It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Who Voted For New Labour And Why Did You Do It?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 16 2006 @ 03:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey


However, I do think that if the 'standard' by which the parties are 'weighed' is one of near or even outright perfection and that their relative performances in office are simply to be ignored then that is a rather childish and ridiculously unrealistic yardstick which few people would ever contemplate using.





Near or outright perfection? No, I'd put up with "Good", but not "Good (relatively....compared to the Tories)".

I wish Labour would sort themselves out, and sort out some of the countries problems. It's what I expect from any government, not to turn the country into a glowing model of perfection, but just to do the right thing. And every day, I see policies and actions from this government that bring me to the conclusion that they aren't doing that.

If we all accepted that the current system only allows for a Labour or Tory outcome, we might as well live in a Totalitarian state. Labour or Tory? Conservative or Democrat? Let's not take that route.




posted on May, 25 2006 @ 04:33 AM
link   
In 2005 I voted for Labour.

Why?

Because since they came to power we have seen massive investment in public services, a reasonable minimum wage, regular and consistant economic growth, low unemployment and a drop in crime.

Thats pretty damn good when you look at it!

Naturally there are plenty of flaws with Labour, and throwing money at a problem is not the overall solution, but noone can deny that they have improved our country, which is what we vote for!

As for Iraq.... well i dont vote due to foreign policy



posted on May, 25 2006 @ 10:14 PM
link   
Thanks for saying you voted Labour.
But when you say "don't vote for foreign policy" do you mean they can do more or less anything they like with our soldiers and 21st century killing machines against another people?

Of course improving this rock of land is a good thing as we happen to live on it. But were the Tories going to destroy the Health Service or something? What were the differences between them and Labour which really put you of?

When you vote are you only interested in where the money is spent? Are you not that keen on many of the other things? I mean thanking a political party for spending some of you're own money on what the British people want is hardly the be all and end all of politics is it?
Wouldn't it have been good if history had shown you could be prime minister and blatantly lie to the world, but not expect to get re-elected?

You do realise that following Blair's lattest election victory all future prime ministers of Britain (Labour or Tory) can look at Tony Blair from history and think to themselves "I could be like him and get away with it". That to me will be Tony Blair's single greatest legacy.


[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]



posted on May, 27 2006 @ 07:04 AM
link   
Tory policies were a shopping list of thatcherite rejects and little else. They had no idea as to what they really wanted to do with government and didnt provide a credible manifesto.

The lib dems are just yes men, they agree with everyone depending on who their talking too at the time.

Labour were the best of a bad bunch, and had some real achievements under their belt.

However were there to be an election tomorrow with Blair running again I can see myself spoiling my paper.



posted on May, 27 2006 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
What Lib1984 may be too young to understand is that life under the Tories was bad enough that Labour, to many quite intelligent people, seemed like a good idea at the time. I was actually out of the country and didn't vote, plus I had heard that Blair had been vetted by the Bilderbergers, so I wouldn't have voted for him anyway (mind you, I say that now but I too would have been desperate to get the Tories out).


He is a classic Fabian.
Oxford educated to bring about massive social change in society from being in government.
He is also always talking about the world uniting and new visions, new orders, new labour and similar concepts.
Classic fabian and world government promoter.
Wouldnt suprise me at all if he was Bilderberg vetted, whatever that would entail.



posted on May, 27 2006 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Liberal1984
all future prime ministers of Britain (Labour or Tory) can look at Tony Blair from history and think to themselves "I could be like him and get away with it". That to me will be Tony Blair's single greatest legacy.


- What a strange and unusually selective view of reality you have there Lib84.

The truth is that future PM's would not be thinking any such thing.

The facts are that Blair is not going to use the current supposed PM's perogative to initiate a new war between now and his stepping down, and that Gordon Brown and David Cameron have agreed (in public statements on behalf of their parties in future) that the free Parliamentary vote on going to war or not (a first for any UK government) is to be treated as precedent.

Ditto the public enquiries revealing of the intel and the reasons for going to war and the Attorney General's legal justification(s).
All are in future to be made open to the public.

