 'at all'. Before the 2001 election he promised not to raise National Insurance contributions and he did. Before each of the 1997 and 2001 elections he said he was not going to raise taxes as a whole and he did.

The trade gap means that there has been a reduction in skilled trades such as builders or plumbers. This is evident in the fact that plumbers can charge whatever they want. Short supply and high demand leads to the high costs. The reason is an increase in people going to University or wishing to choose a professional style job.

What absolute nonsense.

Let me first draw you to a quote on the back coverof the Labour Party Manifesto:

"Our vision is claer: a country mor equal in its opportunities, more secure in its communities, more confident in its future" Tony Blair.

Now compare that with this direct quote:

"Our principles haven't changed, our values haven't changed" Michael Howard

Now that seems to me and the majority of observers a stark difference if you consider traditional Tory principles and values ;)

The Troy principle is equality of opportunity whereas the traditional labour principle was equality by any means or egalitarianism.
Of course the tories want communities to be secure and the be confident in the future, what party does not? Not a stark difference at all, at least the tory party didnt need to change it's entire economic policy to get elected.

Yeah, what does El Perro know about how good Thatcher was for Britain? It's not as if he lives there or anything. Oh wait...

As a far leftist, of course he'd think that. However, I am confident that Maggie Thatcher worked miracles, just like Ronald Reagan, Helmut Kohl, and several others like them. The industrial economy was destroyed, yes. Hwoever, it was inefficient, and causing Britain to loose money and decrease their standards of living. They needed Atilla the Hen to advance the nation to its potential. It's not there even today, but it is closer.
The Falklands war was mainly a tool used by Thatcher to advance her own career. It's quite possible that the Conservtaives would have lost the 1983 election without that war. I suppose the lives of hundreds of British Navy sailors was worth Maggie's oh-so-important agenda, right?
More of a defensive tool, really. But if it did have a political purpose, it was not reelection. It was a message: don't mess with us. The invasion of Grenada that year served the same purpose, and it was no coincidence that they happened so clsoe to eachother.

As a far leftist, of course he'd think that. However, I am confident that Maggie Thatcher worked miracles, just like Ronald Reagan, Helmut Kohl, and several others like them. The industrial economy was destroyed, yes. Hwoever, it was inefficient, and causing Britain to loose money and decrease their standards of living. They needed Atilla the Hen to advance the nation to its potential. It's not there even today, but it is closer.

More of a defensive tool, really. But if it did have a political purpose, it was not reelection. It was a message: don't mess with us. The invasion of Grenada that year served the same purpose, and it was no coincidence that they happened so clsoe to eachother.


1st paragraph. People wouldn't have complained if it increased standards of living. Now Britain has no industrial base, and instead has a service industry. The service industry IS NOT long term security, precisely the opposite. The heavy and light industry sections in Britain lasted hundreds of years before they were undercut. And they were only undercut by cheap labour, people working on subsistence wages. The service industry is already collapsing and because of Thatcher, we have nothing to fall back on. Britain needs to manufacture, because countries that do not manufacture for themselves rely on others. See, I was walking to the train, and thinking about the way you argue... It always seems to be based around the statement "what is good for the economy is good for people." Which is completely wrong. The economy is around to service us, we are not around to service it. Anything that plays a part in reducing the standards of living (like thatcher shutting down the mines and not playing any part in saving Britains manufacturing industry) is by default, wrong. Sure, the economy might have been boosted (and I don't know whether it was or not, I neither have the sources nor the memory of this time), but at the cost of peoples livelihood, and a reduction of their standards of living.

2nd paragraph. meh. I don't really have any knowledge on that.

Anything that plays a part in reducing the standards of living (like thatcher shutting down the mines and not playing any part in saving Britains manufacturing industry) is by default, wrong. Sure, the economy might have been boosted (and I don't know whether it was or not, I neither have the sources nor the memory of this time), but at the cost of peoples livelihood, and a reduction of their standards of living.

Oh thats rich, shutting down the mines reduced standards of living? For the miners perhaps, but the coal industry was inefficient and costing us money, it could not compete with imports from abroad. If we ever need to start manufacturing again, for instance if we need it due to trade embargoes, we can, the only reason coal isn't mined is because it is not cost-effective. Anyway, to me, working in the service industry in a clean environment on good pay is a whole lot better than down the mines breathing in soot and coal dust and suffering because of it.

Oh thats rich, shutting down the mines reduced standards of living? For the miners perhaps, but the coal industry was inefficient and costing us money, it could not compete with imports from abroad. If we ever need to start manufacturing again, for instance if we need it due to trade embargoes, we can, the only reason coal isn't mined is because it is not cost-effective. Anyway, to me, working in the service industry in a clean environment on good pay is a whole lot better than down the mines breathing in soot and coal dust and suffering because of it.
The fact that the industry was gutted is perhaps less important than the manner in which it was gutted. Countless lives were made a misery because of the brutal and, frankly, cack-handed way the Tories went about their business.

