o/t tonights live debate

[Heysham_Shrimp]

i was very impressed with Clegg and his regional immigration system policy where immigrants have working visa cards with the regions stated where there only allowed to work as needed in them areas and also limit people from the EU coming each year

plus with a Entry & Exit system so they know exactly who's in the country and exactly what time there visas expire

its what they've have been doing in australia for years now and is very successful..




i only thought Clegg got it wrong about our nuclear deterrent with the trident submarines especially with Iran and some of these Asian country's and terrorists on the up



and Cameron just just brought back memory's of the 1980s strikes & YTS schemes and over 3million unemployed with false promises

and Brown just brought back memories of 1979 and the "Winter of Discontent". Then we had the grave diggers on strike and the dead were left unburied. The dustmen were on strike and the streets were piled with rubbish bags and rats ran amok. Everyone else in the public services were on strike too.

Then we had a discredited Labour Government which had to be bailed out by the IMF and was a wholly owned subsidiary of the Trade Unions and was led by a Prime Minister who had not been elected by the people ! funny how history repeats itself.

[P/T Indie]

Well the Greens launched their manifesto today, so that was worth a laugh! Apparently they are going to raise an extra fifteen pounds, ten shillings and sixpence a week extra in National Insurance while giving away an extra £200, 000,000 a week on child benefit. and they are going to get rid of electricity. They are going to close tax havens too because 'every little helps' or 'it all adds up' or something...[/quote]


Yes they want to get rid of Nuclear power stations how do they think these things up we will all be sat in the dark. That's bad news for this area with us hopefully getting the 3rd station but lots of greens in Lancaster.

My idea is that every party or independant that enters the election is allowed to join a national debate so say there is about 30 of them. Have a show running for 2-3 hours on a sat night (has to be that long due to all the people involved) let them start debating and then have the big buzzer like on Britains got talent when you have had enough of one. Or every 20mins have adverts and during the break you vote to knock one of them off and who ever is left at the end has done the best.

In actual fact who needs an election just do it all like that.

[durhamshrimp]

It just shows how little trust there is for the Tories in this country. Supposedly Labour are hated and the country is a mess yet the Tories can only get enough support in the opinion polls for a hung parliament. Surely it should be easy for them if things are so bad?

If things really are actually as terrible in this country as they were before the 97 election surely we'd be set for a Tory landslide like the Labour one that year?

[Keith]

It just shows how little trust there is for the Tories in this country. Supposedly Labour are hated and the country is a mess yet the Tories can only get enough support in the opinion polls for a hung parliament. Surely it should be easy for them if things are so bad?

If things really are actually as terrible in this country as they were before the 97 election surely we'd be set for a Tory landslide like the Labour one that year?

The problem is, Labour ARE Tories. They have shifted to the right of centre, so the Tories are left with no ground of their own, hence no discernible difference between the two. It's what made them electable in the first place. If I was in the UK I couldn't vote Labour again simply because the people still controlling the party took us in to an illegal war and colluded with Bliar in the lies he told. Perhaps if billions hadn't been spent on attacking Iraq the economy wouldn't be in such a mess? Nick Clegg should be cosying up to the unions and making it clear that New Labour=New Tories, Old Tories=New Tories and that the Lib Dems are the only party that can represent the working people. With their money & backing the Lib Dems could actually become an electable force by the next lot of elections.

Oh, and Nick Clegg is one person who should mention the war.

[shrimper]

Didn't watch the debate but before I left to go to Fat Knackers footy last night I asked Mrs Shrimper who she thought would come out best.

She thought Cameron but I said it'd definitely be Clegg.

Not because he's the best politician of the three, nor because he represents the party with the best policies.

It was very simple to predict.

Neither of the others would want to get into a slanging match with him because, come a 'no clear majority' vote at the next election they'll both be trying to broker a deal with the LibDems.

So they want to keep sweet with him, but are still very happy to have a row with each other.

So it was always going to make Clegg seem like the 'voice of reason' as they criticised each other but left him alone.

I'm assuming there was a bit of that in how it panned out?

[Christies Child]

Didn't watch the debate but before I left to go to Fat Knackers footy last night I asked Mrs Shrimper who she thought would come out best.

She thought Cameron but I said it'd definitely be Clegg.

Not because he's the best politician of the three, nor because he represents the party with the best policies.

It was very simple to predict.

