h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

>> I don't think anyone can seriously base their vote on the Iraq war.

I can, and I am. It was very clear to me at the time that we were being lied to, and it was also very clear to me at the time that the legality of the war was ... dubious.

I cannot vote for a party which flouts international law.

It is also completely clear that the Tories would have done exactly the same thing, and as has already been said, Howard is not above illegal actions in the cause of political expediency. His plans to ignore human rights legislation regarding Travellers Rights is another example of flouting international law.

Therefore I am not going to vote for either of them because I cannot vote for legislators who flout law.

Ben

I just hope all you people who don't vote Labour cos of the war don't live to regret it!

remember the saying...'be careful what you wish for........'

Sweetheart, I already regret Labour for a whole variety of reasons. Actually, that implies I voted for them.

Let me rephrase: I already abhor Labour for a whole variety of reasons.

Who you vote for is up to you. Who I vote for is up to me. I am glad that we live in a country where that is the case.

Ben

mmm pretty sentiments!

I happenned to suffer theTory years and feel that affected me and many other poorer people directly quite severely. It's in my blood, in my bones to do everything I can to prevent the Tories getting back in. The most effective way being to vote Labour!

Something that strikes me is that according to that poll on the BBC link, Tony used to be a campaign asset? And people believed 'Trust Tony'? And then according to some comments its recent events that have made people stop trusting politicians?

Now I was only a wee lad in '97, but I seem to recall the same general politicians can't be trusted/don't keep their promises/are only interested in sustaining their own position sentiments being pretty commonplace.

Now statistic generally beats annecdote so I guess I'm missing something here, but it all seems a little odd.

I think its also quite interesting that any polls are showing the Tories getting large amounts of support. Not just because I live in a university/internet raving radical bubble where Tory voters are ritually pack-hunted, but because their most recent scandal about blokey being sacked seems to be a case of them getting caught sticky fingered covering up their actual policies (cut taxes: lots) because they know they'd be unpopular.

Sigsfried said: "Blair will probably step down shortly after labour get in (if they do indeed get in)"

Yet, if, as many on this thread have said, people largely don't trust Blair any more, then surely if that is what is planned, the Labour party would already have made him step down? As, IIRC, Maggie Thatcher was made to? (although that was considerably before the election).

Regarding Blair and the war: personally I support the removal of Saddam Hussein, although the official channels of the UN should have been used for longer (though the oil-for-food scandal showed there would have been problems with that). I don't personally have too much of a problem with the removal of Hussein through the war. HOWEVER, Blair didn't say that was the reason. People may do now; the politicians say "he was evil, he needed to be removed," but that wasn't the reason give, the reason why Government accepted it. Blair told us, apparently in complete contradiction to the intelligence found, about the WMD stuff (you all know it). That's why I wouldn't personally trust him and how the war would affect my vote if I had one (I'm not 18 yet).

Regarding party policies as a whole, I've got to say Lib Dem seems the best, but are obviously still flawed. Maybe, as people say, they are merely making desperate promises in order to make themselves more popular, and when they feel they have a chance of getting in they'll change their policies. But when the alternatives are so much worse, is there a better way to at least propogate your feelings?

Others have said they aren't keen on voting for Lib Dem merely because they're not New Labour and not Conservative. But at least by voting for them you do what you can to tell the others that their policies are no good and need to be changed.

The reason I belive Blair hasn't already stepped down is once the fighting begins within a party it takes a while for it to recover so for Blair to step down directly before an election is a gamble. He has said he will step down this time frankly I don't think he will have a choice but would rather retire "gracefully" at the start than be forced aside.

Yes, fair enough...actually, I just saw the news, with clips of an interview with Blair, where the questioner basically said Blair would step down some point after the election, and it wasn't denied.

Which leads to the question: even if the vote is supposed to be more for the party than the person, is it right that the British people should have no say over who the PM is between one stepping down and the next election?

Well it to me seems to me reasonable simply becuase as you said we are electing a goverenement not a leader. In theory there is nothing to stop a President stepping down in the US leaving the vice president to take over.
We are electing a TEAM not a leader.

We don't have a presidential system. We elect parties to government. The party elects it's leader who becomes prime minister. Our head of state is the monarch. If people want to change it to a presidential system that's another matter.

Labour still has not been straight with anyone about the legality of the war (since all its other justifcations have fallen by the way side)

The Dossiers?


The Labour party, the cabinet and the office of the prime minister in government have amongst other things, presided over the iraq war, lying about tuition fees, fox hunting - however you feel about that; electoral fraud resulting from knackered voting reform, some dubious constitutional reform (to summise: 'lets abolish the lord chancellor' What do you mean we can't?')

They very nearly, but for the general election, were on the verge of introducing some of the most staggeringly authoratarian legislation yetseen i.d Cards and detention without trial all in the name of being afraid. Do they accept evidence obtained under torture?

In no specific order, Blunkett, Byers, Butler, Hughes, Hoon, Hutton, Mandleson TWICE, Robinson, John Scarlett (and friends) - have all brought the governemnt into hot water resulting in either a quick sacking or a promotion.

There are probably more, my memories not that good.

Red's partially correct. Our votes are for our local MP to represent us, by proxy therefore we do elect parties to government and consequently a party leader to the office of prime minister.

For the Iraq war alone I do not find the labour party credible or worthy of my vote - the tories are certainly not going to get it, my only choice, and one that I can conscionably make, is to vote lib dem.

Given the 1980s I could never vote Tory or risk them getting in again.
Given Iraq and the betrayal of everything Labour once paid lip-service to I'd have extreme difficulty in voting for Labour led by TB.
Given that I live in an area where if you pin a red rosette on a donkey it will probably get elected I have no difficulty voting Plaid Cymru at the next election.

Here is Scotland Howard is well remembered for introduce the pilot Poll Tax a year before the rest of mainland UK. I wouldn't be surprised it the Tories were yet again wiped out in Scotland as a result of his leadership.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4418521.stm

"Ministers have vowed to resurrect the ID cards bill if they win the election."

Well you know what to do then.

I'm already doing it!

Now we just have to convince everybody else!

I'm doing my bit 400+ leaflets yesterday after work.

I'm not that committed

I have a general distaste for party politics. They may earn my vote occassionally but I'm never joining a party.

I really don’t get this we don’t trust Blair but we do trust Brown argument. Despite assertions that Blair runs a presidential type government and criticisms by Lord Butler regarding sofa style administration the Cabinet as a whole is responsible. There must have been sufficient evidence against going to war with Iraq for principled politicians like Robin Cook and Clare Short to resign. Brown is just as culpable as Blair for Iraq. Do you think Blair would have been able to commit the country to war if Brown had resigned too.

As for the Lib Dems not having sufficient experience of government I don’t think there was any Cabinet Ministerial experience when New Labour was elected in ’97 and it was the early policy decisions such as an independent Bank of England that are held up as being the best.

And finally to one of my favourite topics, the West Lothian Question. In the event of a hung parliament is it fair that politicians from areas that have their own domestic jurisdictions, or in the case of Northern Ireland could have, might hold sway over England when there is no reciprocity? This will be the first time since devolution that this could come into play as up until now New Labour have had a large majority.

I think the amount of importance given to the war in Iraq as a reason to vote one way or another shows just how 'priviledged economically' and educationally most hootoo researchers are. For me, issues of the public sevices seem far more relevant issues. If I was a bit bettter off I might care more about Iraq. But I'm not and I don't.