UK Election

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sirhamish

I see Galloway is threatening to "hound Blair" . I have this image of Balir scuttling up, down and all over the green seats of the House of Commons with Galloway in hot persuit shouting "Come here and face me, you bugger". :D :D

---

Galloway is a total waste of space. One man in the Commons can do nothing. Simple as. He's pathetic, he feasted on an area that needs serious political attention, not one-issue gobshítes. Oona King was an amazing MP, now she has been unseated by a man not even from near the area, a man with little/no understanding of the seriously entrenched social issues and a man who is so arrogant and out of touch, he honestly believes he will make a difference.

Briefly:
If the Lib Dems want to progress, Kennedy needs to be shown the door-sad, but true and the Tories will once again be too busy internally fighting to even glance at the electorate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jofyisgod

Galloway is a total waste of space. One man in the Commons can do nothing. Simple as. He's pathetic, he feasted on an area that needs serious political attention, not one-issue gobshítes. Oona King was an amazing MP, now she has been unseated by a man not even from near the area, a man with little/no understanding of the seriously entrenched social issues and a man who is so arrogant and out of touch, he honestly believes he will make a difference.

Briefly:
If the Lib Dems want to progress, Kennedy needs to be shown the door-sad, but true and the Tories will once again be too busy internally fighting to even glance at the electorate.

---

I agree with you that Galloway is a vain-glorious attention seeker, who will do feck all. Will be surprised if he get re-elected in 5 years time.

I disagree with you on Oona King, though. She was an ass-sucking, condascending Blairite, with perhaps the mkost irritating verbal approach of any politician in England (and that's a tough accoloade to claim). She was too busy toeing the party line and pursuing her own career to do anything substantive for her own constituency.

On the Lib Dems - the slow march continues. The papers are now talking of 3rd party politics as finally having arrived for the first time in 80yrs. Kennedy is not the biggest issue the Liberals face - nor is he the most urgent. Establishing a clear vision and point of differentiation from the other parties is more important, as is accelerating electoral gains. These can happen with or without Kennedy. I wouldn't be surpirsed if Kennedy is still in place for the next election - there's no pressure from within the party for him to be replaced.

There are MPs and TDs who AREN'T vainglorious attention seekers? :rolleyes: Get a grip lads. My biggest concern with Galloway is his fawning comments to Hussein as I quoted above.
Let's see his peformances in the Commons in upcoming months before we totally write him off, ok?
If only many other Labour candidates had the guts to stand up to President Blair we might have had a different outcome in the Iraqi situation but the I suppose, coulda, woulda shoulda!!
Only Robin Cooke can come out of this with any modicum of credibility.
Oona King made the mistake of supporting the Iraqi war - is that being a REPRESENTATIVE to her large Muslin constituency.
SO WHAT if Galloway is not from the area - a huge number of the constituency obviouslly agreed with him to elect him.

Most MP's aren't from the area they represent...well alot aren't

Yeah Galloway is an egomaniac (self-proclaimed winner "one of the most sensational election results in modern history"), and I doubt he'll be an effective MP for the people of Bethnal Green, but if his interview with the BBC (2nd down) is anything to go by then at least he'll add an element of amusement.

I have to admit I read his book recently and he certainly wouldn't win the shrinking violet contest!
I still can't wait until he starts eating the $hite out of Blair in the House of Commons - pity more wouln't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jofyisgod

Galloway is a total waste of space. One man in the Commons can do nothing. Simple as. He's pathetic, he feasted on an area that needs serious political attention, not one-issue gobshítes. Oona King was an amazing MP, now she has been unseated by a man not even from near the area, a man with little/no understanding of the seriously entrenched social issues and a man who is so arrogant and out of touch, he honestly believes he will make a difference.

---

Great victory for Old Labour over New Labour. Always excellent to see. What fookin difference did Oona King make? Obviously not enough locally to get votes that's for sure....

