Kind of laughable how this whole election come down to hatred of Bush.
Are you all of such short attention span that you couldn't actually concentrate on the true purpose of the election?
It was out of Labour, Tory and Lib Dems. Labour have proven, aside from the Iraq situation (which, for you Geography majors, isn't part of this country), that they are capable of running this country.
-AC
Thatcher. She had 3 terms.
...And It is not just Iraq. That IS as people have said, the focal point,
but the failed targets on crime, education, health care, university fees, border control, the lies , arrogance and the unwillingness to listen to the electorates is what has landed Labour in the position of contempt that they find themselves in....
And although I'd agree that its hard to look around and find anyone with a more confidence inspiring look to run the country,
I'd say that i think Howard couldn't have screwed the pooch any worse than Blair.....
Why do you say you don't see how anybody could sanely vote for Blair? Because of the Iraq situation that in hindsight has nothing to do with the reasons why you should be voting? "But if he lied about Iraq he can lie about other things." True. SOMEONE has to be in power though and Blair is better than both the Conservative and Lib Dem candidates.
I don't like the man, lets not get it twisted here. Conservatives are and always have been a bunch of rich old bastards who take care of those earning more than 50K a year and f*ck everyone else. 80's mining strikes? Oh and on that note...
Like I said, why Thatcher? Unless you're dodging the question.
-AC
I dont know... ask the voters of the time...!! Not dodging.... It was possibly because of weak Labour opposition at the time, which just goes to show that "Better the devil you know" might not always be the best thing I guess....
Rich guys taking care of themselves etc? So are new labour.
They are very similar to the Tories in this regard.
Never before have the two parties of Tories and Labour been so similar in regards to so many issues...
And what about the winter of discontent and its near sequel under Blairs rule?
Near sequel? Bit of a stretch.
I'm waiting though. Don't just chime in with "Thatcher" and "I can't see how anyone could sanely vote for Blair." without giving reason.
So why vote for Thatcher, when she's clearly someone who always has and always will (along with all Conservatives) primarily supported upper classes? Unless you are upper class I don't see why you'd vote for them.
So, explain.
-AC
Hang on... I think we have our wires crossed here AC.
Baroness Thatcher wasn't running and is out of the Tories...
Ergo there is no reason to vote for her.
I "Chimed in" with Thatcher in response to Winds question on terms!
I was applying it in no way to any argument....
Well if you look at the seats/votes last night where there are strong non-upper class prescences, you might note that an awful lot of people voted Torie last night...
The Firestrikes, petrol strikes etc under Blair were very remiscant indeed of the late 70s (The last time Labour were in charge prior to this stint) in regard to the "near sequel" tag...
If there is Something I hated about the Tories in regard to they way they deal with the national services, it'd be privitisation....
Under Labour, the gap between Rich and Poor has gotten quite wide indeed, they keep the poor poor too.
So why not vote for the other party if you are dissatisfied with the current Party?
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Hang on... I think we have our wires crossed here AC.
Baroness Thatcher wasn't running and is out of the Tories...
Ergo there is no reason to vote for her.
I "Chimed in" with Thatcher in response to Winds question on terms!
I was applying it in no way to any argument....
Yeah you edited your post. It just said "Thatcher". Glad we cleared that up.
Why vote for the other party if you're dissatisfied with the current? Because the other is worse.
Michael Howard, jeez. If you'd be happy with him running out country, well. Says it all.
-AC
I edited the post about 30secs after I first posted it...!
I thought your response was a bit fast to the whole thing
Now I see...... OK LOL
Worse in your opinion. Which is fine. Thats all good as we love freedom of vote.
Howard definitely wouldn't have been ideal for sure, but I don't want labour in.... So there you go... It didn't say it all, did it?
It'd be like me saying "Well you want Blair" That says it all..... when it would'nt unless I was trying to inferr some deficiency in your way of thinking.. Which'd be a little overly personal rather than sticking to the subject at hand...
As I have said, I tac voted... Im actually more of a leftist than the tories, but the Lib dems were never gonna be up to it....... 🙁
Labour have proven, aside from the Iraq situation (which, for you Geography majors, isn't part of this country), that they are capable of running this country.
so a 50% increase in NHS spending leading to only a 5% improvement in overall hospital service as well as an increase in MRSA cases is your idea of capable running of a country
if it were a buisness it would have went bust by now...lucky that the labour government has an almost limitless source of income through johnny tax payer
Originally posted by WindDancer
Here is a question for you English Historians out there. The title says "Blair secures historic third term". Has there been another PM that has serve more than two terms?
I think its called Historic because its the first labour PM to get elected for a third term
But you probably knew that so 😮
Originally posted by jaden101
so a 50% increase in NHS spending leading to only a 5% improvement in overall hospital service as well as an increase in MRSA cases is your idea of capable running of a countryif it were a buisness it would have went bust by now...lucky that the labour government has an almost limitless source of income through johnny tax payer
I didn't say they were perfect. I said in comparison to Michael Howard's crew and with regards to any other choice, they are capable.
If Labour are as bad as people believe, bottom line is, we'd be in a state of anarchic political war, but we're not.
-AC
Would your (Brit voters) opinion change on the labour if Gordon Brown had to suceed as PM in the mid-term course of the Labour Govt. ?
I mean there is a lot of cons against the failed targets of Blair's administration, and we know that Gordon Brown did have a rift with Blair on domestic issues so would Gordon Brown equally spell out the same labour ideaology or would he be more prctical ?