blair 3rd term

Originally posted by UK Wizard
polls are nearly always biased,

- Naa, that's just waaaay to general Wizard. They aren't.

If you take fair account of their margin of error and the sample is big enough they're usually right there or there abouts.

i never pay attention to them whether i believe they are right or not.
Polls can be very easily rigged,
eg the poll can be taken in a Labour supporting area

- Hmmm Labour supporting area? Like nearly everywhere?

Anyhoo, if you feel like that about it you should go for a 'poll of polls' with an enormous sample size.

These have shown consistently (for over 10yrs!) a healthy Labour margin over the opposition parties. They are why no-one got excited when a single poll showed the tory party doing well.

They have also been spot on (within their margin of error) in every election since at least 1992 (and yes, even 1992 was within the MOR).

This is why one can look at such polls and be so sure of a Labour win coming soon.

With out electoral system the tory party just aren't polling anywhere even close to strongly enough to beat Labour (and the Lib-Dems are behind them).

They aren't going to make up the gap now.

I hate to break it to you but traditionally now is the time the governing party adds support in the run up to the polls. 3rd Labour win coming up.

well how come every one i meet in scotland hates labour?

Originally posted by UK Wizard

Originally posted by bigdanprice
he is ahead in opinion polls.

Opinion polls are nearly always biased, i never pay attention to them whether i believe they are right or not.
Polls can be very easily rigged,
eg the poll can be taken in a Labour supporting area

He is ahead consistently in every poll apart from a blip after the iraq war. I agree polls arent a 100 percent but this is pretty decisive.

Originally posted by devilwasp
well how come every one i meet in scotland hates labour?

- Same way as no-one with a life actually 'supports' political parties, whatever, Devil. Everyone bitches about them.

Sure (& I know it sounds contradictory, but hopefully you get my meaning) they do, of course, actually have their 'supporters' but - for the vast majority of 'the people' - that just isn't them. Wouldn't you say?

That doesn't mean they won't vote for them though come polling day...as has been the case last 2 times out.

Its true the war has dented Labour support but the polls do still point to a decent Labour win.



[edit on 9-11-2004 by sminkeypinkey]

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey


- Same way as no-one with a life actually 'supports' political parties, whatever, Devil. Everyone bitches about them.

really? the british must be a very very sad people then...shakes head and walks away.

That doesn't mean they won't vote for them though come polling day...as has been the case last 2 times out.

so the saying , " hell no i hate that c**t! i aint voteing him!" is just a joke?

Its true the war has dented Labour support but the polls do still point to a decent Labour win.

why though?

Originally posted by devilwasp
really? the british must be a very very sad people then...shakes head and walks away.

- Naa, I'd call it a very healthy disrespect. I think it helps insulate us from the extremist ding-bats.

so the saying , " hell no i hate that c**t! i aint voteing him!" is just a joke?

- Maybe not in that specific example but I think you'll find a lot of people still go out and vote Labour at the next election.

why though?

- Well it's my own opinion that British people have yet to face up to the idea that Blair acted because he thought the 'atlantic alliance' was more important to the UK, the EU, even the USA and the rest of the world than Bush and his loony schemes.

Maybe it's a sign of our much reduced power in the world and we don't really like to face it but it's my view that Blair felt maintaining the 'atlantic alliance' was worth far far more than the short-term 'gain' he'd have by telling Bush where to get off.

But it's nothing I'd worry about. I think it's a far far better situation to live in a mature country that is not enthusiastic to go to war (we done that already and look what it got us).

[edit on 8-11-2004 by sminkeypinkey]

Originally posted by Mynaeris
Kollapse: Why is the Scandinavian countries so anxious to have the UK in the Eurpean Union?

I dont know, Im not anxious of having UK in the union, but I think it would be good for the UK to stay.

Originally posted by Mynaeris
If they are as you put it a third world country - I would suggest that you actually start doing some economics classes as you obviously have no idea what a third world economy is. I did my Masters at Birmingham University and now live in the US and I can tell you that the UK is by no means a third world economy unlike the Scandinavian countries that rely on first world countries in order to keep up their "social welfare state".

Thirdworld country is of course NOT the right definition, but its by fare worse than the scandinavian countries in social justice..

What do you mean by saying that scandinavian countries rely on other countrys to keep up the welfare state? Dont get it? Do you mean that we have to export stuff to pay for our welfare state? or what?

Originally posted by Mynaeris
Kollapse you should vist the US sometime and make your judgement on them also. I think that the Scandinavian countries should be more concerned about the number of second world (former eastern block) countries entering the Union than pick on the UK.

I will not visit US before you get rid of your fascist/corporative/religious regime.

Well, I think that scandinavian countrys are more concerned about the eastern neighbours.

By the way, I am Me, not a scandinavian country.