I'm really not trying to be antagonistic with you but maybe you don't really know about it and you should read up on how things are usually done here in the UK?

These are all huge moves away from the usual classic British completely closed and secretive 'tradition' and they are in fact huge leaps towards the democratic openness 'the people' demand these days; all thanks to (that 'demon'
) Blair and his (supposedly 'dictatorial'
) Labour government.

The most likely attitude of any future PM's towards TB and his time is probably a far more realistic 'thank Christ I didn't have to face and make the choices he did!.



posted on May, 27 2006 @ 11:13 PM
link   
I'm sorry Sminkeypinkey but what you have just said doesn't make very much sense to me.

Troops have died in Iraq with a lie in their heads.
He has exploited the fear of terrorism to pass I.D cards which are to demand every person submits to giving an: eye scan, finger prints, address at their own expense or else they be denied the right to leave this country with a current British passport. No terrorist has ever held my right to leave this country hostage but I assure you Tony Blair and his government is about to do so. Therefore I have more respect for terrorists than I have Tony Blair, because whilst both are killers at least terrorists are men of passion and moral belief, whilst Tony Blair to me is none of these; yet he unlike them will be successful in infringing my personal civil liberty.

Have you seen the Parliamentary Regulatory Reform Act (even its name is a kind of spin in the way it underplays its importance)>
www.saveparliament.org.uk...

Have you seen some of Tony Blair’s great quotes?

“"Our Party. New Labour. Our Mission. New Britain. New Britain. New Labour. New Britain. New Britain."

What type of sick minded authoritarian brain can come up with such Orwellian double think?


Or how about…
“But what has come home to me more than anything else is the utter futility of Opposition. I did not join the Labour Party to protest. I joined it as a party of government and I will make sure that it is a party of government." From Tony Blair's speech to the TUC, September 1995 (=power at all cost before principle)

Quote Source…
www.endevil.com...

Sminkeypinkey I don’t understand how you can claim Blair is some sort of past, present or future champion of civil liberty. In fact surely things like I.D cards can only become more dangerous in the future?

There are no “huge” steps towards a better democracy that I can see. The fact the government may still seek to hold people for 90 days without charge or trial scares me more than the terrorists ever have. The I.D cards just confirm my fear for the future of this seemingly ever more dysfunctional democracy.
Blair has presided over spin and media manipulation on huge scale hardly rarely seen in this country before. This was demonstrated by the increase in expenditure of the governments various “communication departments” following Labour rise to power.

Tony Blair passes something like the freedom of information act invites Rupert Murdoch to downing street (founder and controller of News International which owns: The Sun, The Star, The News of the World, The Times, Sky News, Fox News, over 200 sky channels, over 172 newspapers world wide (now 175) all of which supported the war in Iraq. www.ketupa.net...
His government then admits that it would be in the public interests for them to know what was said in Murdoch’s and Blair’s various meetings. Trouble is they blocked the release of the details. www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk...

Also would you mind spelling out what choices Blair made that might make a future PM think “thank Christ I didn’t have to make them”

Was it to improve or not improve the public Health and Education system? (real difficult). Then there’s how you do it…
The real choice would have been to sort it out structurally (or just spend lots more money). (Of course I have no idea which one of these Blair chose; or even chose most!!).

Was the war in Iraq a really difficult decision? They certainly seemed to find it difficult making the infamous “Dodgy Dossier” up (using a students 12 year old work and various mistakes).
But for a Prime Minister Blair no way was it a difficult a difficult decision. He seems to have made up his mind on behalf of things like The Friends of Israel organization a long time ago. The trouble was convincing people. This is what I mean when future prime ministers can look at Blair and say "I could be like him and get away with it".
And they can only say that with good reason because (in spite of all his lies, and all his his wrongs) Tony Blair has been elected Prime Minister 3 times.

And till you prove me otherwise I think he has been blessed with some very easy decisions (like how to use your once historically massive majority to pass just about any act of parliament you like). Most prime ministers (good or bad) would crave Blair’s good strokes of luck. And I hope a worse one never gets it. But then again maybe Cameron isn’t much different? And by modelling his plastic PR on Blair maybe he will at least partially get away with it?

