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.

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

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

takebackparliament.com

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.

We can only hope…..If not, then the obligation falls to brow…whoever.
Browns gone dude. His position is completely untenable.
A party leader who loses 90 odd seats has got to be dead.

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.

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

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

Which is what the teams currently "pooling" are opposing against, doing precisely what they hate.

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

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

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" ?

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 should 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 **** done!
the 2 other main parties combined just 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. Whatever their position at the time, the tories did not mobilise our forces against Iraq. Labour did.
I'm off to Afan, see you later.

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

Hmmmm….

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

#
rightplacerighttime – Member

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

Dunno mate, ask Charlie Kennedy not me.
Posted 1 hour ago # Report-Post
#
rightplacerighttime – Member

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

No, do you ?
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 was 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 "the LibDems who are in the main, Guardian-reading bleeding-heart liberals who purport to believe in peace and social justice" …….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.

"support the military in carrying out their task to the best of their ability – to minimise the loss of lives on both sides."

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?

well if the tories had enough MPS they could as they dont they cannot claim some great mandate from the people really on 38% ..well you could but it is flimsy. I beleieve the electorate did this. You got the most votes and the most mps but alone cannot form a a government. As Lib dems are left of centre and labour are it does not seem a huge leap to suggest that most people would prefer a lib/lab government than a Tory one. If you add up their votes it is more than yours and an actual majority of voters- I dont think anyone thinks this is ideal but as we have no outright winner what do you suggest – no party has enough to rule do they? You certainly cannot claim a right wing mandate for your slash of budgets this year well not with legitiamacy

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

Have you lost the ability to count? How is that statement of fact wrong and deserving of that insult?
Yes you got the most votes and seats but you have not WON as you cannot form a government that is beyond debate. You have most legitimacy and certainly Brown /labour have lost but there is no outright winner. So a fudge deal/compromise deal is required – you cannot insist it is Tory just because you have the most votes/seats. I cant see lLib dem membership joining with you while Dave says we can work on the things you agree with me but immigration, economy and electoral reform are off limits. I wonderd if Dave was playing clever so he could blame lib dems for failure when in essence h said they could join himon his ticket/values. The memebership will not go for that even if Clegg will.

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 **** 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.