UK General election

[Zainub]

Originally Posted by Beny

Ern I HATE Bush because of his religious conservatism... The man drives me nuts. On top of that he's an idot. His streamlineing of the economy has failed miserably and the way he's attempted to do it begs ethical questions. Bush did not need to invade Iraq, Afganistan is a question mark for me. The thing is that he has run, gung-ho and ideologicly into war. He's polarised the world comunity (which is another reason I hate him) and created fear in the western world and to quote Yoda . 'Fear leads to hatred, hatred leads to the dark side'. Regardless though, this is'nt what the thread is about. My question still stands. Why else do we hate him?

Contrary to you Beny, I think the only reason which could bring me remotely close to even consider liking Bush (let alone like him for real) would be his stance on religious issues, I don't think I would term them conservative, religion can never be conservative, its meant to be practical and for the good of mankind, but that's another debate altogther. I appreciate Bush's strong stance against gay marriage, and abortion amogst other things, but his triumphalism in all things otherwise means I find it very hard to give him any respect what so ever. Somehow he sees him self and America as whole as the custodian of all things in this planet (and who knows, may be even out side this planet, and galaxy), he (and his equally annoying cabinet members) like to think they (and they alone) are the only souls on this plant who can judge what is good and what it is not. And they alone must take care of all the dictorial leaderships of the world, and they alone must be charged with the task of stopping nuclear proliferations (and yes, it doesn't matter really, if America it self is the largest owner of nuclears weapons in the WORLD), and that every year it sends thousands of dollars from its mints to Israel to make more nuclear weaopons...I could go on forever you know.

Sometimes I even think its unfair on the American public, I've been to the United States three times now, and everytime I've gone there with very skeptical views about that country and its people in my mind, yet everytime I've found people there who've both condradicted the notion of America in my mind, and surpassed the reasons why I continue to have such strong feeling towards that country. Like in any other part of the world, America too has good and bad people. But rather sadly I don't think I'll personally ever manage to understand them or judge them with a measure of neutrality that I should, just because of the fact that they twice elected a man the head of their country that ....

...can't remember that Africa is a continent, and not a nation,
...and that the word "children" should be addressed with an "are" not "is",
...and who doesn't know that "misunderestimated" is not a word,
...and who raged an illegal war on a soveriegn country, in which 100,000 innocent civillians have been killed so far, and more will be continued too,
...and who likes to butt in other independent countries' buisnesses and brand some of there governers "exteremist" (forgetting that fact that they got into power on popular vote, unlike him who in his first term came into power in rather controversial circumstances to say the least),
...who lied to his own people, and the entire world,
...and whose government has still held in charge hundreds of people in G'namo Bay without ever even charging them with any offence, under God know what kind of pathetic conditions with open human rights violations,
...and with countless other wrong doings.

But above all that, he is someone I associate as with the of damaging the international reputation of Muslims around the world, and Islam as a whole. I don't think anyone has been the reasons for more misconceptions about our faith then Bush. The world would be so much better off without leaders like him.

[acker]

Originally Posted by Occasional Fan

Sometimes even Baroness Thatcher doesn't make my blood boil as much as she used to, but to be honest that might be because we hear little from her these days.

I'm gobsmacked by the between the lines justification the elitist and possibly psuedo/para nepotism that the "house of lords" promotes. Its like a reserve grade heraldry house of parliment, on "Her Majesty's Appointment".

There is an old saying " if it looks manure and it smells like manure, it probably is manure " You can make the "House of Lords" look like some great house of parliment that operates superior to the elected house. But at the end of the day it is a house of parliment appointed by the royal's.

I wonder if a few Englishmen secretly want to return to "serfdom".

I suppose thats why us Aussies now have closer ties to the United States than Great Brittain.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by acker

There is an old saying " if it looks manure and it smells like manure, it probably is manure " You can make the "House of Lords" look like some great house of parliment that operates superior to the elected house. But at the end of the day it is a house of parliment appointed by the royal's.

No it is not acker, they are in the main ex polititions rewarded with a life peerage, these Lord are the real engine of the House Of Lords.

Originally Posted by acker

I wonder if a few Englishmen secretly want to return to "serfdom".

I wonder where you have got this idea, the house of Lords really has only delaying powers, and the House of commons can in an emergency over rule the Lords any time they want.
We dont need a second elected chamber, we get enough spin from the lower one, the Lords can highlight excesses and no more.

Originally Posted by acker

I suppose thats why us Aussies now have closer ties to the United States than Great Brittain.

Don't think that has anything do do with such a shift, the Royals are still quite popular in OZ, closer ties with the US, will be for trade reasons.
This has happened since the UK joined The Common Market, way back under Heath, then Wilson, we stopped trading as much with Australia and New Zealand, to trade more with Europe, big mistake in my opinion.

Although our supposed Commonwealth friends from the Sugar producing ex colonies, did leave Britain with no sugar in a crisis, and sold the sugar to the US for more money, and that was before th CM.

[Occasional Fan]

Acker, I wasn't trying to justify the House of Lords between the lines at all - if you look at my earlier post in the thread I am quite specific in my own personal justification of it. I don't argue at all with the fact that it is anachronistic, but it has worked for us for a long time and, in my view, which you are welcome to dissent from, it still does. The idea that the Lords are appointed by the royals, however, is just plain wrong. There are only 92 remaining hereditary peers who vote or speak in the House, and that number is set to decline. The rest are appointees of the government of the day (though once appointed you are pretty much there for life). Our present government in the elected House started a half-baked reform of the Lords a few years ago without ever telling the Lords or the British public what they planned to replace it with - and they still don't know whether all or any of the members of the Upper House will be elected once they have finished their job. To be honest, this is one of the most scandalous actions that the Blair government has taken on the home front - playing around with our constitution without telling anyone what the end objective is is just not on.

