In denial

[Green Mango]

They have overspent a bit. They probably could have done a better job. But that isn't treason. Get a dictionary or google or something and look it up.

Well I'm not talking about their gross financial incompetence.

I only see the dogy dossier and the Iraq war as being their treasonous behaviour.

I think that the government which tries to tackle a £153 billion debt per year on top
of the existing £903 billion debt, not to mention all the pension problem, not to mention all
the off balance sheet debts like the PFI schemes is doing a job that not many will thank them for.

It should leave us in a better place, but not without much pain.

Labour could well reap a victory in 5 years time .. thats the irony of life ...
Labour craps on us someone else sorts out their problems and Labour is
back in to crap on us all again.

[centurian]

Labour must be doing cartwheels at how things are turning out. Not only can they blame the Tories for all the pain to come - they can blame the LibDems as well, for whom it is easier to woo voters from - as a chunk of them thought it was effectively a proxy Labour vote in the first place.

[doodab]

I only see the dogy dossier and the Iraq war as being their treasonous behaviour.

Morally dubious as it may have been, that wasn't treason either.

FWIW, I posted this the other day, the motion to go to war in Iraq passed a vote in parliament. it was the first time the decision to go to war was put to such a vote. The motion would not have passed were it not for the fact that most tories voted for it. In fact, only 15 of them voted against.

If you really think "this wouldn't have happened under the tories" you are delusional.

Of course, this whole debate also ignores the fact that the Americans would have invaded regardless of whether we joined them.

[d000hg]

Just as a matter of interest, has anyone in the previous government said sorry for the deficit yet?

Not sure about the deficit, but I saw an interview with John Prescott where he freely admitted mistakes had been made under Labour. Of course he's free to say such things as a Lord, it would be unwise for any current MP to say the same for obvious reasons.

[Green Mango]

Morally dubious as it may have been, that wasn't treason either.

FWIW, I posted this the other day, the motion to go to war in Iraq passed a vote in parliament. it was the first time the decision to go to war was put to such a vote. The motion would not have passed were it not for the fact that most tories voted for it. In fact, only 15 of them voted against.

If you really think "this wouldn't have happened under the tories" you are delusional.

Of course, this whole debate also ignores the fact that the Americans would have invaded regardless of whether we joined them.

I'm afraid I can't agree. The Americans have admitted that Labours treasonous behavior was very important in persuading the
American public that they were not alone in the war and getting the war on.

[Green Mango]

Not sure about the deficit, but I saw an interview with John Prescott where he freely admitted mistakes had been made under Labour. Of course he's free to say such things as a Lord, it would be unwise for any current MP to say the same for obvious reasons.

I've heard the Lord Myners one of Labours treasurey minister franky say that there is nothing progressive in sinking the country in debt,
not to mention James Purcell who left the Labour government over there reackless and irresponsible behavior with regards to the debt mountain.

[doodab]

I'm afraid I can't agree. The Americans have admitted that Labours treasonous behavior was very important in persuading the
American public that they were not alone in the war and getting the war on.

It might have helped sweeten the pill for the American public, but it would have happened anyway. Bush issued an ultimatum stating that the Americans would invade unless Saddam stepped down before the vote in parliament happened.

Also, as I said, it wasn't just Labours behaviour. Parliament voted it through despite a large labour rebellion, literally minutes after an amendment that would have avoided the war was voted down. Details of the voting here:

Iraq — Declaration of War — 18 Mar 2003 at 22:00 — The Public Whip

Iraq — Case for war not established — rejected — 18 Mar 2003 at 21:15 — The Public Whip

Parliament also rejected an earlier motion stating that a 2nd UN resolution was necessary.

Iraq — UN Security Council Resolution 1441 — Second resolution necessary — rejected — 25 Nov 2002 at 21:34 — The Public Whip

However wrong you think it is, that is democracy at work.

Had it been a Tory government, they may not even have put it to a vote, as there was no precedent dictating this had to occur.

[Green Mango]

Had it been a Tory government, they may not even have put it to a vote, as there was no precedent dictating this had to occur.

I don't a Conservative government would have produced the treasonous dogy dossier and they certainly wouldn't have had Blair's insane desire to fullfil Bush's every wish so I have to say you're wrong.

We will just have to agree to disagree ...

[Joe Bloque]

No one is going to try them for treason either, because they haven't committed treason.

You get the leaders you deserve. All of this wanting revenge on new labour for simply being those leaders is ridiculous. Give it 10 years and you'll be voting them in again while demanding the current lot are hung, drawn, and made into waffles.

WHS.

Feb 2003 - Million people march in anti-war protest.

March 2003 - Iraq invasion.

August 2003 - UN reports WMD don't exist in Iraq.

May 2005 - Labour get re-elected under TB with Full Majority

Gordon wouldn't have got into no.10 only if tories had pretty face Cameron in 2005. You get leaders you vote for - that is democracy.

[doodab]

I don't a Conservative government would have produced the treasonous dogy dossier and they certainly wouldn't have had Blair's insane desire to fullfil Bush's every wish so I have to say you're wrong.

We will just have to agree to disagree ...

However much you dislike the war, and dislike Blair for his part in it, you are deluding yourself if you think a Tory government wouldn't have joined it.

Iain Duncan Smith (the then Tory leader) was one of the first people to suggest an invasion of Iraq, a year or so before the dossier was even released. He also lied on his CV, so the chances that he would have baulked at cooking up a few extra "facts" for a dossier seem fairly slim. The only thing that might have gone differently under a Tory government is that they probably wouldn't have been silly enough to put it to a vote and hence wouldn't have needed to present evidence of any sort to parliament in the first place.

Cameron, and in fact most Tory MPs backed the war. The bill would not actually have passed without Tory support, and the amended version stating that the case for war was not established would have passed if the Tories had backed it. The Tories were also unanimous in voting against the idea that a second UN resolution was required.

From what Cameron has said since it seems he would do it all again:

BBC NEWS | Politics | Cameron backs Blair on Iraq war

December 2009 sky news interview