The Batman Posted February 20, 2015 Report Share Posted February 20, 2015 the Batman Party Crime would be down, but when they discover I used tax payers money to fund a Batmobile and a Batplane, I don't think I'd be allowed to stay in office. Of all the things that MP's use expenses on, I'm sure the public wont mind those two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gasbuster Posted February 20, 2015 Report Share Posted February 20, 2015 I might set up the Standing at the Back Dressed Stupidly and Looking Stupid Party. Anyone want in??Ivor "jest ye not" BigunBall bouncingly funny comedy ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipdawg Posted February 20, 2015 Report Share Posted February 20, 2015 I've corrected you post. No need to thank me. It seems to me that the LIbDems traded their manifesto promises for a taste of government and a referendum on transferable votes. Are you saying they were right to reverse their view on this, or that it was necessary political manouvering? It was political niavety in the extreme. The line in the sand for them should of been no rise in tuition fees, but they felt that overall they were getting a good deal when in fact they just got a series of compromises like a referendum on an AV system that even they didn't want. What I would say is that some of those compromises tempered the more vicious and politically motivated cuts that the Tories would probably have aimed to implement, especially in regard of the NHS and public services I think that a large part of the problem is that in the run up to the last election, the Lib Dems finally found an identity between the Tories on the right and Labour on the left, but when that position started to gain popularity the better funded and more politically savvy parties muscled in on it. Subsequently it has not helped them that the press have willfully sabotaged the idea of coalition politics in this country, pointing out all te things that they (and the Tories) haven't done rather than the things they have. Perhaps the UK isn't ready for coalitions but in the absence of proportional representation, it's the only way to break the red/blue stranglehold and actually get change in this country I have always voted Lib Dem but I'm unsure as to whether I will this time around. Not because I disagree with their policies but because I'm not sure they have demonstrated that they have the wit and skill to operate within a coalition and uphold enough of those policies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aizoon Posted February 20, 2015 Report Share Posted February 20, 2015 It was political niavety in the extreme. The line in the sand for them should of been no rise in tuition fees, but they felt that overall they were getting a good deal when in fact they just got a series of compromises like a referendum on an AV system that even they didn't want. What I would say is that some of those compromises tempered the more vicious and politically motivated cuts that the Tories would probably have aimed to implement, especially in regard of the NHS and public services I think that a large part of the problem is that in the run up to the last election, the Lib Dems finally found an identity between the Tories on the right and Labour on the left, but when that position started to gain popularity the better funded and more politically savvy parties muscled in on it. Subsequently it has not helped them that the press have willfully sabotaged the idea of coalition politics in this country, pointing out all te things that they (and the Tories) haven't done rather than the things they have. Perhaps the UK isn't ready for coalitions but in the absence of proportional representation, it's the only way to break the red/blue stranglehold and actually get change in this country I have always voted Lib Dem but I'm unsure as to whether I will this time around. Not because I disagree with their policies but because I'm not sure they have demonstrated that they have the wit and skill to operate within a coalition and uphold enough of those policies I voted Lib Dem last time but never will again. If I wanted to vote for crushing the poor, coddling the rich and dismantling the NHS, I'd have voted Tory in the first place. I would be surprised if the Lib Dems got ten seats in the General Election and good riddance to them, says I. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wayne allisons tongues Posted February 20, 2015 Report Share Posted February 20, 2015 Will labour get enough seats for even a coalition. If there vote in Scotland crashes where are they going to get all the other seats they need. Will we be having a labour/snp/lib dem/ukip coalition? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipdawg Posted February 20, 2015 Report Share Posted February 20, 2015 I voted Lib Dem last time but never will again. If I wanted to vote for crushing the poor, coddling the rich and dismantling the NHS, I'd have voted Tory in the first place. I would be surprised if the Lib Dems got ten seats in the General Election and good riddance to them, says I. I have been equally disappointed with many aspects of their performance in government, but it's unfair to blame them for all the ills that the Tories have brought. As they were the junior partners in the coalition, they were always going to have limited influence. And one thing I would say is that the NHS, public services and the poor would have been hit even harder in a Tory majority Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aizoon Posted February 20, 2015 Report Share Posted February 20, 2015 I have been equally disappointed with many aspects of their performance in government, but it's unfair to blame them for all the ills that the Tories have brought. As they were the junior partners in the coalition, they were always going to have limited influence. And one thing I would say is that the NHS, public services and the poor would have been hit even harder in a Tory majority They would have had a great deal more influence if they hadn't sold their support for a doomed referendum and instead hammered out a common policy on general issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipdawg Posted February 20, 2015 Report Share Posted February 20, 2015 They would have had a great deal more influence if they hadn't sold their support for a doomed referendum and instead hammered out a common policy on general issues. I agree, but there was only so much they could do. They just made the the wrong deals Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Welcome To The Jungle Posted February 20, 2015 Report Share Posted February 20, 2015 I'm a member of Labour but never voted for them. Just looking at the potential top two just makes me think of Bas Savage and Stern John up front. