Tony Blair/Tory or Labour?

POSTED BY: DallasFirefly
UPDATED: Thursday, June 8, 2006 19:12
VIEWED: 7573
PAGE 3 of 7

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT PAGE

FLETCH2

Monday, May 29, 2006 4:15 AM

Well even your figures showed more people for than against so I didn't need to make that point. The poll I found was to illistrate a point. You see some of the same people you claim were so against unilateral action didn't think so 2 weeks later when they thought they had an easy victory. This was if you remember a war without a second UN resolution and so unilateral by your definition. So if your poll is accurate 80% against became 66% for, so I guess they were not that set against it on principle....

As for names. Where I come from you only give really insulting names to people you like. That's why I'm going to call you Barbie.

It suits you.

RUE

Monday, May 29, 2006 7:14 AM

No, what you said was this:
public support for war was very high (80+%) before the war.
And in fact it was not.

Guardian 01/21/03

opposition (with new UN resolution) 47%
support 30%

opposiiton (no new UN resolution) 81%
support (0)

WashPost 02/18/03

opposition 52%
support 29%

And don't tell me you never heard of the Downing Street Minutes. What a crock.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

CITIZEN

Monday, May 29, 2006 12:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
I don't think you are supposed to reveal that you've signed it without Home Office approval.....

Erm, no.

And I don't work for the Home Office

.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
"I had a rose named after me and I was very flattered. But I was not pleased to read the description in the catalog: 'No good in a bed, but fine against a wall'." -- Eleanor Roosevelt.

FLETCH2

Monday, May 29, 2006 6:52 PM

No I read the minutes that where published last year. Since they didn't include a section that said that HMG didn't believe that Saddam had WMD's I assumed you were talking about another memo I may have missed.

Could you quote the section you are refering to?

FLETCH2

Monday, May 29, 2006 8:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
No, what you said was this:
public support for war was very high (80+%) before the war.
And in fact it was not.

You are absolutely right. I got ahead of myself, I shouldn't use hyperbole in the presence of nit pickers.

I will go away and ritually flog myself.

HEB

Monday, May 29, 2006 8:56 PM

This is why we should all vote lib dems . It used to be that I would far rather have voted labour rather than Tory but now I can't really tell them apart.

The lib dems are the only party that are actually any different. They are the only ones consistently sticking up for our civil liberties and the only ones who will actually do anything about the environment if they get into power.

Tony Blair might think that he's only using these infringement of human rights against terrorists but what about the precedent these changes in the law set for the guy in office 10, 20 years down the line.

...................
Well, my sister's a ship... we had a
complicated childhood
.................
I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.

CITIZEN

Monday, May 29, 2006 9:10 PM

The problem with the Lib Dems is that they don't have a clue.

If they ever actually got government they wouldn't know what to do with it.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
"I had a rose named after me and I was very flattered. But I was not pleased to read the description in the catalog: 'No good in a bed, but fine against a wall'." -- Eleanor Roosevelt.

HEB

Monday, May 29, 2006 10:26 PM

You say that but the thing is that it's not going to happen overnight. If their number of MPs continues to increase then in the future they will become the opposition. As this occurs they will gain a lot more experience. Also as their voters and MPs increase they are likely to gain more funding which will help them develop.

I'd like to see them have a continued increase in voters so this can happen.

Anyway people would probably have said the same about Labour after their 18 years not being in power but they got New Labour and got a clue.

Also I think they have more of a clue then Charles Kennedy gave the impression of. They are doing ok as part of the coalition in Scotland. Yeah Menzies Campbell hasn't started off great but he needs a chance to settle in(though I preferred Simon Hughes).

...................
Well, my sister's a ship... we had a
complicated childhood
.................
I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.

CITIZEN

Monday, May 29, 2006 11:08 PM

The Scottish liberal democrat party isn't the same party as the English one.

And it's a Chicken and the egg thing, they're going to have to get power to gain the experience and they're going to have to prove they have experience and credible policies before anyone will vote for them.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
"I had a rose named after me and I was very flattered. But I was not pleased to read the description in the catalog: 'No good in a bed, but fine against a wall'." -- Eleanor Roosevelt.

HEB

Monday, May 29, 2006 11:16 PM

Well it's a state party within the liberal democrats and so technically led overall by Menzies Campbell.

Well it's not really a chicken or the egg thing because it's not all or nothing. Power comes in bits to a certain extent. By gaining more MPs and becoming the opposition first. By showing that they are doing good things in the constituencies of MPs and on local councils they can show that they work and therefore persuade people to vote for them.

Also which of their policies do you think aren't credible?

...................
Well, my sister's a ship... we had a
complicated childhood
.................
I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT PAGE