Topic awaiting preservation: Tony Blair and the Labour Party wins. (Page 1 of 1)

Tony Blair and the Labour Party wins.

Well, well.

Pretty dismaying.

Looks like invading Iraq is getting the "thumbs up" from the English, as well.

*Bleh*

Prettey sad world, indeed... The funny thing for me is I live in England at the moment but haven't got the right to vote, so I couldn't even do anything about it... Not so sure I would have made any difference anyway...

At least something rather historical happened as well yesterday: the election of the first black conservative MP ever, Adma Afriyie

/*edited to fix the link twice, too bad, I'm rubish */

(Edited by kimson on 05-06-2005 14:38)

Well it's not all bad, there was quite a big change around with the seats, Conservative and Lib Dems got more seats than before so there's more to play for in the next four years.

By the way, it's the British WebShaman, not just the English!

From tv interviews I saw with various 'citizens' who said they voted labour.... did so because of the economy.

'...like him or not... I'm better off.' They voted with their wallets. Which is usually what happens.

Huh...and here I thought "race" was no big deal in the UK.

...held in Blacpool, ha.

From some reports I heard, many voted Labour to keep the conservatives out.

We have two parallell's here in Canada; In BC we have to vote Liberal to keep the NDP out and Federally Liberal to keep the xian right-wing bigots Conservatives out.

When will we have someone to vote for?

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

quote:

---

By the way, it's the British WebShaman, not just the English!

---

My apologies Blaise, you are correct.

You know fellows, there once was a point in time where people voted for the leader who left them best off.
Everyone did it, the poor voted for the man who promised the most to the poor. The rich cast ballots for the man with the best economic policies, and the most open trade policies. The environmentalists gave a thumbs-up to whichever candidate had the least personality, and seemed the most vegetative.

The system worked, because the population was represented by a government that was chosen to represent the actual composition of the nation.

At some point in time, the media saw how easy it was to manipulate people, because of their short attention spans. "You don't like to war, right? Well Tony Blaire likes the war, so you have to vote for..." Some people don't even care which candidate their better off with anymore. That's a sign of a failing system.

The war in Iraq is one small little piece of the work Tony Blaire has done. He was voted back into power not because "invading Iraq is getting the "thumbs up" from the English" but because it's inconsequential to the lives of most British citizens. The phenomenally strong economy is infinitely more important in the grand scheme of things, at least to the extent on the people living in Great Britain. Regardless of what some pinko media-junkies who couldn't even locate Iraq on a map feel, the best candidate for the people he's representing is supposed to win an election, not the candidate who has done the best job of looking pretty on the television.

Michael Howard and Charles Kennedy obviously learned nothing from the elections in America. You can't (or at least shouldn't be able to) win by harping on something the current leader did wrong. He can't just be a bad candidate, you need to be a better one. Not being the man who went into Iraq makes you a nothing, it doesn't make you a better leader. When everything?s going well, and the countries population is well represented, you better have something damn good to offer for the future, otherwise the public will see through you.
...the British public saw through them.

Iraq's contribution to this election? A percentage of simple-minded people who wouldn't have even known there was an election without the national news didn't vote for the party that best represented them. It's unfortunate, but the media may switch sides next time around and they'll follow in suit.

^^
Here here!

Meh... we've still got Johnny "Mentat Eyebrows" Howard in office over here. The man who said he was going to retire this term has decided that he's going to lead his party inot the next election. Four fucking terms now... we can't get rid of the slimy little ass-kissing bastard.


Justice 4 Pat Richard

A bitter sweet thing for me. On one hand I'm glad he wasn't punished for his position on Iraq and on the other... Labour winning? eek!

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

So, the British elected someone who wasn't popular?




Big deal. We Americans did that twice in the past 5 years. You're lagging being your child, Mother England.

- Stephen
deviantART Profile :::: Everything2 Profile

It was an interesting election form a lot of angles:

1. A lot of people did vote Labour because the alternative was too horrible to contemplate.

2. Only 25% of people able to vote voted for Labour.

3. They got the lowest percentage of the vote for any winning government.

4. They only survive in office because of the "first past the post" system - not an incentive for electorla reform

5. A lot of the left wingers kept their seats compared to Blairites which means he can't drive through policies thanks to an overwhelming minority (so it should kill ID cards and some of the wackier legislation).

6. Blair will probably go sooner rather than later. Unless he gives a timetable for his stepping down a stalking horse candidate will be put up against him later this year.

7. Ultimately it will be the unions which get the last call on his staying.

8. Gordon Brown will be the next PM (pos. within a couple of years) and the ginger gnome Cook my be deputy (even though they once hated each other). It will allow him to reunify the various factions in the party and (unless the economy goes down the drain) he will romp home with a landslide again.

9. I voted for the guy with the funniest name - it is a safe Labour seat and my vote doesn't count so....

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org | Justice for Pat Richard | FAQs: Emperor | Site Reviews | Reception Room

if I went 'round saying I was an Emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!

quote:

---

Emps:...so it should kill ID cards and some of the wackier legislation...

---

Lucky you. We get our papers within three years.

Would it be possible that they would sneak it into some war funding as happened to us, thus causing all to vote yea in fear of political remittance?

quote:

---

Emps:...my vote doesn't count so....

---

At least you know your place in the scheme of things.

quote:

---

Ramasax said:

Lucky you. We get our papers within three years.

Would it be possible that they would sneak it into some war funding as
happened to us, thus causing all to vote yea in fear of political
remittance?

---

It was discussed in the Queen's speech so theya re going to give it a go.