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bucksred Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 I know who I WONT be voting for: the job destroying, high tax, pro European, nanny state Liebour Party & the UKIP shit......everything else is open. Milliband & Farage belong in lunatic Asylums as does Ed Balls, Harriet Harperson & Dianne Abbott..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bucksred Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 They would have had a great deal more influence if they hadn't sold their support for a doomed referendum and instead hammered out a common policy on general issues. They are frightenly weak on security & defence....two very key areas....mind you every single one is shocking on defence & security, but Lib Dems particularly so Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTFiGO!?! Posted February 24, 2015 Report Share Posted February 24, 2015 What happens in a non majority vote should, for example, the lib dems have told Conservatives to **** off? Also, who are the non-Tory boys/UKIP of the thread actually going to vote? The options are shit. I'd say form the people's party of Ultras/Eastenders double quick but fear the actual manifesto may fold under scrutiny with the time constraints an all. What the ***** going on when the hard working people of this country have no political voice? ***** me off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chairman Mao Posted March 5, 2015 Report Share Posted March 5, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chairman Mao Posted March 5, 2015 Report Share Posted March 5, 2015 What happens in a non majority vote should, for example, the lib dems have told Conservatives to **** off? Also, who are the non-Tory boys/UKIP of the thread actually going to vote? The options are shit. I'd say form the people's party of Ultras/Eastenders double quick but fear the actual manifesto may fold under scrutiny with the time constraints an all. What the ***** going on when the hard working people of this country have no political voice? ***** me off. 1974 is a good example February: Incumbent Conservatives and Liberals fail to from a coalition, Labour runs minority October: Labour wins second election of the year with slim majority though with UKIP, SNP and Lib Dems complicating the picture rather than just the Liberals majority of just two coalition partners may be impossible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Welcome To The Jungle Posted March 5, 2015 Report Share Posted March 5, 2015 Can you imagine if labour had taken us through the 2nd half of 2010 while we reorganised an election if the Lib Dems hadn't got into bed with the Tories. We would have been screwed. As bad as the Con Dem coalition has been it would have been a lot worse had it not happened. Clegg for me knew he would be committing political suicide but he had to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chairman Mao Posted March 6, 2015 Report Share Posted March 6, 2015 Can you imagine if labour had taken us through the 2nd half of 2010 while we reorganised an election if the Lib Dems hadn't got into bed with the Tories. We would have been screwed. As bad as the Con Dem coalition has been it would have been a lot worse had it not happened. Clegg for me knew he would be committing political suicide but he had to do it. agreed, can't really see what Clegg could've done as far as making a coalition in 2010 goes (sure, you can argue about what happened after) Labour and the Lib Dems didn't have enough seats to make it work the Lib Dems didn't have enough money to fight another election in 2010 (neither did Labour) The European sovereign debt crisis was at its hight and markets were very twitchy about a rudderless UK Hence they joined with the Tories. The alternative being leaving a Tory minority government to go to autumn, call other election which would've left them with a probably majority, with extra money and a decent argument to boot of "if the Lib Dems aren't interest in government, we tried, why bother voting for them at all" etc etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipdawg Posted March 6, 2015 Report Share Posted March 6, 2015 Can you imagine if labour had taken us through the 2nd half of 2010 while we reorganised an election if the Lib Dems hadn't got into bed with the Tories. We would have been screwed. As bad as the Con Dem coalition has been it would have been a lot worse had it not happened. Clegg for me knew he would be committing political suicide but he had to do it. It would have been equally suicidal to refuse a coalition; the Tories would have painted them as anti-democratic and floating voters who moved to vote Lib Dem would have gone Tory just to prevent 5 more years of Brown. They just drew the wrong lines in the sand for me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WessexPest Posted March 13, 2015 Report Share Posted March 13, 2015 I remember the day Blair got in, the sun was shining, we all went to the pub after a Friday lunchtime finish and we all said how much better things were going to be, and I think for a while, they