Time for Some More Facts

Blair Approval ratings…


Gives 36%
www.telegraph.co.uk.../news/2006/03/19/upoll.xml&sSheet=/portal/2006/03/19/ixportaltop.html

Gives 28% Sun Readers (working class though)
www.angus-reid.com...

Gives 30% as of 16th April
www.washingtonpost.com...

As of 9th of May Tories have 8% lead…
www.ukpollingreport.co.uk...

If Blair really cared about democracy he would resign, or hang himself in shame. But he’s not a saint, and you didn’t go quite that far (though I think you were quite close). The peaces of draconian legislation make him seem a lot loss than that. Oh and demonstrations have been banned for kilometre radius around Westminster and Downing Street. www.thisislondon.co.uk...

Now law: news.bbc.co.uk...

P.S According to the papers this week a man and his supporters who have doing a 2-3 year peaceful vigil outside parliament was attacked by 50 police this week. They confiscated placards, but he has remained. Thankfully he is exempt from the legislation because his protest started before it was introduced. www.indymedia.org.uk...

Yes simkeypinkey there is nothing authoritarian about wonderful Blair or New, New Labour. Is there?


[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]



posted on May, 28 2006 @ 06:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Liberal1984

P.S According to the papers this week a man and his supporters who have doing a 2-3 year peaceful vigil outside parliament was attacked by 50 police this week. They confiscated placards, but he has remained. Thankfully he is exempt from the legislation because his protest started before it was introduced. www.indymedia.org...



actualy i remember reading, 50 in the daily mail, 20 in the times and i think recently i read the actual number was 70+ officers and it took them hours to put the signs in a truck.



posted on May, 28 2006 @ 01:23 PM
link   
So what's your point? Other than the papers got their numbers wrong (which they usually do from anything as serious as the numbers of troops in Iraq to the something as innocent as the daily weather forecast predictions).
But you're not denying that the use of the police to uphold our ancient civil liberties in this way took place, are you?

Mind you interesting to hear the Times "mistakenly" only reported the use of 20 police. Because that's a Rupert Murdoch paper. Maybe we don't need to learn anything about what Tony Blair and Rupert Murdoch have been discussing after all?


[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]



posted on May, 28 2006 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Liberal1984

I'm sorry Sminkeypinkey but what you have just said doesn't make very much sense to me.


- I thought what I said was sensible and plain enough.

The truth is that everybody (from Labour, tory and libdems and in the HOL) has decided Parliament will have a free vote on going to war, Blair and this Labour government set the preceedent which all are now saying they will work to.

Ditto making public intelligence advice and the AG's legal reasons for going to war.

You can list off a load of other stuff you don't like if you wish but sticking to the issue of whether or not this country goes to war in future the truth is that there has been a vast improvement - and a huge extension in democracy here - in how that is decided.

You might not have liked the choice Parliament (for it was Parliament that did choose) made in the case of Iraq but that's life, sometimes.



posted on May, 28 2006 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Liberal1984

So what's your point? Other than the papers got their numbers wrong (which they usually do from anything as serious as the numbers of troops in Iraq to the something as innocent as the daily weather forecast predictions).
But you're not denying that the use of the police to uphold our ancient civil liberties in this way took place, are you?

Mind you interesting to hear the Times "mistakenly" only reported the use of 20 police. Because that's a Rupert Murdoch paper. Maybe we don't need to learn anything about what Tony Blair and Rupert Murdoch have been discussing after all?


[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]


No i was supporting you, i do not share sminkey'red'pinkey's views.
I was reading it in the paper, thinking the daily mail was exagerating but found out even the daily mail was underestimating the ridiculous reality.

[edit on 28-5-2006 by AdamJ]



posted on May, 28 2006 @ 02:33 PM
link   
It’s happening in the U.S
www.ekklesia.co.uk...

