Who Are You Going To Vote?

Sorry, it wouldn't allow me more than 10 spaces....

 

The bastards! lol

 

I hardly suggested we should condemn the troops as war criminals. But personally, I didn't support the war, and I didn't support a US/UK victory, even though it was inevitable. I didn't support Saddam either, but it didn't mean I would thow myself into a patriotic fervour. I couldn't really see any favourable outcome to the war once it had started. I'm not suggesting the Lib Dems should have taken the same stance as I did, but I think criticism of the war should have continued throughout. I don't think they should have bowed to populism. That's the way of parliamentary politics, it's a sad reality....

 

The three main parties make me laugh. They are slagging each other off constantly and saying they are the best but if you look at it they are all saying the same thing. Voting for Labour isnt much different from voting for Consevative these days and vice versa. Vote Green Party or Socialist Workers Party instead

 

They are not realy..thats the truth.. the media keep them 'fighting' by spinning every story into some slagging match. the No. of choice words each person has had to say about each other.. i can count on two hands.

If you think they are saying the same things and one are just like the other..thats a bit of a let down...and a cop out for voting some dodgy 'other' party just because (maybe) of a single issue..i am sorry for this (after you were nice enough to say happy birthday)..but it does drive me a bit mad..

 

That's very easy to say if you don't remember the last Tory government. Labour are fairly wanky at the moment, but they still pale into insignificance next to the fuck-ups of the last lot.

 

I'm not saying vote for a minority party because its other but I would vote for them because I support the Socialist Workers Party. Its just Labour go on about 'Working Class pride' when it comes to election time but they really dont give a toss. I mean I would back Labour before I'd back Conservative but in my opinion and its only my opinion nowadays they are both the same, near enough.

As for DoktorAtomik well yeah I dont remember the Old Tory Government but I think I have a pretty decent idea about it. Yeah its true maybe I am just a youngster and I dont really know that much but I'm just sharing my views

 

I think if you look up the history of Kennedy's parliamentary questions and contributions to debates on this matter you would be extremely hard pressed to make a case that he has been inconsistent or bowed to populism. He has consistently challenged the govermnment over the legality and execution of the war and the damage done to the legitimacy of the UN - before, during and since.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/search/?s=iraq&pid=10334&pop=1&p=4

Expressing support for British troops while in action does not detract from this. In fact what it achieves is to deflect (irrelevant, but often highly effective) accusations of being unpatriotic and distinguishes him from the likes of George Galloway - who sounded like a fanatic when he called for people to actually support the Iraqi insurgency against coalition forces. Statements such as Galloway's undermine the seriousness of the anti-war campaign by making it extremely easy to dismiss as ill-considered ideological nonsense. Voices like Menzies Campbell and Charles Kennedy have been, I would argue, a far more credible voice, speaking from within mainstream politics, against the Iraq war.

 

You're quite welcome to share your views, young dude. But I can assure you that life in Tony's Britain is a damn site less nasty than it was in Maggie's Britain. Sure, Labour have drifted pretty damn far from their socialist ideals, but they've still got a long way to go before they catch up with the Tories.

 

Why thank you . But as for Labour maybe they are not as bad but at the rate they are going now then I dont think it will be that long till they are, maybe not as bad as Thatcher but I think that things are only going to get worse with Blair :$

 

They may have a long way to go to catch up, but the problem is that they are heading in that direction in the first place. Surely its better to (try) put a stop to it now before it gets any worse.

 

Theres no harm in trying mate

 

Couldn't agree more. My only point is that it's no good pretending that there's no difference between a Tory government and a Labour government, when in fact the Tories would be way, way worse. Just because Labour are currently making twats of themselves, that shouldn't blind us to the fact that the Tories are in a different league.

Remember, class division is still alive and well in this country despite what some people would have you believe, and the Tories represent the interests of the wealthy upper classes.

 

I'm voting the ''Legalise Pot'' party.

 

Have you any info on there policies..i can't find any other than the bloody obvious.

 

It's a throw-away vote anyway.
My research is that the Lib-Dems are the only party who have
any sense when it comes to this and sod Conservative & Labour.
I wonder if it will ever happen in my life time, though.
Jetting off to Amsterdam every year is getting expensive but
still a laugh and good fun.

 

You are 100% right!!

And this is a message that needs to be hammered home, esp to those too young to recall the Thatcher years.

KEEP THE TORIES OUT AT ALL COSTS!!

 

Was doing some research on Fagin when I came across this article on the TimesOnline site... thought it was worth putting up here...





January 31, 2005

Fagin, Shylock and Blair
William Rees-Mogg
THERE are two great anti-Semitic personas in English literature. Both were created by men of genius, William Shakespeare and Charles Dickens, in works of genius, The Merchant of Venice and Oliver Twist. Both portray a stereotypical Jew as avaricious, ruthless and cunning. The names of both of these characters are so familiar that they have entered the language. They are Shylock and Fagin.