And before we continue extolling the Thatcher government's virtues, let's not forget the unalloyed joys of negative equity, boom and bust, spiralling unemployment, etc, etc...

Unless Brown pulls of a miracle, you won't have seen anything like the bust, negative equity and unemployment that will come when the economy crashes within the next few years.

Also, the unemployment figure today does not include the 2.7 million people on incapacity benefit. That means 2.7 million people out of Britain's working population are unfit to work, seeing as our total population is about 60 million and our working one much smaller than that, thats a lot of people and i do not believe that 2.7 million people are genuinely unable to work.

Oh thats rich, shutting down the mines reduced standards of living? For the miners perhaps, but the coal industry was inefficient and costing us money, it could not compete with imports from abroad. If we ever need to start manufacturing again, for instance if we need it due to trade embargoes, we can, the only reason coal isn't mined is because it is not cost-effective. Anyway, to me, working in the service industry in a clean environment on good pay is a whole lot better than down the mines breathing in soot and coal dust and suffering because of it.

except that all the service industry is shipping out to where people will work for far less! so that cushty office job is winging its way elsewhere. Sorry.


And yes... shutting down the mines decreased the miners standard of living. Unless you want to argue that it got better once they were unemployed and all the other heavy industry businesses were leaving Britain, just as the service industry is?

1st paragraph. People wouldn't have complained if it increased standards of living. Now Britain has no industrial base, and instead has a service industry. The service industry IS NOT long term security, precisely the opposite. The heavy and light industry sections in Britain lasted hundreds of years before they were undercut. And they were only undercut by cheap labour, people working on subsistence wages. The service industry is already collapsing and because of Thatcher, we have nothing to fall back on. Britain needs to manufacture, because countries that do not manufacture for themselves rely on others. See, I was walking to the train, and thinking about the way you argue... It always seems to be based around the statement "what is good for the economy is good for people." Which is completely wrong. The economy is around to service us, we are not around to service it. Anything that plays a part in reducing the standards of living (like thatcher shutting down the mines and not playing any part in saving Britains manufacturing industry) is by default, wrong. Sure, the economy might have been boosted (and I don't know whether it was or not, I neither have the sources nor the memory of this time), but at the cost of peoples livelihood, and a reduction of their standards of living.


You guys have misplaced nostalgia. An industrial sector would be sustainable in Britian if only one thing happened: the cost of manufacturing went way, way down. Yet you guys don't want that. You just want industry, industry, industry, when it was making you guys the poorest in Europe. Sure, you may no longer be getting a paycheck from Her Majesty, but so what? Now private enterprise, and therefore individuals with freedom, can fill that economic void.
As for your fear that services aren't sustainable, just look at the US. The US was an industrial society as well, that is until the 1960s. With increasingly colledge educated people, a desire to move away from the cold industrial centers to warmer areas, and later, the oil crisis forced the shift. Thhe US is wealthier now than ever before, and the living standards are better.
As for your claim that I argue that the economy is good for society, that is only partially true. The best thing for society is not to have civil or economic oppression. The economy will grow sustainably and quickly thereafter, and it becomes a positive feedback cycle. However, I am flattered that anyone outside of my family, let alone ouutside my continent, even thought of me.

You guys have misplaced nostalgia. An industrial sector would be sustainable in Britian if only one thing happened: the cost of manufacturing went way, way down. Yet you guys don't want that. You just want industry, industry, industry, when it was making you guys the poorest in Europe. Sure, you may no longer be getting a paycheck from Her Majesty, but so what? Now private enterprise, and therefore individuals with freedom, can fill that economic void.
As for your fear that services aren't sustainable, just look at the US. The US was an industrial society as well, that is until the 1960s. With increasingly colledge educated people, a desire to move away from the cold industrial centers to warmer areas, and later, the oil crisis forced the shift. Thhe US is wealthier now than ever before, and the living standards are better.
As for your claim that I argue that the economy is good for society, that is only partially true. The best thing for society is not to have civil or economic oppression. The economy will grow sustainably and quickly thereafter, and it becomes a positive feedback cycle. However, I am flattered that anyone outside of my family, let alone ouutside my continent, even thought of me.

Having no formal qualifications, I can only argue from what I see around me, and that is outsourcing. Lots and lots and lots of outsourcing. Britain could sustain a service industry, if there wasn't someone willing to do it cheaper. And there is always someone willing to undercut. And all the call centres, tech support and various other services that are conducted over the phone are moving out, and unless we do something silly, like abolish the minimum wage, we literally can't do anything about it because that is the key. This is why I don't see a future in the British service industry.