Neither of the others would want to get into a slanging match with him because, come a 'no clear majority' vote at the next election they'll both be trying to broker a deal with the LibDems.

So they want to keep sweet with him, but are still very happy to have a row with each other.

So it was always going to make Clegg seem like the 'voice of reason' as they criticised each other but left him alone.

I'm assuming there was a bit of that in how it panned out?

Best decision you made NOT to watch the circus.

[durhamshrimp]

It just shows how little trust there is for the Tories in this country. Supposedly Labour are hated and the country is a mess yet the Tories can only get enough support in the opinion polls for a hung parliament. Surely it should be easy for them if things are so bad?

If things really are actually as terrible in this country as they were before the 97 election surely we'd be set for a Tory landslide like the Labour one that year?

The problem is, Labour ARE Tories. They have shifted to the right of centre, so the Tories are left with no ground of their own, hence no discernible difference between the two. It's what made them electable in the first place. If I was in the UK I couldn't vote Labour again simply because the people still controlling the party took us in to an illegal war and colluded with Bliar in the lies he told. Perhaps if billions hadn't been spent on attacking Iraq the economy wouldn't be in such a mess? Nick Clegg should be cosying up to the unions and making it clear that New Labour=New Tories, Old Tories=New Tories and that the Lib Dems are the only party that can represent the working people. With their money & backing the Lib Dems could actually become an electable force by the next lot of elections.

Oh, and Nick Clegg is one person who should mention the war.

Economic policies are pretty similar but the Tory party is still full of racist homophobes. Just now they have to try to pretend not to be.
As Stewart Lee said "If political correctness has done one thing, its made the Tory party cloak its inherent racism by more creative language".

[Keith]

Economic policies are pretty similar but the Tory party is still full of racist homophobes. Just now they have to try to pretend not to be.
As Stewart Lee said "If political correctness has done one thing, its made the Tory party cloak its inherent racism by more creative language".

Where-as the Labour government supported the continued use of sanctions in Iraq, including not allowing medication etc that was required by children, resulting in the unnecessary deaths of at least 200,000 children, then caused the deaths of perhaps a million people on the basis that those same sanctions weren't working (so if they weren't working, why continue them?) Of course, when they found that there weren't actually any WMD's, then the deaths were classed as acceptable to get rid of Saddam Hussein... who had complied with the UN. Obviously, Israel, who do have WMD's and have failed to comply with many UN directives are okay, as is Saudi Arabia, one of the most oppressive regimes, on the basis that they are 'on our side'.

Hmm, racist homophobes or a mixture of stupid puppets and Christian fundamentalists, who actually kill people on a grand scale? Great choice. At least the Lib Dems opposed the war and don't have blood on their hands.

[durhamshrimp]

Economic policies are pretty similar but the Tory party is still full of racist homophobes. Just now they have to try to pretend not to be.
As Stewart Lee said "If political correctness has done one thing, its made the Tory party cloak its inherent racism by more creative language".

Hmm, racist homophobes or a mixture of stupid puppets and Christian fundamentalists, who actually kill people on a grand scale? Great choice. At least the Lib Dems opposed the war and don't have blood on their hands.

I'm not a member of the Labour party or anything like that but I'll think you'll find most of its members won't have supported the war. As for the Tories grass roots members, I stand by my description of the Tories.

I do support a lot of Lib Dems policies but I think if I was in a room with them I'd get sick of them smelling their own farts, moaning about wars and telling me to buy a Prius. It might just be specific to my part of the country and its recent history but most Labour members round here are working class people and were fully against the war. Again it might be specific to here and places like it, but the Lib Dem members tend to be middle-class liberals, the most annoying kind of liberal. University lecturers who go to work on a folding bikes etc.

[Keith]

It might just be specific to my part of the country and its recent history but most Labour members round here are working class people and were fully against the war. Again it might be specific to here and places like it, but the Lib Dem members tend to be middle-class liberals, the most annoying kind of liberal. University lecturers who go to work on a folding bikes etc.

But they weren't "fully against the war" if they continue to support the people who took the country to war. It's either-or, not both. "I'm against the war but I support the people who support the war"... that means, you support the war. If those working class people who were against the war all vote Lib Dem it would change the face of that party. As I said earlier...

Nick Clegg should be cosying up to the unions and making it clear that New Labour=New Tories, Old Tories=New Tories and that the Lib Dems are the only party that can represent the working people. With their money & backing the Lib Dems could actually become an electable force by the next lot of elections.