Yesterday, The Mail on Sunday rightly published two striking photographs side by side. Both are carefully staged, with a Fagin figure holding an old-fashioned pocket watch on a chain. The first is a picture of Barry Humphries actually playing Fagin. The second is a Labour Party poster of Michael Howard, carefully chosen to fit the Fagin image.

The second picture has, of course, been doctored by Labour. The watch and chain have been added. The relationship between the two poses is obviously intentional; there is even an unusual knot in the watch chain that appears in both. We are intended to associate Mr Howard with Fagin, that is with a sinister Jewish criminal as seen by anti-Semites.

This is part of the Labour pre-election campaign. Another Labour Party poster, to be seen on the Labour website, shows Michael Howard and Oliver Letwin as two flying pigs. Recently Mike O’Brien, the Trade Minister, wrote an article for a Muslim newspaper that questioned whether Mr Howard could be trusted to support Muslims. Last year Ian McCartney, the chairman of the Labour Party, compared Mr Letwin to Fagin.

The steering group for the Labour election campaign consists of 12 members, led by Alan Milburn and Alastair Campbell. It includes Darren Murphy, who is the Downing Street press officer. All 12 are close to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister himself should be regarded as fully responsible for the policies of his campaign, which is largely run by his political friends.

The posters have not been withdrawn since the first complaints were made. The advertisements were designed by Trevor Beattie, whose agency was responsible for the FCUK “shock” advertisements for French Connection. He is highly professional; he does not achieve his results by accidents.

This brings together three ugly elements in political advertising. “Shock” advertising is designed to promote controversy. Even in writing about this advertisement, I may be falling into the Milburn-Campbell trap. How better to get across propaganda against Michael Howard than to get the press to protest against its anti-Semitism? Creating controversy is the basic formula of shock advertising. It does, of course, have the disadvantage of turning Labour into a FCUK party. It is the dirty end of the advertising business.

The second element is the decision to open the Labour campaign with “attack” copy, going for the man, not the ball. This is backed up by polling evidence that Mr Howard is not a popular leader, though he is both decent and competent. Unfortunately, the American style of negative political advertising has proved to be effective in campaign after campaign — most recently by George Bush’s destruction of John Kerry. It may not be good for the political process, but it works — and it pays to get one’s blow in first, as Labour has done.

Some people would put this down to the ordinary rough and tumble of politics. I would agree that politicians must be allowed some latitude in electioneering, though I find most shock-and-attack advertising pretty distasteful. It is the third element that is unforgivable, particularly from a party that so often praises itself for its freedom from racial prejudice. There is never any excuse even for mild anti-Semitism; it is a dangerous and virulent poison. The last British politician to exploit anti-Semitism was Oswald Mosley; is it now Tony Blair?

The trouble is that anti-Semitism, like attack advertising, works only too well. There are several times more Muslim voters than Jewish voters; they are part of the target audience. The Labour campaign is not intended to be overtly anti-Semitic; but it looks as if it is playing on the Tom Tiddler’s ground of anti-Semitism.

They knew what they were doing. They are the most experienced, the most professional, the most ruthless operators in the political attack business. When they hint that the Leader of the Opposition resembles a Jewish villain, they must know the rest of us will take the hint, or at least to note that he is Jewish. Unfortunately, some voters are anti-Semites who will rise to the bait.

Behind it all there stands the figure of Mr Blair himself. This is his campaign. His closest political and personal adviser is Mr Campbell, the leading figure in this campaign, as in so many successful campaigns of political defamation in the past. Mr Blair is careful to avoid personal responsibility. He wipes his own fingerprints off the smoking gun.

Mr Blair does not go into the streets and make anti-Semitic speeches. He does not even give the message of the Fagin advertisement: “You should not vote for Michael Howard because you cannot trust the Jews.” But Labour wants to destroy Mr Howard as a political leader by using his Jewishness against him. They know to a hair’s breadth what they are doing. Of course, any anti-Semitism has been denied; the purpose of the operation is to raise the controversy and then withdraw. But the Fagin image will linger on, and those voters who do not like Jews will have been reminded of their prejudice, by modern advertising techniques and, alas, even by this article. But it is a dirty, dirty, dirty business and it disgraces both the Labour Party and the Prime Minister.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Another reason to doubt the intentions of the so called party of the people...

Fly...

 

I thought as much..i was still curious though.. I believe the stuff is available from your local shady character.. They sometimes are quite friendly (wich helps).

 

lib dem

( sorry for change of subject ) get a growlight, check this place - http://www.growlighting.co.uk/ wicked prices