The Lib Dems should immediately take up the centre left (too much to expect them to go to the left). Infairness, they've already started with the abolition of Tuition Fees, Increase in Tax, but they need to commit to it. With the Tories and New Labour fighting it out in the right, they really could become the real alternative. Get there before Brown becomes PM and starts shifting New Labour back towards the centre...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sirhamish

I still can't wait until he starts eating the $hite out of Blair in the House of Commons - pity more wouln't.

---

He will get little to no Common's time with the Prime Minister. PM is only there for approx. 30mins a week, and they tend to concentrate on important issues, not self-important individuals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macy

Great victory for Old Labour over New Labour. Always excellent to see. What fookin difference did Oona King make? Obviously not enough locally to get votes that's for sure....

---

Old Labour was unelectable, and IMO, still is. The further away from the radical left the better for the Labour Party. Many voters base their voting preference upon national issues sadly, and the Galloway/King incident proves this. People voted on an issues thousand of miles away (as they are entitled to), not on Ms.King's local work. She lost because of Iraq, nothing else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sirhamish

Oona King made the mistake of supporting the Iraqi war - is that being a REPRESENTATIVE to her large Muslin constituency.

---

MPs have both an obligation to their consituents, their party, but most of all, themselves. If they believe in something, as i feel Oona King (and many other MPs and members of the public did, including me) believed that military action in Iraq was correct, she can vote for it in Parliament. That is her right as an MP.

Agree with Macy on the LibDems, they are way too fuzzy ideologically at the moment, choosing to focus on individual issues rather than a serious campaign and programme for Government. What they must not do, however, is become a new 'New Labour', as then they are going to be simply dismissed. It's a fascinating topic, and i am interested to see how they decide to go about it.

I don't care whether he's self important or not, I still feel he'll make his point against Blair, whenever he gets the opportunity in Commons. Somebody, flawed or not like Galloway, really has to remind Blair that he's responsible for a monstrous toll of death. The silence from far too many Labour MPs was outrageous.
I refuse to believe that King was so gullible that she was unaware of the implications of backing a war. If she was true to herself, fine, but could she not have factored her Muslim constituents feelings into her thought process and still retain her intergrity - course she could. What's the point of being a representative otherwise?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jofyisgod

Agree with Macy on the LibDems, they are way too fuzzy ideologically at the moment, choosing to focus on individual issues rather than a serious campaign and programme for Government. What they must not do, however, is become a new 'New Labour', as then they are going to be simply dismissed. It's a fascinating topic, and i am interested to see how they decide to go about it.

---

The days of ideology-based politics are over guys. The Lib Dems "focus on individual issues" as that's what concerns people in the country ! Education, public funding/tax, pensions - these are all individual issues - and the Lib Dems had both the most radical and, IMHO, the most workable solutions to them. Just because there was no over-riding 'ology' to string all their policies together (left-wing, right-wing, socialist, libertarian, Keynesian, blah blah blah) doesn't mean they were any less relevant, considered, popular or effective, does it ?

And the Lib Dems will not move to take-up the political ground to the left that Labour has left vacant. Again, because politics is no longer about left or right. Labour and the Tories may choose to play 'political chess' - moving their players around the board to follow the wind/chase votes - but the philosophy that undermines the Lib Dems views is one of principle, so they don't go chasing votes in areas or issues which don't match their principles. Hence why they didn't for one second support the Iraq War, identity cards, top-up fees, the gender bias within pensions, tax cuts for the wealthy etc etc.

To clarify what the Lib Dems principle-based approach uses as its point of reference and moral/political compass - it's the preamble to their constitution :

"The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community and in which no-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity".

The party's view on certain issues is a driven by how the issue concerend relates to the above principles. You don't get to hear about htis, because the media overwhelmingly dedicated its time and attention to the 2 other parties.

Therefore - if you vote the Lib Dems you know what you'll get. If you vote Labour or the Tories you genuinely can't be sure what you're voting for - they'll either break manifesto promises (e.g. Labour and Top-up fees) or they'll change their view every other week (e.g. Tories and the war). How does that make those parties any less "fuzzy" than the Lib Dems ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sirhamish

There are MPs and TDs who AREN'T vainglorious attention seekers?