Oh, and Nick Clegg is one person who should mention the war.

There is a chance for change, that the Lib Dems could become the party of the working class... what's left of it.

[durhamshrimp]

It might just be specific to my part of the country and its recent history but most Labour members round here are working class people and were fully against the war. Again it might be specific to here and places like it, but the Lib Dem members tend to be middle-class liberals, the most annoying kind of liberal. University lecturers who go to work on a folding bikes etc.

But they weren't "fully against the war" if they continue to support the people who took the country to war. It's either-or, not both. "I'm against the war but I support the people who support the war"... that means, you support the war. If those working class people who were against the war all vote Lib Dem it would change the face of that party. As I said earlier...

I've often thought of that idea for the BNP, it'd be pretty good if every black person in Britain joined just for a laugh and voted to change all the policies.

As for the war, there's more important things really. People where I live aren't going to switch to Lib Dem for the sake of a war and risk letting the Tories in, never going to happen. As for not being against the war I'm talking specifically about Labour party members where I live, its fair to say they don't really agree with much of new Labour. Take the Durham Miners Gala for example, there'll be thousands of card carrying Labour members but they'll be the ones also carrying the anti-war banners.

[marky]

Frankly, the Iraq War is irrelevant. There are far more important issues to consider when deciding who to vote for in this election.

[Keith]

Frankly, the Iraq War is irrelevant. There are far more important issues to consider when deciding who to vote for in this election.

only if you are trying to excuse a war criminal and his cronies. Taking the country in to an illegal war, resulting in many thousands of deaths, both British & Iraqi is pretty important I'd think. Even more so if, as said before, the differences between the two main parties are minimal. What do you think is more important than an 'irrelevant war'?

[shrimpnsave]

thats what starts a WAR you to argueing,give it a rest...........

[Heysham_Shrimp]

Frankly, the Iraq War is irrelevant. There are far more important issues to consider when deciding who to vote for in this election.

The UK were taken into an illegal war by a Prime Minister who lied. His Chancellor who is now Prime Minister must have known he lied.

650,000 dead Iraqis, hundreds of dead soldiers on our side.

If thats irrelevant you must have strange values.

[shrimpnsave]

Frankly, the Iraq War is irrelevant. There are far more important issues to consider when deciding who to vote for in this election.

The UK were taken into an illegal war by a Prime Minister who lied. His Chancellor who is now Prime Minister must have known he lied.

650,000 dead Iraqis, hundreds of dead soldiers on our side.

If thats irrelevant you must have strange values.

THE pm doesnt run the country

spin and advisers

[marky]

only if you are trying to excuse a war criminal and his cronies. Taking the country in to an illegal war, resulting in many thousands of deaths, both British & Iraqi is pretty important I'd think. Even more so if, as said before, the differences between the two main parties are minimal. What do you think is more important than an 'irrelevant war'?

Let me see. The economy, transport policy, welfare policy, the justice system, regional development agencies, creating a much fairer local tax system, the NHS, environmental policy and constitutional reform ALL rank much higher than the Iraq and Afghan wars and always will. Besides, I'm having great difficulty taking someone seriously in this debate who won't be voting as they don't even live in this country. EDIT- unless, of course, you didn't fly the nest over 15 years ago, in which case you may still be voting!

Heysham Shrimp, a common factor in ANY armed conflict is death. Every single serviceman and woman knows that their chosen occupation comes with this risk. I know two people personally who have fought in Iraq (both are members of the TA). I've interviewed several ex-service personnel at work. None of them would ever say anything other than death is something they knew they would have to live with. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the Iraq war itself, a more important issue in terms of the armed forces is the support we offer personnel when they return to civilian life.

[Posh]

But they weren't "fully against the war" if they continue to support the people who took the country to war. It's either-or, not both. "I'm against the war but I support the people who support the war"... that means, you support the war. If those working class people who were against the war all vote Lib Dem it would change the face of that party. As I said.

There is a chance for change, that the Lib Dems could become the party of the working class... what's left of it.

You're both right about the war. Most ordinary Labour Party members myself included opposed the war. Yet, despite Blair being the warmonger, it needed a vote from Parliament to commit to war. There was principled opposition from Labour MPs such as Lancaster's Hilton Dawson so much so that the vote would have been lost if the Tories hadn't given it their full backing. The Lib Dems come out strongest.