were. The truth is, the only time I have been out of work was during a Labour government (not surprising when you work out how long they were in for and my age etc etc), I too had high hopes in 97. What a naive fool I feel now: What followed was Blair's disgusting emasculation of Labour. He also acted illegally in the case of Iraq and without legitimacy - everything that has happened since there has flowed directly from that illegal war. The country is now literally hell on Earth. Labour tried, in its cynical anti-English way, to fragment the nation with the offer of regional assemblies - fortunately these were rejected outright. The constitution, in my view, has been abused. By Blair in particular. Finally, (and these are just off the top of my head, incidentally) they fanatically supported the idea of "multiculturalism" (i.e. anyone's identity but that of the indigenous people) and facilitated the immigration of millions and millions of people to bring this about. I do not have words for my disgust at the whole New Labour 'project'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
One Team In Keynsham Posted March 13, 2015 Report Share Posted March 13, 2015 I too had high hopes in 97. What a naive fool I feel now: What followed was Blair's disgusting emasculation of Labour. He also acted illegally in the case of Iraq and without legitimacy - everything that has happened since there has flowed directly from that illegal war. The country is now literally hell on Earth. Labour tried, in its cynical anti-English way, to fragment the nation with the offer of regional assemblies - fortunately these were rejected outright. The constitution, in my view, has been abused. By Blair in particular. Finally, (and these are just off the top of my head, incidentally) they fanatically supported the idea of "multiculturalism" (i.e. anyone's identity but that of the indigenous people) and facilitated the immigration of millions and millions of people to bring this about. I do not have words for my disgust at the whole New Labour 'project'. You can chalk me up as another member of the disillusioned. I recall seeing Blair on some political show, even before he was leader of the Labour Party, and thinking that he could be the real deal after the years of Conservative government. Fast forward through the false dawn of believing thing can only get better, the invasion of Irag, to the present, and the wasted opportunities are soul destroying. Whilst I don't vote from overseas, I really am at a loss to know who I would vote for in place of Labour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipdawg Posted March 13, 2015 Report Share Posted March 13, 2015 I too had high hopes in 97. What a naive fool I feel now: What followed was Blair's disgusting emasculation of Labour. He also acted illegally in the case of Iraq and without legitimacy - everything that has happened since there has flowed directly from that illegal war. The country is now literally hell on Earth.Labour tried, in its cynical anti-English way, to fragment the nation with the offer of regional assemblies - fortunately these were rejected outright. The constitution, in my view, has been abused. By Blair in particular. Finally, (and these are just off the top of my head, incidentally) they fanatically supported the idea of "multiculturalism" (i.e. anyone's identity but that of the indigenous people) and facilitated the immigration of millions and millions of people to bring this about. I do not have words for my disgust at the whole New Labour 'project'.Fragmented as opposed to now where policy is not directed to the betterment of the country, but rather the betterment of London? Federalism is the only thing that will save this country IMO though that is not the half-arsed devolution that Prescott offered I agree with you about Blair in most regards though. New Labour always walked a tightrope between socialism and just being 'neoconservatism-lite' and it didn't take long for him to fall off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WessexPest Posted March 13, 2015 Report Share Posted March 13, 2015 Whilst I don't vote from overseas, I really am at a loss to know who I would vote for in place of Labour. I too am overseas at the mo. Were I able to vote and assuming they were fielding a candidate in my constituency (a big if as they field a limited number of candidates currently), my vote would be for the English Democrats. It's still early days, and they definitely need to grow and mature with time (they are more of a pressure group than a serious political force right now) but I am happy there is someone at least batting on behalf of England. They have also shifted policy from advocating for an English devolved parliament (which would just further muddy the constitutional waters) to supporting an independent England. This is essential, I feel, if the English constitution which has tottered along since 1687 is to survive. Unfortunately it is the English identity of the home nations that has suffered the most over the past 308 years as it has been blended almost faultlessly with the British identity. Fragmented as opposed to now where policy is not directed to the betterment of the country, but rather the betterment of London? Federalism is the only thing that will save this country IMO though that is not the half-arsed devolution that Prescott offered Going down the Federal road with Scotland is utterly pointless and feeds upon nothing but an outmoded notion of Britishness. But you're correct, there are precious few other options. The current devolved settlement, where Scottish MPs can vote on matters that do not affect their constituents, is constitutional farce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted March 13, 2015 Report Share Posted March 13, 2015 Will probably vote tactically. Lib Dem maybe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Welcome To The Jungle Posted March 14, 2015 Report Share Posted March 14, 2015 Will probably vote tactically. Lib Dem maybe. Me too, but I'll be sticking with 5-3-2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted March 14, 2015 Report Share Posted March 14, 2015 Me too, but I'll be sticking with 5-3-2 Cotts is a better tactican than our politico prats... