[Closed] Time for Gordon Brown to go

LIB -LAB PACT, sounds ok,

LIB-CON PACT.

OR

CON -LIB PACT,

Nough said eh.

In every case I am worse of now than 20 years ago

Hmm, sorry to hear that. Care to explain how?

Carelessness, most probably 😉

the problem is that MANY more people dont want them to rule than do want them

Selective. MANY more people don't want labour to rule. Even MORE don't want lib dem to rule.
So, how are you figuring that (out of the big 3), the two LEAST popular get the prize?

Electoral system understanding fail once again.

If you think the result/system isn't fair here's a chance for you to make your voice heard:

[url= http://www.takebackparliament.com/ ]takebackparliament.com[/url]

I've not failed in **** all. Who is the most popular party? Who lost 90 odd seats? Who failed (comically) to get into double figures?

Under the current system all the other party's are more popular actually, combined they have more seats.

By all of your comments, I can only assume that you are massive fans of the FPTP system.

I'd prefer PR.

But here's news for you(again :roll:), your boy callmedave and his party are massive fans of FPTP. So do you prefer PR? Then you may have voted for the wrong party, but I suspect you're only whinging about it because now after the election it didn't give your party of choice an outright majority.

You really need to stop bleating on about this, you sound like a scratched record...a scratched des o'connor record at that, those were the rules that all parties accepted and the Conservatives even after this result want to continue to use.

By all of your comments, I can only assume that you are massive fans of the FPTP system.

You've missed the mark by a long way again.

You're the one spouting the rules. make your mind up.

The people have voted against illegal wars costing 100,000 lives, big brother society, surrender of the EU rebate, open doors immigration policy, expenses sleaze from the whiter-than-white party, pension fund hitting, no more boom and bust yet presides over the mother of all crashes. For f*cks sake Gordon, resign.

The people have voted against illegal wars costing 100,000 lives

Do you really think so ?

Well if that is the case, then surely David Cameron has the moral, legal, and mandated obligation, if he becomes PM, to ensure that those responsible for these illegal acts, are put on trial.

The Tories are after all, the party of "law and order".

So Tony Blair going to be put on trial then ? ...............cool 8)

Well if that is the case, then surely David Cameron has the moral, legal, and mandated obligation, if he becomes PM, to ensure that those responsible for these illegal acts, are put on trial.

I know you don't like books, but you should read The Ghost, ernie. Then again you can watch the film instead now.

Under the current system all the other party's are more popular actually, combined they have more seats.

Seems a ridiculous way of looking at it!

That's a bit like saying all the other teams in a football league are doing better than the league leaders, because collectively they have more points.

That's a bit like saying all the other teams in a football league are doing better than the league leaders, because collectively they have more points.

you should read The Ghost, ernie. Then again you can watch the film instead now.

I've seen it mate ! .........the bit where they are both modelling clay together was the best bit for me 8)

The obvious difference being that in politics the "teams" are allowed to pool their "points" to "win the league

the bit where they are both modelling clay together was the best bit for me

BTW is the film any good?

not seen the film, and I don't think that bit's in the book - what's the context?

😕 erm, I think it's in the context that they're "in love" ?

[img] [/img]

And yes, a brilliant film..........I really enjoyed it 🙂

That's a bit like saying all the other teams in a football league are doing better than the league leaders, because collectively they have more points.

The obvious difference being that in politics the "teams" are allowed to pool their "points" to "win the league".

Yeah, seems a funny old system though.

allthepies

The people have voted against illegal wars costing 100,000 lives

How quickly they forget...

Instead of just making stuff up, allthepies, go back and look at the news before the start of the Iraq war. You will see that the Tories supported the war.

The only major party that was against the war was the Lib Dems.

Stop revising history to suit your prejudices.

>You will see that the Tories supported the war.

Sigh.

Based upon a lie peddled by Blair, Campbell and co.

>Stop revising history to suit your prejudices.

???

No. Gordon [u]should[/u] stay. There would be another election then next year after a vote of no confidence.

History will repeat itself.

So, allthepies, in your version of reality, how come the Lib Dems didn't fall for the lie?

Dunno mate, ask Charlie Kennedy not me.