If you want to know what I think (and I'm gonna tell you even if you don't :D), I believe Britain needs to go down the high-tech road. I agree with you that heavy mining/steel works/etc are doomed industries, I just disapprove of the method. To shut the place down wholesale is not the mature and responsible thing to do, because you need to provide the other workers with an alternative. It's only just now that multiple occupations have become the norm (in Britain, anyway), and often people only had the qualifications to do the job they had. it was their life, and with it gone, there was nothing they could do. This is why I think Britain should start encouraging new companies that specialise in entertainment, for example. A globe spanning British film, television, and video game industry would be fantastic for economy, and keep jobs that Britain needs in Britain. (they're still manufacturing industries, I believe, just not heavy manufacturing.)

"La Chupacabra".

The Goatsucker??

Having no formal qualifications, I can only argue from what I see around me, and that is outsourcing. Lots and lots and lots of outsourcing. Britain could sustain a service industry, if there wasn't someone willing to do it cheaper. And there is always someone willing to undercut. And all the call centres, tech support and various other services that are conducted over the phone are moving out, and unless we do something silly, like abolish the minimum wage, we literally can't do anything about it because that is the key. This is why I don't see a future in the British service industry.
Ah, the feared and reviled outsourcing. I do believe that this is the first time it hit the services industry, but it has hit manufacturing before with positive results. In the early 1990s, for example, the IT business in America moved the production of chips, modems, monitors, etc, to Asia. The fear was that the US would loose its technical edge then. It didn't. You may well recall that the US tech sector led the world in the 1990s. Even if it isn't exactly the world leader today, the tech sector that grew is still very important today. The reason it grew had lots to do with cheap parts that allowed more innovations in computers. It also led to the more skilled US workforce to develope higher end products.
Even in services today, we are seeing this happening. Only menial services jobs, like bookkeepers and such, are going. This should lead to the increased demand for more advanced jobs at home, like systems analysts and such, because it is cheaper to maintain them. Already, Britain has a very low unemployment rate. I wouldn't worry about it.

If you want to know what I think (and I'm gonna tell you even if you don't :D), I believe Britain needs to go down the high-tech road. I agree with you that heavy mining/steel works/etc are doomed industries, I just disapprove of the method. To shut the place down wholesale is not the mature and responsible thing to do, because you need to provide the other workers with an alternative. It's only just now that multiple occupations have become the norm (in Britain, anyway), and often people only had the qualifications to do the job they had. it was their life, and with it gone, there was nothing they could do. This is why I think Britain should start encouraging new companies that specialise in entertainment, for example. A globe spanning British film, television, and video game industry would be fantastic for economy, and keep jobs that Britain needs in Britain. (they're still manufacturing industries, I believe, just not heavy manufacturing.)[/QUOTE]

I am happy to see Blair win; it puts a nice thorn in the side of American Democrats. Their pain makes me all warm and fuzzy inside, now to see them loose even more in 2006. Oh the party I will throw.



Why can't Americans spell 'Labour'... You're talking politics here, not what the party originally believed in yadda yadda yadda. It's a name, with a capital letter. 'Labor'. WTF is that? Sorry for pedantics - I just dislike American spelling. It's so shit poor. =D

The same can be said about British sentence structure and making up words that do not even exist. ;)

I am happy to see Blair win; it puts a nice thorn in the side of American Democrats. Their pain makes me all warm and fuzzy inside, now to see them loose even more in 2006. Oh the party I will throw.


Don't get too carried away. Politics in the US is a wheel, and right now the GOP is on top. Eventually, it'll swing back around. It may take a decade or two, but it will.

(I'm a Connecticut Independent. I find aspects of both parties distasteful.)

You see I truly hate both parties in the US. I think they are both destructive to the average American. I registered from Democrat to Independent this last election. The Democrats right now are more destructive than the Republicans, at least the Republicans do not view the American public as to stupid to be able to vote properly. Once the Democrats are destroyed I will begin to set my sights on the Republicans. Till then I will take pride and joy in ridiculing the party that hates America more than most people outside this country. Then I will take pride and joy in ridiculing the party that tries to harm the working middle class, although both do that quite frequently.

Of course this could all change and one or the other could actually nominate someone that is from middle class America and not some elitist jackass. I might be to optimistic but I still hold out hope that they will right themselves and become parties for America and not some ideology.

As far as it might take a decade or two to swing back around, I think that by then the Democrats will be fully destroyed and will be splintered into 2 or 3 parties.


I still say good on Blair, even if he gets removed come Decemeber. Still good to see the moronic Democrat Leaders in a tizzy because supporters of Bush are winning re-elections. :D