As for the Lib Dems being the party of the working class, that's a joke right? Clegg is more right wing than many Tories. You should also meet Jones the Morecambe candidate - what a joke. Probably the worst Parliamentary candidate I've ever met.

[shrimpnsave]

But they weren't "fully against the war" if they continue to support the people who took the country to war. It's either-or, not both. "I'm against the war but I support the people who support the war"... that means, you support the war. If those working class people who were against the war all vote Lib Dem it would change the face of that party. As I said.

There is a chance for change, that the Lib Dems could become the party of the working class... what's left of it.

You're both right about the war. Most ordinary Labour Party members myself included opposed the war. Yet, despite Blair being the warmonger, it needed a vote from Parliament to commit to war. There was principled opposition from Labour MPs such as Lancaster's Hilton Dawson so much so that the vote would have been lost if the Tories hadn't given it their full backing. The Lib Dems come out strongest.

As for the Lib Dems being the party of the working class, that's a joke right? Clegg is more right wing than many Tories. You should also meet Jones the Morecambe candidate - what a joke. Probably the worst Parliamentary candidate I've ever met.

and can you please KEEP your politic views to yourself

this is a football forum

[marky]

And this is a clearly marked O/T topic. You know the drill...

[Heysham_Shrimp]

But they weren't "fully against the war" if they continue to support the people who took the country to war. It's either-or, not both. "I'm against the war but I support the people who support the war"... that means, you support the war. If those working class people who were against the war all vote Lib Dem it would change the face of that party. As I said.

There is a chance for change, that the Lib Dems could become the party of the working class... what's left of it.

You're both right about the war. Most ordinary Labour Party members myself included opposed the war. Yet, despite Blair being the warmonger, it needed a vote from Parliament to commit to war. There was principled opposition from Labour MPs such as Lancaster's Hilton Dawson so much so that the vote would have been lost if the Tories hadn't given it their full backing. The Lib Dems come out strongest.

As for the Lib Dems being the party of the working class, that's a joke right? Clegg is more right wing than many Tories. You should also meet Jones the Morecambe candidate - what a joke. Probably the worst Parliamentary candidate I've ever met.

ERR yes but for the first time in history a British Prime Minister lied to the House of Commons.
Blair made the case for a war on the basis of Sadam having weapons of mass destruction that could strike the UK in 45 minutes. David Cameron and William Haigh have said that the Labour Government would not have had Conservative support for the war if they had been given the truth by Blair.

At that time Blair had his head so far up George Dubbya Bush's arse that it would have needed surgically removing !

[George Dawes]

Where-as the Labour government supported the continued use of sanctions in Iraq, including not allowing medication etc that was required by children, resulting in the unnecessary deaths of at least 200,000 children, then caused the deaths of perhaps a million people on the basis that those same sanctions weren't working (so if they weren't working, why continue them?) Of course, when they found that there weren't actually any WMD's, then the deaths were classed as acceptable to get rid of Saddam Hussein... who had complied with the UN. Obviously, Israel, who do have WMD's and have failed to comply with many UN directives are okay, as is Saudi Arabia, one of the most oppressive regimes, on the basis that they are 'on our side'.

Hmm, racist homophobes or a mixture of stupid puppets and Christian fundamentalists, who actually kill people on a grand scale? Great choice. At least the Lib Dems opposed the war and don't have blood on their hands.

am with Kieth on this point with the Iraq war we had no moral ground to invade, very bad double standards come to mind



but the biggest balls up with of it all is why the hell fight two wars on two fronts we've still a half a job to finish in Afghanistan

[Keith]

Let me see. The economy, transport policy, welfare policy, the justice system, regional development agencies, creating a much fairer local tax system, the NHS, environmental policy and constitutional reform ALL rank much higher than the Iraq and Afghan wars and always will. Besides, I'm having great difficulty taking someone seriously in this debate who won't be voting as they don't even live in this country. EDIT- unless, of course, you didn't fly the nest over 15 years ago, in which case you may still be voting!

Constitutional reform ranks as more important than hundreds of thousands of dead people as a result of an illegal war? CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM??? Go on, sum up what is so important about constitutional reform that it is more important than the 179 dead British soldiers who were killed in Iraq (not to mention the Iraqi dead who we never bothered to count)?