So you don't have all the answers then?

No, do you ? 😯

Sigh.

Based upon a lie peddled by Blair, Campbell and co.

Well I and many other people at the time said the case for war was bollocks, so presumably the Tories could have said the same. You're kidding yourself if you think the Tories wouldn't have done exactly the same as New Labour.

No I don't, but I'm not the one who said

The people have voted against illegal wars costing 100,000 lives

You did.

But then when I try to ask you how you came to that view you don't seem to be able to justify it.

I think that if "the People" really were voting against the Iraq war, then they wouldn't have voted Tory in such big numbers.

Come on, explain your position.

Under the current system all the other party's are more popular actually, combined they have more seats.

Have you been smoking crack?
I think you have failed to understand the WHOLE POPINT of an election; YOU VOTE FOR ONE PARTY not 2 or 10 or 50.
"oh we lost but combined we got more moan whinge drip" Well ****ing done!
the 2 other main parties combined [i]just[/i] got more seats than the other alone! You must be very proud.

But here's news for you(again :roll:), your boy callmedave and his party are massive fans of FPTP. So do you prefer PR? Then you may have voted for the wrong party, but I suspect you're only whinging about it because now after the election it didn't give your party of choice an outright majority.

Nothing to do with party of choice. Labour and limp dems perform very badly at election. Tories just shy of outright win according to FPTP system. What would the result have been under PR?
All of a sudden "the tories are rubbish", "Lets team up". Right because that would be fair.

I think that if "the People" really were voting against the Iraq war, then they wouldn't have voted Tory in such big numbers.

That's pretty easy. [b]Whatever their position at the time[/b], the tories did not mobilise our forces against Iraq. Labour did.
I'm off to Afan, see you later.

So by voting [b]for[/b] a party that supported the war, "the People" were making a clear protest [b]against[/b] it?

Hmmmm....

Not sure I see how that works quite as easily as you backhander

#
rightplacerighttime - Member

[b]So, allthepies, in your version of reality, how come the Lib Dems didn't fall for the lie?[/b]
Posted 1 hour ago # Report-Post
#
allthepies - Member

[b]Dunno mate, ask Charlie Kennedy not me.[/b]
Posted 1 hour ago # Report-Post
#
rightplacerighttime - Member

[b]So you don't have all the answers then?[/b]
Posted 1 hour ago # Report-Post
#
allthepies - Member

[b]No, do you ?[/b]
Posted 1 hour ago # Report-Post

It's OK, fret not.......... I have all the answers 8)

Right then.........Tony Blair decided to back up his extreme right-wing Christian fundamentalist Republican buddy, George Bush, and support an illegal war in the Middle East.

George Bush and all those around him, were very heavily involved in the petroleum industry. Which of course, made the Middle East a rather interesting place for them.

Now unsurprisingly, quite a few Labour MPs were opposed to an illegal neo-colonialist war. However, for Tony Blair this was not a problem as not only did he have a huge majority, but also the Tories backed him to the hilt.

Supporting Tony Blair with his illegal war really didn't pose any sort of problem for the Tories because firstly, they have always been rather keen on neo-colonialism, secondly ever since their party was led by a Yank they have always been fanatically pro-American. And finally, George Bush was a right-wing extremist like themselves.

However in the case of the LibDems who are in the main, Guardian-reading bleeding-heart liberals who purport to believe in peace and social justice, supporting a neo-colonialist war was somewhat more problematic.

In the run-up to the war, the LibDems came out very strongly against military action, publicly condemning it with fine speeches, dismissing the obvious nonsense contained in the "special" dossier, and backing the UN.

However, the LibDems were fully aware that once things kicked off the British public was likely, as is generally the case in war situations, to rally behind the government. With that in mind, and also aware that they would appear unpatriotic and to be stabbing Our Boys in the back, the LibDems pledged that if the final conclusion [i]was[/i] war, then they would fall in line and fully back it......a promise which they did not break.

Unfortunately for all those concerned the British public's initial strong opposition to the war continued, rather surprisingly, after the war had started. And in fact became even stronger. This led the LibDems to rapidly carry out some impressive political acrobatics, in which they denounced the war as illegal, and successfully managed to convinced many people that they had never supported it at any stage.

