The British Election

[ScottishJohn]

this is because the US govt never relied on a dodgy, made-up dossier of lies to make the case for war.

Do you think so?

What about the Saddam Al Quaeda connection that would not wash in the UK?

What about their claims concerning WMDs which did not exist in either the forms or quantities the American people were led to believe?

What about the rhetoric about democratic / humanitarian motivation for the war?

They just tell bigger better lies! They had a big investigation into the atrocious lack of intelligence apon which the war in Iraq was based. Rumsfeld apparently offered his resignation to Bush, but it was not accepted.

 

[ade32]

I find it interesting that the BBC is equated with the 'Liberal Media' as it has always been seen as slightly conservative if anything!

Oh yeah, its seen as 'liberal state run' media over here. In fact Fox news would have you believe that the whole of Europe is 'state run socialist propaganda'. I think the media over here has become conservatively tilted as conservatives demonize the so-called liberal media and they become too scared to say anything negative about the Bush administration.

 

[rebel_conservative]

Oh yeah, its seen as 'liberal state run' media over here. In fact Fox news would have you believe that the whole of Europe is 'state run socialist propaganda'. I think the media over here has become conservatively tilted as conservatives demonize the so-called liberal media and they become too scared to say anything negative about the Bush administration.

erm... what about Dan Rather's blatant lies about the President???

to be fair (I am British afterall...) I don't think he knew they were lies. but because the journalists and staffers are so overwhelmingly liberal, they believed that it could be true and they wanted it to be true. there was no counter-point or alternative voice; this meant they put it on air without vetting it properly

 

[rebel_conservative]

Do you think so?

What about the Saddam Al Quaeda connection that would not wash in the UK?

What about their claims concerning WMDs which did not exist in either the forms or quantities the American people were led to believe?

What about the rhetoric about democratic / humanitarian motivation for the war?

They just tell bigger better lies! They had a big investigation into the atrocious lack of intelligence apon which the war in Iraq was based. Rumsfeld apparently offered his resignation to Bush, but it was not accepted.

they were smart enough that never said there was a direct connection between Saddam and Al Qaida (AQ) they alluded to a connection, they mentioned them both in the same sentence, but never did they connect the two. there is a connection between the war on terror and the war in Iraq - in the sense that fighting in Iraq would spread democracy around the middle east and take away terrorists havens and enhance American security (the neo-con philosophy)

prior to the war, everyone believed there were WMDs it was just a question of how to tackle the issue. even Syria on the Security Council voted in favour of 1441.

the rhetoric about democratic / humanitarian motivation for the war is central to the neo-conservative agenda - but this was never going to persuade the public, so it was not really mentioned until we realise we can't find any WMDs.

 

[ade32]

erm... what about Dan Rather's blatant lies about the President???

to be fair (I am British afterall...) I don't think he knew they were lies. but because the journalists and staffers are so overwhelmingly liberal, they believed that it could be true and they wanted it to be true. there was no counter-point or alternative voice; this meant they put it on air without vetting it properly

..and this case makes them even more afraid to take on anything against the President. To be fair, I don't think they were completely lies either, probably some blatant lies, some truths and some half truths. It was rather a stupid deal and didn't do Kerry any favours at all.

 

[aragorn]

Load of codswallop. Anyone who can't see that the three main political parties are working together with the illusion of opposition on insignificant points of detail and presentation is deluding themselves.

Vote different. The biggest issue in Britain is the price of housing. "you're either with us, or with out," as the halifax building society advert states. if you're outside the money loop you're destined to pay rent for as long as the world lasts.

And the Prudential informs us it's wisely investing 14 billion pounds of our money in property, which should help keep a property crash at bay. Maybe if corporations and banks couldn't invest in property and there was some limit to how much property one individual could own, there might be some chance for the poor. But who wants that?

I swear to you, it is utter boloney. If any of the main political parties win the election, you're going to have exactly the same policies, the only difference will be the presentation.

 

[rebel_conservative]

The biggest issue in Britain is the price of housing. "you're either with us, or with out," as the halifax building society advert states. if you're outside the money loop you're destined to pay rent for as long as the world lasts.

be fair, Britain has one of the highest rates of home ownership in the world. but you are right, house prices are ludicrous now, my parents bought their home less than 5 years ago, it has nearly tripled in value. this is insane and unsustainable. I have no idea how first-time buyers are expected to get onto the property ladder without mortgaging themselves to the hilt.

And the Prudential informs us it's wisely investing 14 billion pounds of our money in property, which should help keep a property crash at bay. Maybe if corporations and banks couldn't invest in property and there was some limit to how much property one individual could own, there might be some chance for the poor. But who wants that?

Thatcher gave us working class people the right-to-buy what we need is for the govt to establish serious incentives for firms to start building homes on brown-field sites.

 

[ScottishJohn]

they were smart enough that never said there was a direct connection between Saddam and Al Qaida (AQ) they alluded to a connection, they mentioned them both in the same sentence, but never did they connect the two. there is a connection between the war on terror and the war in Iraq - in the sense that fighting in Iraq would spread democracy around the middle east and take away terrorists havens and enhance American security (the neo-con philosophy)

They went a little beyond that! Read this article - it has several quotes from Cheney and Rumsfeld on Al Qaeda (never sure of the spelling!)