It’s happening here too
news.bbc.co.uk...
What the BBC article neglects to mention is that there are over 10 such designated military sites. All it means is that much CCN protests of the 1970’s 1980’s couldn’t happen today. It’s not so bad because they can at least protest outside the base (they will be just trespassing on someone else’s land)
(5th article down)
www.democracynow.org.../04/06/1432231


“Separate” Note…
Anti war protests not being properly reported
www.cnduk.org... (first I heard of it)
Of course this has nothing to do with Blair whatsoever. I mean the fact he was successfully able to get rid of the BBC’s director Dyke for running a hideous daytime radio programme report which accused the government of sexing up the war in Iraq. I mean like they would do such a thing? My research indicates that Sminkeypinkey is quite right to say Blair is all about taking “huge steps” to strengthening our democracy.

Video of Police upholding our democracy and our fragile security…
www.indymedia.org.uk...

Personal Note: In a way it is a good thing that some peaceful protests are being outlawed. This has nothing to do with the various hypothetical “M=C2” (but possible) terrorists threats facing our great chunk of land. The real reason is that peaceful protests have long been a farce (even before or if they were ever underreported). In my view anyone who takes part in peaceful protests probably has something ether wrong with their knowledge (concerning the track record of democracy and our parliament); or worse they have something wrong in the head (would include ego).
I know I'm outspoken but in my opinion it displays serious arrogance to think the government would actually listen to little old you after over a million other little old you’s protested against the war in Iraq, and failed.
Surely it’s more arrogant still, if you realise the government shows contempt for democracy from everything from elaborate deceptions marketed as “spin” to Blair regularly having his head between Rupert Murdoch’s trousers.
It would have been within Blair’s power to force the break up of the centrally owned mass media (at least within this country). But instead people like Blair (and no doubt Cameron if he is elected) work with it so that they exploit its power to deceive the British people. In at least this way alone Tony Blair (and other leaders) are always open to working against the true interests of the British people.
I wonder how much public and private money expended on PR-spin, and how many relationships with various media Barons could have been saved if what’s left of our democratic system had never been invented? (The answer is surely lots, but how many millions of pounds I do not know).



posted on May, 28 2006 @ 05:36 PM
link   
Its not about the government listening to you its about making a stand for what you feel is right and getting your voice heard.



posted on May, 29 2006 @ 02:39 PM
link   
So if peaceful protest isn't about the government listening to you then what does it actually (materially) achieve?
If you want your voice to be heard by many other people like you (after all they wouldn’t be protesting with you for nothing) then I guess that's some achievement. Then again at least the state gets many of your faces on camera (that's why more and more of the police seem to like filming). And maybe it’s not far fetched to believe that you might be able to introduce yourself to one or two members of MI5 (just “checking out” the crowd).

So yes peaceful protest isn't entirely useless. But I think on the balance of things it’s more of a great plus for the state (given the sort of semi-liberal state we actually have).



posted on May, 29 2006 @ 02:48 PM
link   
Well vent frustration if you are frustrated, yep.
I think it may just make you more frustrated that hardly anyone listens.
but hey, whatever.

Doesnt really achieve anything materially.

[edit on 29-5-2006 by AdamJ]



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 12:32 PM
link   
Blair's achievement has been (on a purely micro level) to turn me, a life-long labour supporter (and ex party member) firstly into an abstainer and now I'm afraid into a tactical tory voter.

Over 100 years of socialist struggle destroyed in a decade!

Nice one Tone



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Strangerous
me, a life-long labour supporter (and ex party member)........... a tactical tory voter.

Over 100 years of socialist struggle destroyed in a decade!

Nice one Tone


- I'd love to hear the rationale behind this Strangerous, if you feel like expanding this.

You, a "life-long Labour supporter and ex-party member", apparantly, are now going to vote tory in the next general election?
A general election where TB will have already stepped down and gone?

So, just how much 'socialism' are you expecting the tory party to go adding to that "100 years of socialist struggle", hmmmm?
(especially when compared to the prospect of a Gordon Brown Labour government)

However much you deride this Labour government's achievements for the 'ordinary' person the fact remains there are achievements and they are very likely to be wrecked by a return to tory government here.

How "socialist" or helpful to the majority of British people would the repeal of the minimum wage be?
Or a repeal of the 'Social Chapter'?
Investment squeezed as never before (if not total and outright privatisation) of the NHS and most of the remaining public services?
Etc etc etc.