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipdawg Posted March 14, 2015 Report Share Posted March 14, 2015 Going down the Federal road with Scotland is utterly pointless and feeds upon nothing but an outmoded notion of Britishness. But you're correct, there are precious few other options. The current devolved settlement, where Scottish MPs can vote on matters that do not affect their constituents, is constitutional farce. A situation where 5 million people live under what is to all intents and purposes a federal system, while another 8 (Wales & NI) have some kind if quasi- federalism and the other 55million have no more direct representation than they did 100 years ago is ridiculous. An 'English' parliament will no more represent people in Bristol or Sheffield than the current one does. The only way I can see to actually create policies that benefit people in the 'provinces' is to empower them to be able to create those policies themselves. I don't think it will diminish any sense of 'Englishness' or for that matter 'Britishness' and I'm not really either matters in comparison to 'Londonness' in the eyes of the powers that be Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aizoon Posted March 14, 2015 Report Share Posted March 14, 2015 A situation where 5 million people live under what is to all intents and purposes a federal system, while another 8 (Wales & NI) have some kind if quasi- federalism and the other 55million have no more direct representation than they did 100 years ago is ridiculous. An 'English' parliament will no more represent people in Bristol or Sheffield than the current one does. The only way I can see to actually create policies that benefit people in the 'provinces' is to empower them to be able to create those policies themselves. I don't think it will diminish any sense of 'Englishness' or for that matter 'Britishness' and I'm not really either matters in comparison to 'Londonness' in the eyes of the powers that be Well said, sir. Just look what proportion of the "British" part of the news is shot in London and the Home Counties... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted March 15, 2015 Report Share Posted March 15, 2015 A situation where 5 million people live under what is to all intents and purposes a federal system, while another 8 (Wales & NI) have some kind if quasi- federalism and the other 55million have no more direct representation than they did 100 years ago is ridiculous. An 'English' parliament will no more represent people in Bristol or Sheffield than the current one does. The only way I can see to actually create policies that benefit people in the 'provinces' is to empower them to be able to create those policies themselves. I don't think it will diminish any sense of 'Englishness' or for that matter 'Britishness' and I'm not really either matters in comparison to 'Londonness' in the eyes of the powers that be Well said, sir. Just look what proportion of the "British" part of the news is shot in London and the Home Counties... Not wrong. Long believe our system is shall we say maybe not entirely good for all. London and Home Counties get a shitload of stuff...not just news but everything better than the rest of us well maybe not everything but lots of stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I have no clue Posted March 15, 2015 Report Share Posted March 15, 2015 A succinct definition of 'Nationalism': https://youtu.be/Rd36RWiPfr0 That's a fair definition. But do the majority of Britons really care or associate themselves with your distinct culture or religion? Then there is the issue of where should and can the state directly influence this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Batman Posted March 16, 2015 Report Share Posted March 16, 2015 Yes all good questions. I think most people have a general sense of what it means to be 'one of us', though most would find it difficult to explain that - I know I do. The State should be the servant and protector of the people, but it seems like the State often acts against the good of the people e.g. mass immigration, involvement in foreign wars (for the sake of international capital), passing sovereignty to the EU without the consent of the people, allowing the banking crisis to develop and passing the cost to the tax payer, not protecting the vulnerable (Rotherham), and so on. Gut feel says this is because our government, and other governments, have a wider agenda for example globalisation, American imperialism and the fight for resources, the march towards EU federalism and plain old corruption. That's why I respect France's National Front - they speak frankly about such issues. And this is why I will vote for a nationalist candidate if one stands in the constituency. "To have the State as servant and not as master" Baroness Thatcher to the Conservative party in 1975. Still so valid today. Taken for granted by so many. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipdawg Posted March 16, 2015 Report Share Posted March 16, 2015 "To have the State as servant and not as master" Baroness Thatcher to the Conservative party in 1975. Still so valid today. Taken for granted by so many. Hmmm. I think if my 'servant' got rid of milk for school kids, sold off and closed down pretty much all of our industry and national infrastructure and was complicit in covering up Hillsborough and (allegedly) paedophile rings in the highest echelons of society I'd be a bit pissed off. Obviously politics is much more nuanced than that, but for a politician who advocated a 'light-touch' state, she didn't half have her fingers in a lot of pies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.