JCScooby

So would u agree then that u didnt really give me a direct answer to my question?
Lets put it another way for u then.
Do u think Iraq and its people were better off
a)with Saddam
b)without saddam
Simple question, simple answer is needed

TelBoy

My answer to ^^ that is that it wasn't our job to decide if for them. Simple. If there was no oil, you, me, Tony Blair and everyone else wouldn't have given a toss.

paulr

Image and spin are not the deciding factor so will you please stop insulting the public.(Carol Thatcher won IACGMOOH,and she aint much to look at.She won on substance).The British public are a lot more intelligent than you think.

JCScooby

[QUOTE=TelBoy]Ok, let's use past experience then. In which ways are you materially better off under the current Labour government than under the previous Tory government? Specifically?[/QUOTE
The problem there is that damage inflicted by the Tory's cant be wiped out within a decade. I mean if it wasnt for the Tory's we might have some of our Industries left in this country(that being scotland) which would solve alot of the unemployment. The situation was too far gone to be saved by labour, but, what they have done is stopped the rot. This being only one small example.

TelBoy

So keeping industry alive when the UK is now predominantly a service economy, subsidising it against cheap-labour imports is the way forward, is that what you're saying? Still don't see how this makes you personally worse off financially, seeing as this is the criteria you focused on, but i'll go with it...

mattstant

Hmmm where are the parallels here let me think

Falklands
0 people marching in protest in fact a nation although reluctant to fight realised we were left with no alternative and task forced cheered on its way

Iraq
1000000 marching in protest deep missgivings from everyone including members of the cabinet (who later resign) and the military themselves

Falklands
british sovereign territory and citizens attacked by desperate argentinian fascists hoping to divert the masses attention from his appaling record and praying the uk couldnt be arsed to fight.

Iraq
no british citizens attacked or even commonwealth territory threatened no direct evidence of links to Iqaeda in fact as was later confirmed after the bliar propogated lies No weapons of Mass destruction (but plenty of Oil)

I could go on

Now I'm not going to suggest for a moment that Saddam Hussein didnt pose a serious threat to the stability of the Middle East but to parallel these two "conflicts" is a little bit silly dont you think

paulr

[QUOTE=JCScooby]My Mum and Dad.

Winter fuel allowance...UP
Minimum income guarantee......now matched to earnings,not inflation as under the Tories.
As an OAP extra NHS investment.
Small car tax introduced.
Increase in savings you can have before benefits are decreased.

There you go Tel.Specifics you asked for.

JCScooby

I think u have hooked onto the fact that u probably have more knowledge/experience than me when it comes to politics. The bottom line for me is that in my own opinion i really wouldnt want to be under Tory leadership.

TelBoy

And that's fair enough, JSC - there are a LOT of people who vote on that basis, ie irrespective of the facts. For a lot more people, the only deciding factor is who talks the best game, or who smiles the sweetest come election time. It's all very unfortunate, but a fact of life.

unclebuck

With. The place is a f**king mess now. At least he kept things stable. albeit with a grip of iron. Don't forget he was a friend of the West for most of his reign. Either way it's not our business to go around flouting international law invading other countries. That's the USA's job.

What were the reasons for invading again? Imminent threat to UK interests from weapons of mass destruction wasn't it? Something Blair told us about '45 minutes' as I remember it. Well, that was a crock of **** wasn't it?

Simple enough?

TelBoy

Do the flip side, the instances where we're all now worse off - i dare you.

mattstant

wow i didnt know we were so fortunate this is about as useful as rearranging the deckchairs on the titanic.

As to the NHS investment there has been a highly illuminating thread recently from insiders

unclebuck

I'll start.

160 tax rises since NL came to office.

TelBoy

Don't burst Paul's big opportunity


No, come on Paul, are there *any* instances where we're worse off, in your opinion?

paulr

Directly,for my parents,i cant think of any.

paulr

Telboy asked for specifics.........cant you read!!!!!!!!!!!

Airport tax,there you go UB, i wouldnt want to make you look stupid....

TelBoy

LOL, you really are addicted to that NL bunch aren't you, Paul? But ok, it's a free country.

paulr

Not addicted to any politicians,personally i find most of them boring and a bit lacking in integrity.But,i can see how some policies introduced by Mr Blair have had direct and real benefits to some people i know.Some of the tax increases that UB mentioned (ie airport tax for one) have tended to hit people i know,but who can easily afford it anyway.

Suresh

Ahem :Who says the war is illegal?
Not the Attorney General

Lord Goldsmith's nine-paragraph written answer to Parliament on 17 March raised no such doubts, stating: "Authority to use force against Iraq exists" from previous UN resolutions

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politi...ge/4492439.stm

I would suggest you stick to your Janet & John books as anything more complex is a obviously a little bit much for you to understand.