---

That's a ridiculous statement sirhamish, and a lazy dismassal of the very broad cross-section of people and motivations that make up MP's and TD's.

It's not much different than saying all Irish are stupid, all women are crap drivers etc etc.

There are clearly very many MP's and TD's who are not vain-glorious attention seekers, and very few of the minority who area would be on a par with George Galloway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dcfcsteve

The days of ideology-based politics are over guys. The Lib Dems "focus on individual issues" as that's what concerns people in the country ! Education, public funding/tax, pensions - these are all individual issues - and the Lib Dems had both the most radical and, IMHO, the most workable solutions to them.

---

Well, clearly not their ridiculous new council tax replacement, as they are thinking of scrapping it altogether. They provide little in the way of budgeted plans for government, and do not present themselves as 'The Real Alternative'. Without some sort of ideology, there is very little to 'fall back on' as it were when it comes to tough decisions.Also, this is one of the reasons they will never gain too many votes. Conservative spin-off voters will be wary of the more Lefty policies, and the Labour ones not too sure about their more right-wing policy. Without Iraq, i believe there would have been only the smallest change in seat no.'s for the LDs, as many people decided to vote for them due to this a long time ago, paying no actual regard to their more recent policy plans.
I like the LibDems, it just frustrates me when people say they 'like them', but have no substance to their claim-they know little of their ideas, plans and thoughts on issues. They need to set their stall out more efficiently and clearly, and develop some views on politics as a whole, not contrasting ones on single issues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dcfcsteve

Therefore - if you vote the Lib Dems you know what you'll get.

---

A Conservative MP-tell that to the people in Bexleyheath and Crayford. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dcfcsteve

That's a ridiculous statement sirhamish, and a lazy dismassal of the very broad cross-section of people and motivations that make up MP's and TD's.

It's not much different than saying all Irish are stupid, all women are crap drivers etc etc.

There are clearly very many MP's and TD's who are not vain-glorious attention seekers, and very few of the minority who area would be on a par with George Galloway.

---

Hear hear. SirHamish, i fear, is spouting the shíte fed to him daily by the mass tabloid media-'It's cool to dislike/show no interest in' Politics. I confess i know less of the situation with TDs, but i can safely say that 99% of MPs are in Parliament for all the right reasons.

Lads, Lads, will the two of you above cop yourselves on.
I NEVER read the tabloids - I've already stated that the Guardian and Observer are the two papers I read on other posts so who's making the lazy statements??
It's lazy to jump on bandwagons and slate Galloway - and anyone who might wish to give him the benefit of a proper overview - with all the usual cliched "criticism" - who's pulling YOUR strings?
People in glass houses and all that.
The comment I made about TD/MPs was, admittedly, a poor attempt at humour - big deal!
I'm quite capable of making my own mind up and able to disagree with the above quality papers.
Ok so you don't take my comments seriously - I can live with that.
Maybe you lot are taking yourselves a little too seriously also?? :D

MPs have both an obligation to their consituents, their party, but most of all, themselves. If they believe in something, as i feel Oona King (and many other MPs and members of the public did, including me) believed that military action in Iraq was correct, she can vote for it in Parliament. That is her right as an MP.

Let's take that to its logical conclusion. If she really was true to herself and also true to her constituents, she should have resigned her seat and made it an issue for a bi-election. I cannot think of anything more important for a political representative than to have to make a decision where one's vote will effect the lives of soldiers, Iraqis, soldiers families, Iraqi families.
Oona King had, LITERALLY, a life or death decision to make. If she was the paragon of virtue she's made out to be, then she should have resigned her seat and put her pro-war attitude before the electorate. I don't care how talented she is, she proved just to be another Blair lackey and paid the price.