[edit on 9-11-2004 by Kollapse]

[edit on 9-11-2004 by Kollapse]

[edit on 9-11-2004 by Kollapse]

Originally posted by Kollapse
I dont know, Im not anxious of having UK in the union, but I think it would be good for the UK.

The UK is already in the EU...whether we like it or not

Originally posted by Kollapse
I will not visit US before you get rid of your fascist/corporative/religious regime.

The US is not fascist...i see no gas chambers, no genocide, no nazis etc
Yes the US is mostly controlled by the corporations,
Yes the US is religious, but i see nothing wrong with being religious as long as people aren't hurt.

Blairs an insult to English politics. Hes broke more promises than Tysons bit off ears! Blair should be out but alas i think that as Bush remained then so shall Blair.

Originally posted by UK Wizard
The US is not fascist...i see no gas chambers, no genocide, no nazis etc
Yes the US is mostly controlled by the corporations,
Yes the US is religious, but i see nothing wrong with being religious as long as people aren't hurt.

US is showing tendenices of fascism, thats fore shure.
The defintion of fascism is not Gaschambers etc, its elite-ruling.

Christian zionists in US for example is one of the strongest lobbys for Isreal, but hey, you might consider Ireals occupation of palestine a good thing?

People got hurt by religion and always will. Religion is poison.

Originally posted by shorty
Blairs an insult to English politics.

- You think?

I'd say British/English politics are being far more effectively 'insulted' by the opposition parties and their pathetic and deeply ineffectual state....which is hardly the Labour parties' problem!

Hes broke more promises than Tysons bit off ears!

- What? Define 'broken promise'. Show which one(s) have been 'broken'. Now show us where there was a time-stamp on complete delivery.

That's the point about the 'pledges/promises' they (all) make these days. They are like nailing jelly to the ceiling, they aren't something you can pin down so easily.

.....and do you really think all professsional politicians don't?! Oh boy.

A little thought and study about the entire subject and history of politics is in order for those 'green' enough to think professional politicians don't 'break promises'.

Blair should be out but alas i think that as Bush remained then so shall Blair.

- No.

For as long as the Labour party is - by a very clear and very obvious country mile - the best choice for the UK government and Tony Blair it's leader Blair will be in by a very workable majority.

By the way......Bush is absolutely no help to Labour and Blair in the UK at all, quite the opposite in fact (as polls clearly show).....how on earth could you possibly claim otherwise?

Blair will get in! I think now that Bush has made it in it will give people more reason to keep Bush in. Most people see them as a team. Whilst watching a new prgramme i heard an american say that in a time of war you dont change your commander-in-chief. We'r at war too (thanks to that four star Bush).

Promises, promises.

What promises has he broke, what promises hasn't he broke. You want the list. He claimed to help the NHS, he was going to bring down the number of illegal imigrants, fight crime and of course there was all that crap he spouted about helping out in education but we cant forget about the promise he did keep he does not tollarate terrorism, or negtiote and look where that got us.

Whao reading your post its going to be nice to watch politics from neutral stand point for once.

If this thread is showing what is to come as your elections get closer we are going to need the old mud pit back

Originally posted by shorty
Blair will get in! I think now that Bush has made it in it will give people more reason to keep Bush in. Most people see them as a team. Whilst watching a new prgramme i heard an american say that in a time of war you dont change your commander-in-chief. We'r at war too (thanks to that four star Bush).

- I think Americans buy into that 'don't change during a war' stuff, not us Brits, we don't really see ourselves 'at war' in any proper sense in the first place.

What promises has he broke, what promises hasn't he broke. You want the list.

- OK, lets see it then.....

He claimed to help the NHS

- Labour has. Sorry but this is a fact. Have you been near a hospital lately?

The NHS is by almost every measure available much better than pre-1997.

It is not perfect or perfection but it is undeniably better.

he was going to bring down the number of illegal imigrants

- Check the Home Office figures, they are down and they are being 'processed' faster than ever before.

fight crime

- Check the latest crime survey figures. Crime is down except in a handful of areas.....and the Labour record compared to the tory one (where crime doubled under them) is immeasurably better.

and of course there was all that crap he spouted about helping out in education

- The � invested per pupil is far higher than under the alternative crowd.

Basically (not surprisingly) the biggest bitching going on is the loss of a freeby whilst in university. Well hard lines, I think it's a pity and all myself but that's staying no matter who is in.

It still doesn't negate the billions extra that has been pumped into state education in the UK since 1997. (something that would never have happened under the only realistic alternative - a tory gov - as their statements over the years make crystal clear.

but we cant forget about the promise he did keep he does not tollarate terrorism, or negtiote .

- Yes let's just consider what has been achieved in relation to 'terrorism'?

Hmmm, funny how being the gov & PM that has at least taken the heat out of the running sore that was Northen Ireland means nothing to you.

That alone is surely due HUGE credit, no?

As for anything else? What had you in mind? I haven't noticed any other great terrorist activity around the UK, have you?

and look where that got us.

