- This topic has 184 replies, 38 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Blair will push it through even if the MPs do vote against it. That’s one of the pitfalls of a totalitarian, fascist regime. The usual rules don’t apply. Democrasy is only acceptable when it falls the way Blair wants it to.<br>Does a house vote not count any more? Only when it gives Blair a majority.<br>The house of lords are now defunct, thanks to Blair. They were stopping his authoritarian agenda, so he ran over them with the Parliament Act. I find it all rather disconcerting when the rules of procedure can be ignored at the whim of the PM.
For the last few years, I’ve been saying the UK needs a "big brother" style of government.
By that, I don’t mean one which controls out lives.
Instead I think we should vote one MP out each week and, instead of them coming out to cheering crowds, there should be a baying mob who deliver to them that wonderful form of justice that we know as "mob justice".
That would keep the rest of them straight.
Anyway …. back to the real world….
I’d choose option (a).
However, he’s not the only guilty party.
There are all those MP’s who abdicated their responsibilities in the war vote.
They decided to "trust" the PM.
However, the point of constitutional democracy is that MP’s represent their constituants and, as far as I’m concerned, MP’s were drawing a salary for researching the facts for themselves and making sure that the right decisions are being made for those constituants.
It’s all very well complaining about the "presidential" form of government but, if we allow parliament to be filled with yes men and women, what do you expect?
It’s like hitting your thumb with a hammer and being surprised your hand hurts.
Number 10 made a p**s
poor case of war and it was the job of MPs all over the country to force Blair to answer the difficult questions and demand a proper case was made.If they won’t do that, what exactly are they being paid for?
I’d hold a tribunal and each and every MP has to justify their vote on 18th march 2003.
Those that didn’t have good reason for how they voted would be barred from ever holding ANY public sector job and would be forced to repay their salaries for the last few years.
And we can start with Michael Howard…
Steve
sorry Grass – I get it now – in that case
Option C (revised) – ignore it and concentrate on what will win the Roseberry Saturday
Worst of all is the Fake Claire Short. If she had resigned when Cook went Blair would have been under serious pressure. Instead she backed Bair and the war. She now prances around pretending to be some anit war principled socialist. A hero to all the middle class left of centre "i care about the world…really i do" brigade.
Send blair and short and all to Iraq . Let them die for Democracy. Oh sorry there to busy getting rich and living big in the name of democracy to die for it.<br>
I’m not voting Labour.
I wasn’t planning to, anyway – but the final straw was last week, when a Labour rep cold called me at home to ask what I thought of the local Labour MP and how he had served the community.
Now, he let me down badly last year when I had arranged to meet him at Westminster for a lobby four months in advance of the lobby date – the day before, his secretary rang me at work and gave no real excuse, simply that he "wasn’t going to be there".
I politely explained this to the man on the phone and that I had felt let down and not particularly happy about it.
What happened next?
He hung up on me.
Yes, that’s actually true – I cannot believe how rude he was. And to top it all, I have sent Jim Knight MP two emails and an answerphone message since that night, and I have been completely ignored despite requesting a reply and an apology for being called up in my own home and then cut off so rudely.
They’re all rotten, right through.
There can be no doubt in any sensible person’s mind that Blair deliberately lied in the run up to the war in Iraq. He deliberately allowed manufactured information to be passed off for the truth and then lambasted everyone who dared to contradict it, ‘in light of the events of nine-eleven’. As Steve says, we should be looking at all of the politicians who were involved in the war mongering and holding them collectively responsible for their horrible actions.
I’d say from a politician’s philosophical point of view, they have the full weight of the law behind them, in that even if they were to admit that they had manufactured information and lied they are above the law, anyway. The severest reprimand they can be expected to incur is being forced to make an apology in the House of Commons.
Blair’s spin on it, is that he was told and believed at the time, being that the war was legal and that everything provided by the fantasists, in the Intelligence Service was true. Therefore, he acted in good faith and did NO wrong. If he just keeps saying this, he will brass neck it out until he gets the big job in Europe, that he’s obviously angling for.