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/04/rumsfeld.iraq/

prior to the war, everyone believed there were WMDs it was just a question of how to tackle the issue. even Syria on the Security Council voted in favour of 1441.

the rhetoric about democratic / humanitarian motivation for the war is central to the neo-conservative agenda - but this was never going to persuade the public, so it was not really mentioned until we realise we can't find any WMDs.

Everyone thought they might have WMDs - thus the inspectors. As far as saying that they definately had them, there was no proof. I was surprised more people didn't shout 'HOGWASH' when Blair came out with his 45 minute claim.

 

[ScottishJohn]

Oh yeah, its seen as 'liberal state run' media over here. In fact Fox news would have you believe that the whole of Europe is 'state run socialist propaganda'. I think the media over here has become conservatively tilted as conservatives demonize the so-called liberal media and they become too scared to say anything negative about the Bush administration.

See, this is when words like liberal, socialist and conservative cease to have any meaning! When they are applied to anything that disagrees with a particular group: Republicans "oh thats just liberal nonsense" Democrats "Oh what would you expect from conservatives", most of the time the things concerned are neither liberal nor conservative nor socialist! The BBC is not 'liberal' in its ideology, it gives the both sides a hard time. It is not state run in the sense that the state control it and what it says, (although I'm sure Tony Blair would like that!) For goodness sake, Tony Blair is the Prime Minister for what is supposed to be the 'Socialist' party in the UK! As far as Fox is concerned - how far can you throw a big fat guy like Murdoch! Why does anyone trust or listen to what his network says? His network is far more partisan than the BBC has ever been!

I realise yu are not disagreeing with me - just felt like a rant!

 

[aragorn]

be fair, Britain has one of the highest rates of home ownership in the world. but you are right, house prices are ludicrous now, my parents bought their home less than 5 years ago, it has nearly tripled in value. this is insane and unsustainable. I have no idea how first-time buyers are expected to get onto the property ladder without mortgaging themselves to the hilt.



Thatcher gave us working class people the right-to-buy what we need is for the govt to establish serious incentives for firms to start building homes on brown-field sites.

Yeah, mortgage means death by instalments. And yet it's the only way to go. Personally I think if someone tries to sell you death by instalments, you should kill them. It's a far cry from consider the lilies of the field, and take no thought for the morrow.

Thatcher ?????

She allowed you working class people to buy what was already yours.
One of the greatest cons in history. Still, the general gameplan is if you're english, you should be financially sorted by now anyway. and if you're not, you were probably stupid.

Don't see how building homes on brown-field sites is supposed to help. They'll still sell them back at the market rate.

The problem is that any rich american, bank or corporation can buy up the surplus housing, and it will always be a good investment, so the price may stay fairly high. They kind of need it to stay high, because so many people have invested in the boom that it's disaster if there's a crash, and disaster if there isn't. The main thing is it's the haves who are controlling things, and all the political parties are looking to them as their constituency. They'll make sure repossessions don't increase too far so that there ends up being enough surplus housing on the market to bring the price down.
And those without, well who gives much about them. ? Most of them aren't even English.

 

[rebel_conservative]

She allowed you working class people to buy what was already yours.
One of the greatest cons in history. Still, the general gameplan is if you're english, you should be financially sorted by now anyway. and if you're not, you were probably stupid.

it wasn't yours, it belonged to the council.

Don't see how building homes on brown-field sites is supposed to help. They'll still sell them back at the market rate.

with no taxes, they will be cheaper. and with more houses being built, house prices will fall.

 

[aragorn]

If they belonged to the council, then they belonged to the government, and if the government represents the people, then what the government owned, they owned on behalf of the people, so irrespective of the uncontroversial point that they belonged to the council, I still say, they were yours anyway, so why should you buy them? one of the greatest cons in history, I reckon.

Don't you think it would be great if we had a government that just said, OK, the Queen is now repossessing all property in the UK, and making everyone a free tenant of whatever place they live in. Imagine the liberation, the freedom and joy that would result if everyone was at a stroke liberated from the tyranny of rent and mortgage. And could actually work when they chose to, rather than all the time, because they had to. Are you into liberation, freedom? What do you think of this one? Consider the lilies of the field... sound advice, or hippy nonsense?

I mean, who really benefits from all the surplus wealth we produce just being sucked into ever-increasing house prices. I mean, I know, people feel good when they've got a house worth 200 thousand, but it doesn't really do them much good, cause if they sell it, they're still going to need a house.

Guess that's why the smart ones have sold up and emigrated.

 

[rebel_conservative]

please tell me that the above is a joke...

 

[aragorn]

Far from it, I'm absolutely serious, don't you think it would be great. Or are you not into freedom, liberation, joy, and considering the lilies of the field.

My own view is that there';s precious little chance of living a divine life, when your possibilities are already narrowly defined cause you've signed up to death by instalments.

