In denial

[Doggy Styles]

Your position seem to deny the Labour parties responsibility and instead use the defense well if LAbour hadn't done it someone else would have.

Does that apply to running up a large budget deficit as well?

[doodab]

Does that apply to running up a large budget deficit as well?

I don't think the Tories would have let the deficit get quite as out of hand, but I think we would still have seen the bank bail out, not least because in time it will prove to be a moneymaker. We would probably have seen a few privatisations as well.

I'm hoping they do the royal mail. That needs a kick up the arse.

[original PM]

whilst I agree that no governement is great the main thing we need to understand is that politicians cannot wave a magic wand and make the country great again.

It is the citizens of the country which make it great and until we stop paying the large and growing underclasses for doing nothing but breeding the country will get progressivly worse.

The government who shake up the welfare system and stop the payments to lazy chav scum will be the ones who really start to tunr the country around.

I mean we have all these chavs and we cannot even send them overseas to stop bullets and get crotch rot.

What is the world coming to...??

[Sysman]

I see that JP Morgan are sabre rattling again over their site in docklands.

Yes, I spotted that one.

[Green Mango]

A couple of places where your blinkers are getting in the way there.

I'm not a labour supporter.

I'm not saying Blair and co played no part. But to suggest that the responsibility lies solely with him or labour is bollocks. You seem to forget the labour party provided most of the votes against going to war, and overlook the fact that the Tories supported it wholeheartedly. You also seem unable to comprehend that Britain no longer rules the world and couldn't have prevented this war.

You I think are the sort of blinkered idiot who voted Tory because they aren't labour and has no idea what you actually voted for.

should have voted lib dem

Resorting to insults because someone doesn't accept your point of view.

That is pathetic.

[doodab]

Resorting to insults because someone doesn't accept your point of view.

That is pathetic.

The voting record isn't my point of view, it's a matter of public record.

George Bush publicly announcing that there would be military action unless Saddam left Iraq is not my point of view, it's a matter of public record.

David Cameron's support for the war is not my point of view, it's a matter of public record.

Iain Duncan Smith's support for the war is not my point of view, it's a matter of public record.

Several senior Labour figures resigned because of the war. Again, a matter of public record. There was no such strong feeling shown by any Tory in reaction to their parties support for it.

I have no problem with people disagreeing with my point of view, but when they wilfully refuse to acknowledge facts under the assumption that I'm a labour apologist, while offering nothing to support their blinkered, black and white "labour is bad and Tories are good" view of what is a nuanced world I do tend to conclude that they aren't very smart and are running purely on misguided propaganda.

So yes, I have concluded that you are exactly the sort of person who voted Tory because they aren't Labour, and you don't know what you voted for, as you have made abundantly clear by asserting that the Tories wouldn't have taken us to war when the evidence and the voting record shows that they supported the war more strongly than any other major party, including labour

I tend to consider these people "Blinkered Idiots" because they are making a simple minded emotional responses to something complicated that they don't like, and while Blair is an obvious target and must take some of the blame, the fact of the matter is that most of them seem not to have an inkling that the people they voted for "to get labour out" are just as bad or worse.

Apologies if the phrase "blinkered idiot" has touched a raw nerve. Perhaps "incapable of seeing the bigger picture or conducting independent research" or "easily led" might have been better?

As I said, if you wanted an anti war party, you should have voted Lib Dem. They voted consistently against the war in Iraq, and they were united in doing so. Perhaps you did, in which case I apologise, but I do wonder why you are going to such lengths to stand up for the Tories.

[SupremeSpod]

Resorting to insults because someone doesn't accept your point of view.

That is pathetic.

WHS! That's one of my bête noire, that and people who use the expression "bête noire"...

[sasguru]

Resorting to insults because someone doesn't accept your point of view.

That is pathetic.

Having read this thread, I think his description of you as an idiot was factual, rather than an insult.

HTH.

[Not So Wise]

However a 5 year fixed term seems a long time. 4 years would be better, but the coalition is going for 5 years because 4 years from now, the pain of the cuts will be very fresh in people's memories.

Of complete opposite mind, 5 years is to short, double would be better.

The number two problem* with democracy is the frequent election cycles. Basically elected governments get about a year to 2 years tops to plan and enact any good but painful long term planning, after that it’s all about the next election. And even if they do major work in those first 2 years in most cases the real results, good or bad, are not seen until well after the next election

Quote by a unnamed euro MP pretty much sums up whole problem, “we know what needs to be done and how to do, just not how to get re-elected if we do it”

*The number one problem is a stupid electorate

[shaunbhoy]

Having read this thread, I now need to go and lie down

FTFY