As a consequence there now exists a commonly believed myth that the LibDems were the only party in parliament to have at every stage, opposed the Iraq war. When in fact only parties such as Plaid Cymru, have an unblemished record of consistently opposing it.

HTH

Well ernie, you seem to have a better grasp of the affair than allthepies or backhander.

I don't quite see the Lib Dem position the way you do, but that wasn't really the point I was questioning.

What I took issue with was that allthepies said

The people have voted against illegal wars costing 100,000 lives

- with the implication being that the strong vote for the Tories was a vote against the war

- or that the Tories hadn't been implicit in the decision to go to war.

Maybe you'd like to give us another essay on why that position is such a crock?

Well ernie, ..........I don't quite see the Lib Dem position the way you do,

It's the bit where I said [i]"the LibDems who are in the main, Guardian-reading bleeding-heart liberals who purport to believe in peace and social justice"[/i] .......isn't it ?

I thought that might raise a few eyebrows.

No, just this bit.

the LibDems pledged that if the final conclusion was war, then they would fall in line and fully back it

You make it sound like they changed their stance on the justification of the action, which they didn't.

What they did do, once we (as a Nation) were committed to the war, was to support the military in carrying out their task to the best of their ability - to minimise the loss of lives on both sides.

Peace and social justice, tempered by pragmatism.

Unlike the Tories of course, who just let the wool be pulled over their eyes from the off.

You make it sound like they changed their stance

Actually Kennedy always made it very clear that once the war had started, they would throw their weight behind it.

So you had a situation where the LibDems went from supporting the Stop the War Coalition, to opposing it.

[b][i]"support the military in carrying out their task to the best of their ability - to minimise the loss of lives on both sides."[/i][/b]

By far and away the best way to "minimise the loss of lives on both sides" was to cease military action. Something which the LibDems strongly opposed.

Although to be fair, many LibDem members did...........there where still many LibDems members on antiwar marches and demonstrations after the war had started, even though it was no longer official party policy.

backhander - Member

the problem is that MANY more people dont want them to rule than do want them

Selective. MANY more people don't want labour to rule. Even MORE don't want lib dem to rule.
So, how are you figuring that (out of the big 3), the two LEAST popular get the prize?

Under the current system all the other party's are more popular actually, combined they have more seats.
Have you been smoking crack?

By far and away the best way to "minimise the loss of lives on both sides" was to cease military action.

But that wasn't going to happen was it?

That's what I mean about pragmatism - dealing with things the way they are, not the way you would like them to be.

They had a program of opposition before the war started because there was still a chance of avoiding war.

Once the war had started, they came to the decision that there was NO CHANCE of stopping it, in which case the best available choice was to support those actually taking part.

That is not hypocrisy, it is changing the policy to meet changed circumstances.

You may disagree with what they did, but it wasn't unprincipled.

That's what I mean about pragmatism

You mean like supporting a war which you believe to be illegal and immoral ?

That's a pisspoor defence imo, and one which I doubt would have much success in a court of law.

I would prefer to call it "opportunism".

"Well ****ing done"

totally unnecessary remark; grow up

That's a pisspoor defence imo, and one which I doubt would have much success in a court of law.

Why do people so often tag stupid bits on to their arguments like...

"and one which I doubt would have much success in a court of law."

...as if they mean something.

We were nearly having an interesting discussion there. No need to start adding waffle.

But just to take it seriously for a second, you're suggesting that the Lib Dems could be taken to court for expressing support for our armed forces are you? Because that is the only thing I think you could take issue with them for.

I'm not sure whether you disagree with what I said about the LIb Dem position or whether you just don't understand what I said.

If you think that the Lib Dems have ever supported the principle of war in Iraq, maybe you could offer a bit of evidence? I've never heard them express that opinion.

Think Ernie's onto a loser here. "We don't approve of this war but as it's inevitable we'll support it as opposing it would only undermine it but wouldn't prevent it" is to me a sensible and honourable position. You deal with the real situation not the ideal situation.