No joke. I don't see anything funny about it, I just see humanity commoditised brutalised, and millions of ruined lives, that never even get close to understanding what God's intentions are, and what redemption would really mean to humanity.

What do you think?

 

[rebel_conservative]

Far from it, I'm absolutely serious, don't you think it would be great. Or are you not into freedom, liberation, joy, and considering the lilies of the field.

My own view is that there';s precious little chance of living a divine life, when your possibilities are already narrowly defined cause you've signed up to death by instalments.

No joke. I don't see anything funny about it, I just see humanity commoditised brutalised, and millions of ruined lives, that never even get close to understanding what God's intentions are, and what redemption would really mean to humanity.

What do you think?

the state owning all property... how would you justify some people living in mansions and others on council estates? how would you compensate those people who had paid their mortgage and owned their home outright anyway? what about outstanding mortgage payments? would the banks simply have to bear, ie be crippled, with losses? who would pay for the losses of the banks? us.

I am sorry, but the entire idea is ludicrous and I have not even got on to the state controlling where you live!!! freedom and liberty? HA!

lets not forget that the state controlled all property in the Soviet Union

 

[aragorn]

Well as a matter of fact, I reckon the only space you ever own is the one you occupy.
I just think the law should match reality.

How would I justify some people living in mansions and others on council estates? I wouldn't. They live there at the moment. It's a compromise.
How would I compensate thse people who had already paid their mortgage? I wouldn't. I'd tell them the parable of the man who paid the labourers he hired at the end of the week the same as those who he hired at the beginning. Think about that.
Who would pay for the losses of the banks? Well, either they could go bust, probably a good thing. Or else, the bank of England could pay them. Devaluation, it's only fair to the rest of the world, and at least, it might stop the flood of people coming to earn a quick buck. Anyway, why so much concern for the banks and so little for humanity?

Who said anything about the state controlling where you live? You not me?

Anyway, what do you think of this one, "Consider the lilies of the field..." do you?

"take no thought for the morrow." When did you last follow that bit of advice.

"well, sorry jesus I know you're the son of God and all, but frankly, in the modern world, your advice just doesn't cut it. And Ok, all due respect to your divinity, but I think your political ideas are just barking. What, you think we should have a social system that makes it possible for people to take your advice about living in the present? That's crazy. It would be anarchy. Society would break down. What would happen to the banks?"

Is that what you're going to say on judgement day?

 

[GreatistheLord]

I'm not party political by nature but given Blair's deceit in the Iraq war, Labour's support of the EU constitution, Stealth taxes and broken promises, Alistair Campbell and the Spin, and the general arrogance of the PM in pushing through measures against public opinion I will not vote Labour. I cant see a tory win, but I would prefer a hung parliment than a labour majority.

 

[mindlight]

I'm not party political by nature but given Blair's deceit in the Iraq war, Labour's support of the EU constitution, Stealth taxes and broken promises, Alistair Campbell and the Spin, and the general arrogance of the PM in pushing through measures against public opinion I will not vote Labour. I cant see a tory win, but I would prefer a hung parliment than a labour majority.

I understand that even if te Tories get a greater % of popular vote than labour they may still lose because of the way that boundaries are structured.

AS they say absolute power corrupts and this administration has made big errors and it is wiser to reduce their power rather than increase it.

Even those sympathetic to Labours policies must worry about the effect on the government of the size of their majority

 

[ade32]

I understand that even if te Tories get a greater % of popular vote than labour they may still lose because of the way that boundaries are structured.

Just like Al Gore then? Isn't that the same structuring that has prevented the Lib Dems getting many seats despite having a decent % of the vote?

 

[rebel_conservative]

I understand that even if te Tories get a greater % of popular vote than labour they may still lose because of the way that boundaries are structured.

that is correct. it is somewhere in the region of 3-4% if the Tories won the election by 4% it would be a hung Parliament.

the disparity is mostly because Scotland and Wales are over-represented

but also because shifting demographics have resulted in many large-majority Tory Constituencies, and many that give Labour slight majorities.

they are supposed to correct this when they review the boundaries. but Labout appealed a bunch of changes (cos it threatened their majority and they care more about power than principle or fairness) I don't know what happened about the appeals, we have received no information.

Just like Al Gore then? Isn't that the same structuring that has prevented the Lib Dems getting many seats despite having a decent % of the vote?

no, the first-past-the-post system in general prevents the lib dems getting a commensurate representation in Parliament. the above is different, it is the perculiarites of the system, not the system itself.

and it is NOTHING like what happened to Gore in 2000. the electoral college in the US is designed that way to protect the smaller states. the reason why it happens in the UK is due to circumstance and shifting population. the electoral boundaries in the UK are supposed to be neutral, favouring neither party, they are supposed to shift and change with society so that the make-up of the Parliament is fairly neutral. the boundaries in the USA are neutral too, but they are unchangeable due to the fact that the US is made up of 'sovereign' states. the fact that this favoured Bush in 2000 is simply bad luck for Gore and the Left. the popular vote has never mattered in American history.