"Besides, I'm having great difficulty taking someone seriously in this debate who won't be voting as they don't even live in this country"

I take it from that you had no opinion on the US election on the basis that you don't live there or vote there? Actually, that wouldn't surprise me if you are so parochial that you think constitutional reform is more important than an illegal war in a far off land (a bloke called Obama won by the way). Oh, and a Manx Serviceman was among the dead in Iraq.

[marky]

What I am not saying is that the Iraq War is totally unimportant. Indeed, I can see why it is such an important issue to you given that none of the other issues I mentioned affect you. The only major area the UK government has any jurisdiction over the Isle of Man is Foreign policy. However, I do believe that domestic matters are far more important than those oversees, especially a war that is now pretty much over as far as the UK is concerned. For reference, I never supported the Iraq War and I still believe it to be a mistake, but I would never base my vote on it.

In terms of constitutional reform, I include a wide variety of issues within this, from replacing the House of Lords with a fully elected upper chamber to replacing the First Past the Post system to totally reforming the way parties raise their funds. I note that you haven't chosen to comment on the other areas I mentioned so I can only assume that you realise they are more important.

As for the US Presidential elections, of course I had an opinion. I followed that election very closely as I have most of the national elections in the US since I studied US politics back in 1998. Besides, I don't think that is a fair comparison. US foreign policy affects us all. Our supposed 'special relationship' ties us to the United States and I rather suspect we will always be their lap dog when it comes to foreign policy no matter who was in government. A fairer comparison would be my opinions of French presidential elections.

[Keith]

What I am not saying is that the Iraq War is totally unimportant. Indeed, I can see why it is such an important issue to you given that none of the other issues I mentioned affect you. The only major area the UK government has any jurisdiction over the Isle of Man is Foreign policy. However, I do believe that domestic matters are far more important than those oversees, especially a war that is now pretty much over as far as the UK is concerned. For reference, I never supported the Iraq War and I still believe it to be a mistake, but I would never base my vote on it.

The Iraq war is a strong indication as to the 'trustworthiness' in general of the current administration. They lied and sent people to die based upon that lie. For oil. That tarnishes them beyond reproach apart from a few who were prepared to stand up.

In terms of constitutional reform, I include a wide variety of issues within this, from replacing the House of Lords with a fully elected upper chamber to replacing the First Past the Post system to totally reforming the way parties raise their funds.

Which is in whose manifesto? First past the post and an elected second chamber are not pledges of either main party are they? So you are saying something that isn't government policy is more important than foreign wars?

I note that you haven't chosen to comment on the other areas I mentioned so I can only assume that you realise they are more important.

Not really, I was just more stunned that you thought 179 dead British service men & women were less important than constitutional reform, which isn't Labour or Conservative policy anyway!

I could just as easily shown disdain for the fact that you think "regional development agencies" or a "fairer local tax system" are more important than illegal wars. As for NHS, do you think it will fair any better or worse under the Tories than Labour? In a decade of power, Labour have increased the pay and numbers of managers disproportionately compared to nurses & doctors. New hospitals will still be getting paid for when they are past their useful life and need replacing. PFI initiatives are simply a way of buying on HP to keep the debt off the balance books. I left the UK because of the damage Thatcher was doing to the NHS, meaning there were only temporary jobs available there for newly qualified psychiatric nurses. I haven't seen anything since I've been away that would tempt me back. I really hoped that Labour, when first elected, would have sorted the NHS out, instead they put it on life support.

The rest of your 'more important than war' issues are all similar, either not a major manifesto issue or both parties are so close together that they are one and the same. Classic case of 'it doesn't matter who you vote for, the government always wins'.

As for the US Presidential elections, of course I had an opinion. I followed that election very closely as I have most of the national elections in the US since I studied US politics back in 1998. Besides, I don't think that is a fair comparison. US foreign policy affects us all. Our supposed 'special relationship' ties us to the United States and I rather suspect we will always be their lap dog when it comes to foreign policy no matter who was in government. A fairer comparison would be my opinions of French presidential elections.

How would the French presidential election be a "fairer comparison"? I'm British born, my passport is Manx but under 'British issue' as a crown protectorate. Due to financial agreements our rate of VAT, fuel & alcohol duty are pegged at the same rates as the UK. UK domestic policy has a massive impact upon the Manx economy. I was interested in British politics long before I left school, let alone chose to move here. I also visit the UK (mainly to watch a certain football club play) far more frequently than you travel to America! And as long as this forum is an open one, then anyone is entitled to post any opinion that isn't abusive or illegal... and that includes mine!