You need to sort yourself out rightplacerighttime . Firstly you say :

[i]"But just to take it seriously for a second"[/i]

followed by :

[i]"you're suggesting that the Lib Dems could be taken to court for expressing support for our armed forces are you?"[/i]

😕

Don't be so ridiculous, no one's suggesting "that the Lib Dems could be taken to court" 🙄

I was simply pointing out that to justify giving your full support to something which you know to be both illegal and immoral, on the grounds that to do so is "pragmatic" is not a recognised or acceptable defence.

There are not in my opinion, [u]ever[/u] any grounds for supporting a war which you believe to be both illegal and immoral.

It is only with the utmost reluctance that I would support [i]any[/i] war. I certainly would never support one which I considered to be immoral. And the LibDems certainly did argue that any war with Iraq would be immoral - I personally heard Kennedy say so with my own ears.

I have more respect for those who supported the war because they considered it to be both illegally and morally justified, than those that supported it despite believing that it was illegal and immoral.

[i][b]"If you think that the Lib Dems have ever supported the principle of war in Iraq, maybe you could offer a bit of evidence?"[/b][/i]

The LibDems leadership withdrew their support for the Stop the war coalition and refused to supply any more speakers to events organised by them after the war, which they argued was immoral, had started.

[b][i]We were nearly having an interesting discussion there. No need to start adding waffle.[/i][/b]

Well don't bother then. You are under no obligation to comment. And I won't mind if you don't 🙂

Don't be so ridiculous, no one's suggesting "that the Lib Dems could be taken to court"

Well you seemed to be. You're the one who brought the courts up for no good reason. I was trying to get you to explain what you meant (which you still haven't done BTW).

And I am also trying to get you to show me a quote or a news item or something to show that the Lib Dems [b]supported[/b] the war in Iraq, because I don't think you can.

The Lib Dems never supported the war, but they did support the forces who were sent out there to pursue it - there is a difference.

It's a bit like supporting the legal system that gives murderers the right to a defence doesn't mean you support murder.

Not sending speakers to the Stop the War Coalition isn't the same as supporting the war.

You seem to think you've got a monopoly on outrage - get off your high horse.

You seem to think you've got a monopoly on outrage

Not at all. Please feel free to feel as outraged as you like.

Here you are rightplacerighttime, have a read of this article by John Whitelegg MEP dated 2 June 2004 :

It is not true that the Liberal Democrats opposed the Iraq war. But it is a myth that keeps reappearing in political media coverage and a myth that could mislead millions on polling day on 10 June. So it's time we exposed the facts.

Let us go back to Brighton to the Liberal Democrat annual conference of September 2002 to start setting the record straight. Delegates did not oppose the war. The conference set out the conditions that would make war acceptable to the party. In the end none of these conditions was met but the party supported the war anyway.

Its federal executive didn't oppose the war. In January 2003 it simply reiterated the conference decision and supported the Lib Dem MPs' line that there was "no compelling argument" for war "at the present time". What is significant here is that the argument never became compelling by the Lib Dems' previously expressed criteria, but they supported the war anyway.

Charles Kennedy did not oppose the war - not even when he addressed the anti-war rally in Hyde Park in February 2003. He spoke of "real concerns" and the "powerlessness" of "vast numbers of people" to whom Tony Blair "must listen". But he didn't say, as the Green MEP Caroline Lucas said at the same rally, that the war would be illegal, unjust and counter-productive. Indeed Kennedy said on the party website at the time: "We are not the all-out anti-war party. I believe that the United Nations is the proper place to make the decisions." He said firmly that there should only be war if the UN Security Council gave a clear mandate. But the UN never gave such a mandate. And unlike Blair, Kennedy never even claimed there was a clear UN mandate, yet he supported the war.

On 18 March 2003 the Liberal Democrats voted against the motion allowing the government to take Britain to war against Iraq. But even as they voted against the government, the party's MPs fell into line behind it. Lib Dems abandoned talk of forcing the Prime Minister to prove the unproven case for war. Lib Dem conditions requiring a clear UN mandate and proof of a threat from Iraq melted away. Kennedy's view was that the decision had been made and [u]the Lib Dems must give it their "genuine support"[/u].

In effect, the Lib Dems were saying they didn't believe the war was necessary but they would support it once it started. I wouldn't call that opposing the war. In fact I can think of no more unprincipled a stance than to say: "This war is unjust, but we'll support it anyway."