Her local supporters weren't shy either to blacken all her opponents, not just Galloway, with outright lies/distortions. Did she disassociate herself from them. Of course not. By the way, I have BBC London so I heard the comments New Labour made in that constituency.
Paragon of intergrity my ar$e.
Yeh, some of my opinions might be rediculous - MIGHT BE - but you lot are just downright naieve.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sirhamish

MPs have both an obligation to their consituents, their party, but most of all, themselves. If they believe in something, as i feel Oona King (and many other MPs and members of the public did, including me) believed that military action in Iraq was correct, she can vote for it in Parliament. That is her right as an MP.

Let's take that to its logical conclusion. If she really was true to herself and also true to her constituents, she should have resigned her seat and made it an issue for a bi-election. I cannot think of anything more important for a political representative than to have to make a decision where one's vote will effect the lives of soldiers, Iraqis, soldiers families, Iraqi families.
Oona King had, LITERALLY, a life or death decision to make. If she was the paragon of virtue she's made out to be, then she should have resigned her seat and put her pro-war attitude before the electorate. I don't care how talented she is, she proved just to be another Blair lackey and paid the price.

Her local supporters weren't shy either to blacken all her opponents, not just Galloway, with outright lies/distortions. Did she disassociate herself from them. Of course not. By the way, I have BBC London so I heard the comments New Labour made in that constituency.
Paragon of intergrity my ar$e.
Yeh, some of my opinions might be rediculous - MIGHT BE - but you lot are just downright naieve.

---

Who's this addressed to Sirhamish.....?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dcfcsteve

Who's this addressed to Sirhamish.....?

---

you and jofy is god i assume, but more so you....... :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jofyisgod

Well, clearly not their ridiculous new council tax replacement, as they are thinking of scrapping it altogether.

---

Far from being "ridiculous", the Lib Dems pland on Council Tax are by far the most sensible of the 3 main parties. Council Tax is the single most unpopular tax in the country - and to a large extent that is because it is nothing more than a poll-tax. It's based on assumptions made as to the rateable value of your house - but is based on chunks of areas, not individual houses. Therefore - the little old lady on a pension living on her own in her end-of-terrace house would be assessed to pay the same Council Tax as the young, wealthy, double-income top-rate-tax-paying family living in the flash detached property round the corner. Does that seem fair to you ? Add to that the fact that property values change much faster than the very infrequent rate-reviews (currently once a decade), and an already unfair system becomes completely distorted over time.

The Lib Dem proposal was to scrap this ridiculous system and instead replace it with a local Income Tax. Therefore - a system based upon ability to pay, not where you happened to live and the value of your home in relation to a micro-local average. How does this seem "ridiculous" ?

I'm very active within the Lib Dems, and have yet to hear of the parties intentions to scrap this particular policy (though that doesn't mean it hasn't been mentioned). If it does get the chop, however, it won't as you suggest be becuase it is "ridiculous", but will be because it increases the tax burden faced by a a small number of key voters. Real politiks, not failed policies.

As for the rest of your statements - the Lib Dems do have well thought-out plans that are properly costed etc etc. They even have one of the country's most respected economics academics as an MP (Steve Webb, MP for Avonmouth). The fundamental problem is that the media gives overwhelming attention and media space to the other 2 parties - squeezing the Lib Dems in as a footnote/afterthought. This therefore leads the ordinary viewer to believe that the Lib Dems have nothing to say or offer, when in fact it's that they aren't given the chance ?

And as for voting Lib Dem and getting a Tory - firstly the same happened to all 3 parties in the election (vote Labour and get a Tory MP in Surrey South West, Totnes, Poole, Wantage, Suffolk South etc etc, for example. I could go on, but I think you get the idea :) ), and secondly - that's scarily close to the message Blair spent the last 10 days of the election trying to peddle. You should be deeply concered if Labour's spin has burned its way that deeply into your cranium.... :D

I tell you what, the Americans are in for a shock when Galloway arrives for the Senate hearing... :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cfdh_edmundo

I tell you what, the Americans are in for a shock when Galloway arrives for the Senate hearing... :D

---

I would pay good money to listen to a meeting of George B and George G :eek: :D