On the other hand the Public are only mildly uncomfortable with these goings on because they don’t believe that the war has affected them. The war on terror is a war between two opposing cultures. Public opinion, taken from the people who I speak to and know is like this. They see the enemy (arabs) as a load of lazy, fanatical, shirt lifters who are better off dead. Ossama Bin Laden, Sadam Hussien and all the rest of them are all one problem. Not an opinion which I share, but one that I hear every day, or on the odd occasion when Iraq is mentioned. People in general couldn’t care less and most of them would be disappointed if Blair didn’t lie through his big teeth because it’s what they expect from their politicians.
I think the worst punishment Blair could receive would be to be rejected by the public in an election. If people did expect better he would be punished in a way that would hurt him. He deserves to be disgraced in a way that doesn’t make him a martyr but shows him up for the tacky self-seeker that he really is.
I will vote against Labour in the next election.
PS .. spot on about Claire Short
I wouldn’t want to martyr Blair .. they would use it to ‘Carry On Up the war on Terror’. Best for him to slide off into obscurity, disgraced, where he belongs.
Quote: from Meshaheer on 3:06 pm on Mar. 24, 2005[br]Option D – Vote Conservative :biggrin:
<br>FFS.<br>
Adoptive father of two. The patron saint of lower-grade fare. A gently critical friend of point-to-pointing. Kindness is a political act.
Grassy
Hypothetical situation.
You are diagnosed as having only 3 months to live but are still able bodied.
You have a high powered rifle and an open shot at goal.
Would you?
Steve
I’ll probably vote Conservative Grays even though they are a load of oily ticks. I live in a marginal seat and would love to see the Labour MP go.
I think the offending the minority game is the same one as divide and conquer.
:biggrin: @ Boris
Quote: from dave jay on 9:28 pm on Mar. 25, 2005[br]I’ll probably vote Conservative Grays even though they are a load of oily ticks. I live in a marginal seat and would love to see the Labour MP go.<br>
<br>No prospect of a prospective LibDem candidate doing that in your neck of the woods?
I had a fun upbringing in what was then the parliamentary constituency known as Littleborough and Saddleworth, one of the most volatile in the country on account of its genuine prospect of the result going any of three ways every election. Therefore, even without having my predominately German family making sure I did not cultivate the same ambivalence to politics their parents may have had 50+ years previously (with the disastrous consequences about which we all know), the maxim of "every vote counts" has always been one I hold close; although admittedly the introduction of Proportional Representation would make me believe in it yet further.
In the three elections I voted in back home, we got the Conservative Geoffrey Dickens (imagine Mr Baxter Basics from Viz – oleagenous, corrupt, and of yo-yo trousers inclination), LibDem Chris Davies (sweet, good constituency MP, but constantly marginalised by the Old Labour types elsewhere in the vicinity), and Labour’s Phil Woollas (smarmy, take-me-to-your-photo-opportunity serial non-listener).
I can only speak as I find, and I found the second guy the winner of the three.
Shame that, since Davies’ departure, Labour has blessed and indeed overseen the closure of our village library (whilst at the same time the DCMS is trumping up the ailing library service as "street corner universities for all" ), and the revoking of winter salt gritting from all bar the main arterial routes in the district – a real stroke of genius given how a good percentage of the population lives up wee country lanes. The Nasty Party, meanwhile, continues to make my jaws drop on a daily basis for everything from its divided front on just how much spending it is going to withhold from people once in office, right through to – according to the current CAMRA newsletter – at least 16 of its MPs (and NONE from the other two parties) refusing to back beer drinkers’ lobbying to stop unscrupulous bars and pubs selling half-measured pints. Tsk.
Jeremy<br>(graysonscolumn)<br>
(Edited by graysonscolumn at 1:16 pm on Mar. 28, 2005)
Adoptive father of two. The patron saint of lower-grade fare. A gently critical friend of point-to-pointing. Kindness is a political act.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.