Those of us in Green politics have come to expect the Liberal Democrats to say one thing and do another. We watch them do it all the time over roadbuilding, aviation, incinerators. After 11 September, we watched them position themselves as the party of the measured response, but then support the bombing of Afghanistan anyway.

Shirley Williams in the House of Lords provided a superb example of the fudged nature of Liberal Democrat politics. She agonised over the "catastrophe". She mentioned the "emphasis on regime change by the Bush administration" which was "an objective not recognised in international law". She alluded to attacks on civilian infrastructure, saying the bombing was "likely to knock out the key elements of Iraq's ramshackle infrastructure". She said: "Thousands more innocents will die. And from their ashes thousands more terrorists will spring up."

She made what would pass for a powerful anti-war speech - until the point where she said we must support it anyway because "our troops are not politicians and they deserve to be supported in the professional job they are asked to do by Her Majesty's Government". On that logic, anyone who opposes any unjust war should turn their coats and support it on the grounds that their government did. It's like saying: "I'm opposed to the invasion of Poland/East Timor/the Falklands but I'm going to support it because the troops are only doing what Hitler/Suharto/Galtieri told them to do."

And whilst Kennedy had only ever skirted vaguely around the word "opposition" he now gave his "genuine support" to the invasion. But some Lib Dems went further. Emma Nicholson, the party's South-East Euro MP, said: "This conflict has one of the strongest moral and ethical mandates since the Second World War. It is a just war which we know to be right."

One may speculate about the origins of the myth that the Lib Dems opposed the Iraq war. "Media balance" in this country has more to do with the size of the parties than the strength of the viewpoints. Hence the public was to a large extent shielded from the truly anti-war political choice because the "balancing views" broadcast and published were mostly those of a pro-war party expressing itself in different terms. Whatever the Lib Dems may have said before or since, the party gave what Kennedy himself described as "genuine support" to Blair's war.

The conference set out the conditions that would make war acceptable to the party. In the end none of these conditions was met but the party supported the war anyway.

And unlike Blair, Kennedy never even claimed there was a clear UN mandate, yet he supported the war.
On 18 March 2003 the Liberal Democrats voted against the motion allowing the government to take Britain to war against Iraq.

It's a bit like supporting the legal system that gives murderers the right to a defence doesn't mean you support murder.

Sorry double post

That's an article by someone from the Green party giving his [b]interpretation[/b] of what the Lib Dems position is.

It's worth about as much as your [b]interpretation[/b].

Give me something that directly quotes the Lib Dems supporting the war.

Must be loads of stuff - sounds like a big story!

Must be loads of stuff - sounds like a big story!

Well the story that Charles Kennedy/the LibDems still opposed the war [i]after it had started[/i], sounds even bigger - how about you post some stuff ?

You know how you keep going on about courts and stuff?

Well, in a court case, it's normally the person who makes the allegation (that's you BTW) that provides the evidence.

I'll try and make another helpful analogy.

It's like you are the prosecution, and the LIb Dems are the accused, and I am the defence.

And you stand up and say:

"It was them wot done it - a bloke from the Green Party said so. The prosecution rests m'lud"

Now, in a court of Law, the defense could probably go and have their sandwiches at this point. I don't really think anyone would be asking them to "prove" their innocence.

But just in case anyone else here is interested in what happened V your warped view of things ernie, here's what Charles Kennedy said in the debate before the vote on March 18th 2003 - lifted from Hansard.

1.51 pm

Mr. Charles Kennedy (Ross, Skye and Inverness, West): Following the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), I acknowledge with thanks, through him, to the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) and to all those concerned in all parties in this House, that an honest option has been discussed and agreed in a cross-party way. In the previous debate, the right hon. Gentleman made a powerful contribution to that cross-party basis, which needs to be heard and discussed rationally today.