- Well here we come down to the point of it all iMHO.

I give Blair credit for carrying the Labour party with him over this. Bush could not have made it plainer that he was determined to go ahead no matter what anyone said. By remaining an ally Blair has acted IMO as a moderating influence (like Attlee did during the Korean war with the US 'nuke 'em' nutters).

The fact remains Bush and his crowd are a transitory phenomenon and the 'atlantic alliance' is of far too much value (IMO to us and the world) to sacrifice over aggressive deeply mistaken boorish fools like Bush & Co.

Originally posted by marg6043
Whao reading your post its going to be nice to watch politics from neutral stand point for once.

If this thread is showing what is to come as your elections get closer we are going to need the old mud pit back

- It's a change alright, eh Marg?

Mudpit?

Hell yes!

We can do the passionate rough stuff too no worries.

I always like these debate type thing.

Ok as far as all the figures, surveys......ect yes but that is nothing to what it should be. So in genral crimes gone down but gun crime and murder as well as sevral other worse crimes have gone up.

Knew you'd say something about the slightly lower ims number. You want a intresting statistic, see how many illegal ims (thst arent illegal anymore) get extra benifits that the English tax payer pays. I am not racist but i would like our country to be populated by a few more English, then maybe taxes could be lowered, even if by a small 0.1 p.

You think Blair has held Labour well, hardly. How many mistakes can one man and his minions make. It wont be long before he offers the cure to cancer as sucide. He follows america so much i was suprised when he didn't bring other the patriot act. George Bush might as well run the country, Blair dont, thats for sure. We need someone who will do what he says in a time span he says and most importantly leave the americans to there own devices. If we were to stop our intrest in America alot of problems woud be solved.

you know shorty we pay as well.
we supply you with lots of stuff as well.
and i agree with you as well.

I think Blair will get to be prime minister for a third term (full or not).

Michael Howard doens't seem to be taking to Conservatives anywhere near to victory. The tories have to spend their time fighting UKIP now, not challenging the government.

The only party that seems to have a remote chance of defeating labour are the Liberal Democrats. I feel it's unlikely that they will get to govern the country after than next general election, but they could make some real gains and could win the general election after the next one.

I think Blair is a good leader apart from what he did in Iraq and being so close to the US. The UK should become more involved in Europe since that is where any hope of a decent future lies.

He claimed to help the NHS

'Record high' for waiting times - Scotland

Rise in Welsh NHS waiting times - Wales

Millions miss out on NHS dentists

he was going to bring down the number of illegal imigrants

Migration Watch UK

Nearly one million immigrants since 1997

fight crime

Gun Crime Up

Railway crime rates 'on the rise'

Violent crime figures rise by 12%


Government Crime Lies

When the new-style crime figures were published in 2002, Mr Blunkett claimed they were the 'most accurate measure' of crime ever. The report was also said to be the most comprehensive ever. But when you check the small print, it turns out that the Home Office itself thinks that there were far more than the 13 million crimes discovered by the British Crime Survey for 2001/02 - perhaps four times as many.

No objective observer would say that the British Crime Survey is comprehensive when it misses out murder, sexual offences, crimes against people under 16, and crimes against commercial premises, including thefts of trucks, vans and shoplifting. And no independent statistician would claim that the British Crime Survey was the 'most accurate' measure of crime.

The Government spins the accurate information so it becomes favourable to the public...but in the end the Labour Government stand for one thing...Lies

[edit on 9-11-2004 by UK Wizard]

Originally posted by UK Wizard
The Government spins the accurate information so it becomes favourable to the public...but in the end the Labour Government stand for one thing...Lies

- Wizard mate you can selectively quote all the stories you like - and anyone clicking the various links, and within the links, will see it is a selective reading.

Progress is patchy in places. Of course, such is the real world. It isn't all black and white; it is about 'the overall'. Overall Labour have governed better for most.

The fact stands that for the great bulk of people in the UK their lives under Labour are better.

If you didn't live the reality of Major & Lamont's sustained incredibly high interest rates where couples in very ordinary propertyfound that instead of approx half one of their sallaries going to pay the mortgage they had to spend more than one entire salary, every month for years in cases, on the mortgage then you maybe just won't get it.

For a some that did not experience the great negative equity and repossession nightmare of the last tory gov it might not mean much (particularly if your parents were, luckily, unaffected - or only lightly affected thanks to an old relatively small mortgage); similarly Thatchers great unemployment.

The 2 biggest, deepest and most persistent recessions post war; that's the recent tory record. Not Labour's.

Here's hoping you and yours never do have to experience it.

....and they're still at it. Same crap different decade.

Letwin has been out hawking tax cut pledges at the CBI conference today! (and left deeply puzzled wondering why the CBI are so sceptical about them and what would be cut to pay for them. In a way it's quite amusing that really.)



[edit on 9-11-2004 by sminkeypinkey]