Suresh

unclebuck

Uh oh, watch out - the Lemsip Kid is back in town.

We all know Goldsmith is one of Blair's flunkies and just says exactly what he's been commanded to. Hardly conclusive. Many, many more lawyers say the opposite. To date it's yet to be tested in any courtroom - I wonder why?

paulr

Who gives a $hit anyway.What are they gonna do,arrest Blair and put Saddam back in power.

The world has moved on,UB is still playing with his Commodore 64.

unclebuck

Another New Labour 'answer' Blair is always telling us to move on is he not?

Well, tough ****. The world hasn't moved on and this issue is here to stay. In fact it's his legacy to us all.

The world and this country in particular is now a far more dangerous place to live as a direct result of Blair's misadventure.

paulr

Yes thats true,but your comment was about the legality of the war.That is not an issue.Blair wont be arrested,move on UB.

unclebuck

The song's not over till the fat lady sings.

No one's moving anywhere. This issue won't go away. See what happens this weekend as a direct result of Blairs policy mistakes.

Holy Ghost

**

i've got to pick you up on this. industry isn't a job for life: if your heavy industries like coal, steel and ship-building are desperately uncompetitive, over-manned, over-unionised and too expensive to compete in the global market without massive subsidisation by the taxpayer, then what do you expect a responsible government to do? stick their heads in the sand and watch entire industries implode in the face of foreign competition? i think not.

our industrial capability had it good for 150 years; everyone got complacent, ignored the threats from cheaper labour emerging economies and the massive over-capacity caused by WW2, leaving thatch facing a wholesale do-or-die option. re-engineer the whole sorry lot, trim out the inefficiencies, break the stifling militancy of over-weening unions, replace useless management and try to get what's left standing on its own two feet.

it's a shame what had to be done: but it was economically necessary. that's just an apolitical fact.

like her or loathe her, it HAD to be done and was perhaps the last statement of principled politics for the greater good of the nation's health we've seen. at least as far as our heavy industry goes we now have a percentage of something - instead of 100% of nothing.

i know you can say "tell that to the miners" or the steel workers in port talbot or corby. sure they caught the dirty end of the stick following four or more decades of poor high-level decision making. but that doesn't change the situation. atlee, macmillan, churchill, eden, wilson, heath and callahan all failed to grasp the nettle.

thatch did grasp it and that's real ******* brave, single-minded leadership.

sorry i've bored myself.

DazW

iTrader: (1)

Does anyone really believe that the Tories are going to get back in without 'another' Black Wednesday???

Suresh

Care to list all of these "many, many more lawyers"?

The answer why it hasn't been tested in the courtroom is because whosoever would bring a case would lose. Sounds like a job for you as you're used to it ...

Suresh

JCScooby

Yeah she did all this and then didnt give the people any sort of alternative, it was a case of, get on with it. The bottom line is, the Tory's will look after the middle and upper class and give the working class the scraps that are left.

Geezer

The alternative was avoided before the invasion. The Thatcher govt. could have avoided the situation. Even though I don't agree with the Argentinian invasion, pressure from the US would probably have removed without the need for armed conflict.

I have not at any point defended Blair for the Iraq war, I ain't arguing with you on that

You're right, they did attack, and it was wrong. However, as earlier stated, the situation could have been avoided. I wonder how long the UK would have stood for Argentininan inhabitance of the Isle of Man for the past 300 years

Poland - no british citizens attacked or even commonwealth terrirtory threatened. In fact, Germany didn't want war with Britain at all.Didn't stop us declaring war on Germany though.

There is no evidence of links from Al Qaeda to the Hussein administration. Our own intelligence services admitted as much. There was a clear idealogical divide between Al Qaeda and Hussein. Only the US and UK govts put this spin on.


Please do, you may make some sense shortly

No, both could have been avoided, but for one reason or another, were not.

Geezer

Holy Ghost

**

yeah but, no but, yeah but, no but ... hello vicky pollard.

so coal was profitable and able to compete?

so steel was profitable and able to compete?

so ship-building was profitable and able to compete?

so unions weren't strangling industrial practice?

so useless, politically-appointed management wasn't negligent?

so generations of politicians didn't fail to accept their responsibilities?

you tell me, what was the alternative?

happily ignore 40 years of negligent nationalised mis-management and leave it to a future generation or bite the bullet and take hard choices to re-balance the viable leftovers?

it's all very well to say "what's the alternative?" but tell me, what's YOUR alternative to making work that which was in terminal decline because of outrageous and long-term neglect?

excuse me but your response sounds like teenage socialist clap-trap to me ... give me a cogent explanation of why thatcher was wrong to re-engineer a whole raft of obsolete industry in order to save its effective core and you'll have a point. until then ...