You don't like how right-wing or 'tory' you think Tony Blair's Labour government has been so you'd prefer to vote in a tory Government (at the expense of a Brown Labour Government) in protest next time - long after TB has gone?!

That doesn't exactly make much sense if you ask me.

(You don't mind if I take your claims to be a life-long Labour supporter and party member with a container-load of salt do you?
)

[edit on 13-6-2006 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 03:02 PM
link   
In the last election, I voted for the Liberals. It wasn't a protest vote over the Iraq War or whatever. It's because I believed that Labour has caused more harm then good in my community. Community services like liberaries, primary schools and community centres are having their funding cut, or getting shutdown much to the detriment of the more deprived areas.
I'm not sure if Labour are responsible, but if they are in charge of public services, then are they?



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by MacDonagh
It's because I believed that Labour has caused more harm then good in my community.
Community services like liberaries, primary schools and community centres are having their funding cut, or getting shutdown much to the detriment of the more deprived areas.


- Maybe so Mac, but there is also surely more to consider than just those 'community services' you have listed?

....although I do have trouble believing that your local primary school was just suffering 'cuts' because of a reduction in central Gov. funding (unless the roll had shrunk so badly as to make it non-viable?).

It's just that Labour have a particularly excellent record on funding education, at all levels.


I'm not sure if Labour are responsible, but if they are in charge of public services, then are they?


- Well there's the funny thing.

Since devolution your local LibDems are in Government and in partnership with their Labour counterparts in the Scottish Parliament.
They have the power in many of these areas now, not central government.
(quite rightly IMO)

You'll also find that in more general national areas like the NHS that this Labour government has devolved power in financial affairs etc down to the local 'health trusts'.
But the papers are now full of stories about how some of those trusts are in such financial difficulties you'd wonder that they would obviously have trouble 'managing' to put one foot in front of the other.

Politics.
It's a tough old game, eh?

On the one hand 'everyone' seems to agree that devolving power down to the most local level possible is the way to go, so long as it is all properly managed, but if some of those local managers can't manage their budgets properly (despite record levels of funding from the - Labour - central government) it is the Labour Government that cops the blame for any resultant staffing cuts, delayed operations and closed wards.

......and then you get complaints there are too many managers in 'the system'.

A lot seems to boil down to it being a question of perspective and political inclination.
Where are your priorities and what do you want to focus in on and concentrate on?

For instance you could talk about the fact that in the NHS there are now record numbers of people being treated and the lowest waiting lists in a generation
or
there is a net £500million budget deficit nationally (out of a total NHS budget spend of around £92billions = less than 1% of the total budget)?


[edit on 13-6-2006 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 07:37 PM
link   
Seeing as you asked I will expand, and I don't mind you doubting my word as you seem to be a nice chap:

Life-long Labour supporter, never voted anything else. Party member 1987-92

I was in Fiji when they were elected and danced all night expecting a rapid reversal of all the years of Tory misrule.

From the subversion of the 'ethical foreign policy' applied to arms sales / lack of redistributive wealth policies etc etc it became obvious this was not a socialist government but some weird Tory clone.

I tried abstaining / voting for Ken (at the time not an official party candidate) and it didn't work, last time I followed the Billy Bragg line - this Govt is a betrayal of Labour policies and traditions and therefore tactical voting by 'Old Labour' to remove them was justified.

It so happens that the Cons were no 2 in my constituency so they got my vote.

Personally I feel betrayed by this lot - in '97 they had the perfect opportunity to implement c. 10 years of more equal policies / stop the rot but they didn't and their happy clappy leader has led us into corruption and ill-advised wars.

Brown in '97/'90 may have been the answer but he's tainted by the actions of Tone so it's time for a change.

I think our system works on checks and balances - it's now time for a check, possibly 4 years too late.

Personally I'd favour PR and a move to more coalition-based governments (at one time a stated Labour aim) but that's not going to happen so have to play the checks & balances game

[edit on 13-6-2006 by Strangerous]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join