I suspect it will be tagged on some kind of immigration/asylum legislation. They sneaked the evil voucher scheme back in when no one was looking in the run up to the election.

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org | Justice for Pat Richard | FAQs: Emperor | Site Reviews | Reception Room

if I went 'round saying I was an Emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!

I always hear such rubbish along the lines of "you're forgetting what a mess the Tories made of it all..."

I can remember growing up under the Tories with pride in my country.

Those who could excel at school were given the chance to excel, not held back so that the others didn't feel left out.

Since Labour came in, we've invested less and less on our engineers and industry, and spent more and more on imports. They say we're all better-off, and yet I'm paying more in taxes now than my father used to earn.

Since labour came in, the filth on the streets has multiplied (all voters, of course). Now even I'm worried about how safe I am on the streets, and I'm a fairly heavy six-footer with formal training.

Labour altered the way in which crime is recorded. Now, if a copper arrests you for speeding, or driving without a seat-belt, it is recorded as a 'solved crime'. In the meantime, violent street crime has risen to ludicrous levels, but with so much gloss and spin, we're force-fed the bullsh*t that 'in balance, crime is down'.

Yeah, that's because it's becoming pointless to report it when they'll just tell you to expect a visit in the morning (if they can spare the time between defending against compensation suits and chasing dangerous tax-evaders).

How the hell have we come to the point where going to hospital puts you at substantial risk of contracting a flesh-eating bug and dying?

Why the hell do we protest at parents reasonably smacking their children while kids on the street (whose parents obviously never raised a hand to teach them a little respect and discipline) are randomly attacking strangers for entertainment?

Where is the pride in our nation?

I'm not saying the Tories are better. In fact, they're now such a weak-a***d bunch of misfit wankers, I'm surprised their mothers let them out into the public.

I'll vote for the party that brings back corporal punishment (in schools and in the courts). You put a criminal in prison for three months and they come out better criminals - having learned how to achieve their nefarious goals with more success. Let's see how a week in the stocks or life-long flogging-scars hold up against three months in a four-star-service prison.

I'll vote for the party that invests in my country's skilled workers, engineers and inventors, making it economically viable to build here and export, rather than penalising British industry in favour of imported goods.

I don't know of a single mainstream politician who is capable of competently, confidently, and intelligently answering a genuine question from a real member of the public. They're all stage-managed and promoted like celebrities.

I honestly can't say that I've heard an intelligent spontaneous sentence from any one of them. We need real people with real agendas and real goals to lead this country in a realistic manner. We need leaders with the bollocks to make changes, not just keep patching the holes with promises.

Until then, the way my country is going, it can just carry-on sinking for all I care. If we're building the country for its people - from what I've seen of them on the streets and on the news - then I couldn't give a shite if it all comes tumbling down. Perhaps what comes out of it once the more compassionate, capable and resourceful have rebuilt it might actually be somewhere I'd take pride in.


OMG, what a pointless rant. Sorry

(Edited by White Hawk on 05-18-2005 17:01)

Pointless? I can't say but I did find it very interesting. I don't often get to read debates about the internal politics of other countries around here since so much seems focused on US politics. I am reading and learning

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

^Me too!

quote:

---

I don't know of a single mainstream politician who is capable of competently, confidently, and intelligently answering a genuine question from a real member of the public. They're all stage-managed and promoted like celebrities.

I honestly can't say that I've heard an intelligent spontaneous sentence from any one of them. We need real people with real agendas and real goals to lead this country in a realistic manner. We need leaders with the bollocks to make changes, not just keep patching the holes with promises.

---

Isn't this pretty much universal?

Tell you what though, George Galloway is ok in my book. Not sure if he was 100% factual in his rant before the US senate, but he still handed their asses to them.

Ramasax

(Edited by Ramasax on 05-19-2005 04:58)

There was a time when politicians met the public face-to-face. It wasn't a small selection of the loyal with pre-written questions - it was a free exchange of views and general patter. It was a real test of a politician's character.

That changed. The modern equivalent is more like a QVC ad:

"...but wait! We won't just lower taxes - vote for us now and we'll throw in a plastic party loyalty badge for free! I see you have a question madam? What's that? Why am I so manly? It's because I am empowered by the force of my party, destined to lead you into prosperity! any more relevant political questions? Yes, you... You want to know whether we'll be posing for a calendar when we win the election? You betcha'! And we'll be sure to make it freely available to third-world orphans too. They might be starving, but that's no reason for them not to gaze upon our infallible glory! Yes, I am great, aren't I? ...security, there's a man at the back who looks like he might be about to ask a question on road legislation or something - can you escort him away, please?"

==I don't believe it! Somebody stole my sig!!==

(Edited by White Hawk on 05-19-2005 16:35)

Ramasax - thanks for that link. It's nice to see namby-pamby diplomacy being put aside for a moment in the name of kick-ass (to coin an American phrase). The media here has not exactly rallied behind Galloway, and it is probably bigger news in the US having a Scotsman dress-down Congress.

==I don't believe it! Somebody stole my sig!!==

I know this is a little belated, but for anyone interested here is the entire 45 minute clip of Galloway's appearance before congress. Really worth watching.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2005/180505gallowayvideo.htm

Ramasax

Also worthy of mention is the general opinion of most people I've met. It is something like "nice rant - but he's still a crooked b*****d".

Can't say I don't agree.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzz....

(Edited by White Hawk on 06-03-2005 01:55)

I really don't know enough about his background, and I have heard some things about him I don't like as well, if they are true. But nonetheless, it was nice to see Norm Coleman squirming in his chair and hear somebody speak in Washington like they had a pair.

Ramasax