Although it is sad that we have lost a very good Leader of the House, there is no doubt, having listened to his brilliant resignation statement in the House yesterday evening, that those of us who are supporting the cross-party amendment in the Lobby tonight, as I and my right hon. and hon. Friends will do, have gained

18 Mar 2003 : Column 782

a powerful additional advocate for the case that we are sincerely making. Given the events of the past few days and the last few hours, there has been much understandable comment about the drama of the situation. In the next few hours and days, however, we are liable to see even more drama and trauma when what appears to be the inevitable military conflict against Iraq begins. Let us hope, as we all agree, that the conflict can be conducted as swiftly as possible, with the minimum of casualties: first and foremost, clearly, among our forces, but equally among innocent Iraqi civilians, with whom none of us has ever had any quarrel and who have suffered terribly under the despicable regime of Saddam Hussein.
[b]As for those of us who remain unpersuaded as to the case at this time for war, and who have questioned whether British forces should be sent into a war without a further UN mandate having been achieved, there stands no contradiction—as the former Leader of the House and former Foreign Secretary put succinctly last night—between giving voice to that legitimate anxiety and, at the same time, as and when exchange of fire commences, looking to the rest of the country, and to all of us in the House, to give full moral support to our forces. They do not take the civilian political decision in relation to what they are being asked to do, but they must carry out that task in all our names. The shadow Leader of the House expressed that well last night, but, equally, Church leaders, who earlier expressed profound opposition to war in this way at this time, are making the same point. If, later tonight, at the conclusion of this debate, under the democratic procedures that we enjoy in this House, that is to be the decision, it is important that the whole House unites in that genuine support.

Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire): Can I therefore take it that if the amendment is lost the right hon. Gentleman will vote for the substantive motion?

Mr. Kennedy: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, but the answer is no. I will not do so because our consistent line is that we do not believe that a case for war has been established under these procedures in the absence of a second UN Security Council resolution. That is our position[/b]—[Interruption.]

It goes on a bit after that as other MPs ask questions, but you can read the rest here if you want; [url= http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmhansrd/vo030318/debtext/30318-12.htm ]click[/url]

[b][i]"You know how you keep going on about courts and stuff?"[/i][/b]

No I don't.

I do know that I suggested the [i]"Yes I know it was illegal and immoral but I was just being pragmatic"[/i] is not a recognised or justified defence.

And I do know that I mentioned the word "court" just once in the following single sentence :

[i]"That's a pisspoor defence imo, and one which I doubt would have much success in a court of law"[/i]

I also know that it's clearly [u]you[/u] who keeps banging on about "courts and stuff".
.

[b][i]"But just in case anyone else here is interested in what happened V your warped view of things ernie, here's what Charles Kennedy said in the debate before the vote on March 18th 2003 - lifted from Hansard."[/i][/b]

"Just in case anyone else here is interested" ? Are you playing to an audience ? ........how sad 😐

TopTip : Try just making your point and moving on without worrying too much what other people think........that's what generally like to do.

And btw, the Hansard doc. you've copied and pasted is useless. It refers to what Charles Kennedy was saying before the war had started. Everyone knows that the LibDems were opposed to the war before it started. So how about you post some evidence that they opposed the war 2 days after it had started, rather 2 days before it had started. I assume that you couldn't find any, but if it helps the war started on March [u]20th[/u] 2003.

TopTip : Try just making your point and moving on without worrying too much what other people think........that's what generally like to do.

ENGLISH!?! DO YOU SPEAK IT!?!

Ernie - you are an idiot.

There, I've made my point. Now I'm going to move on.

ENGLISH!?! DO YOU SPEAK IT!?!

Yeah I would say so, but not particularly well - certainly not as well as the Queen. Why do you ask ? Because I missed a word out in my post ?

[b][i]"Ernie - you are an idiot"[/i][/b]

Well I guess there's always that possibility. Although I'm able to figure out that what Charles Kennedy said 2 days before the start of the Iraq war, doesn't provide proof of what he was saying after it had started......apparently you believe that it does 😕

Meanwhile, in current affairs, the Sky News helicopter is going a bit mental overhead, so I suspect something is happening.....

the something was not what you expected was it.....best close the cellar door.

Great set of pics from GBs last hours in No 10 -
[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/gallery/2010/may/12/gordon-brown-labourleadership ]click[/url]

Thought the man was very dignified last night and frankly played a blinder. Pretty much kicked all the "hes hanging on for grim death" wallers in to the long grass in one move.