So - the House of Lords may be an eccentric arrangement and the idea of an unelected House sits uncomfortably with modern democratic thought: I'd concede those points. But it works in my view. I'm not opposed to change, but I do wish Blair and his elected mates could articulate the end objective before they start tinkering.

Incidentally, I note that you are from Queensland. As you probably know, but others reading this (if anyone) may not, the Queensland State Parliament is unique in being the only Westminster-modeled Parliament in the world which has only one House. All the rules of the House are taken from Erskine May, which is the same "procedures manual" which applies to the British parliament, but the one House makes State law on its own. That may work for Queensland (I was lucky enough last time I was in Brisbane to have dinner with a couple of Members and to meet the Speaker, and they all felt that it certainly does: they also thought it was pretty anachronistic that they have to swear allegiance to Queen Victoria and her Heirs and Successors every day at Prayers, and who can argue with that?), but I'd be a bit worried to see it in the UK at the moment. With our first past the post electoral system, we need a revising and advisory Chamber (which essentially is what the Lords is: it ultimately has influence but no real power) to keep us somewhere near the middle of the road.

[King Aragorn]

Hello everyone!

I have followed this thread for some time but lost the trail in the whereabouts of page 5. Hence, if I say anything which has already been discussed, I offer my apologies.

What do the members here think of the Liberal Democrats and their stance on the different issues? Who will mount the real challenge against the Labour Party...LDs or the Conservatives? The importance of the Iraq war was discussed earlier but will it be all that important to the British people in these elections? What about the Iraqi prisoner abuse by the British army? Or will it be the economy which will be the decisisive factor?

Do you all think that the choices you have are good and that your opinions and ideas are well represented by at least one party or do you agree with any of the three?

Also, as I have not always followed British politics very closely, do the polls organised by media firms, etc really represent what the majority of the people think? I heard that Labour is ahead according to some polls but Conservatives seem to be catching up. Is that right?

[acker]

Originally Posted by Occasional Fan

Incidentally, I note that you are from Queensland. As you probably know, but others reading this (if anyone) may not, the Queensland State Parliament is unique in being the only Westminster-modeled Parliament in the world which has only one House. All the rules of the House are taken from Erskine May, which is the same "procedures manual" which applies to the British parliament, but the one House makes State law on its own. That may work for Queensland (I was lucky enough last time I was in Brisbane to have dinner with a couple of Members and to meet the Speaker, and they all felt that it certainly does: they also thought it was pretty anachronistic that they have to swear allegiance to Queen Victoria and her Heirs and Successors every day at Prayers, and who can argue with that?), but I'd be a bit worried to see it in the UK at the moment. With our first past the post electoral system, we need a revising and advisory Chamber (which essentially is what the Lords is: it ultimately has influence but no real power) to keep us somewhere near the middle of the road.

The one teir system does work very well at State level, in fact it works so well in Queensland I have recently moved back to Southern NSW that I think New South Wales , Victoria and the rest of the States and Territories should adopt it.
Things I noted in particular were; Health , Policing and Roads. Queenslands performance and ability to spend money effectively in those areas compared to other States does stand out in my veiw.
I can see the argument to have a second house on a Federal level (we have an elected senate, I'm still not convinced about the house of lords) , but I think on a state level its a waste of time, for instance Tasmania would only have a population (500 000) half the size of Adelaide , I could only see such houses at that level needlessly holding up stae projects from being started or completed to the detriment of the public ( people do die on public hospital waiting lists while beureucratic arguments such as location , environmental impact and building design issues get jetted about from department to department or house to house). I'm glad the 3rd teir of Australian government the local government level has never ventured into the 2 chamber system.

[Andy Mellon]

Well, King Aragorn - you raise some interesting questions:

Firstly on opinion polls, in the past, these have been shown to be fairly poor indicators of the final results. Kinnock was predicted to win in 1991 (was it 1991?) according to the opinion polls, but Major ended up with a majority. The polls seem to come down in favour of the opposition with the final result being more votes towards the incumbent party.

Secondly, the Lib Dems like to think of themselves as a major opposition party - and in local politics they usually are. It seems, people will vote for lib dems in council elections as this can have an effect locally, but when it comes to the general election as there is a perception that the lib dems couldn't have any power in goverment, people steer towards tory/labour.

In terms of the war - if the election had been last year it would have been more of an issue. Unless a madrid style bombing happens in the run up to the election - and we all hope it won't - i'm afraid the war will not be as big an issue as it should be. Also, for the first time in ages, the economy is not a major issue as its 'ticking along nicely' not fantastic, but not bad - neither side can make much political capital from it. The election will probably be fought over the battlegrounds of health, education and immigration. Even Europe isn't important this time around. Also, the administration of the major car manufacturer MG Rover yesterday will have significant effect on a large number of marginal constituencies in the west midlands.

And finally, in my opinion - and it seems to be the opinion of a lot of people here - none of the parties in existence sit well with me. Can't vote for the tories as i can't agree with the way their policies seem to stir up intolerances between different peoples (immigrants mainly) and there's a lot of support for a small amount of xenophobia and jingoism. Labour - well In my opinion i could never, ever trust Tony Bliar again - even if he was in the right, the way he effectively censored the BBC was deplorable, and his support for the postal voting system which pretty much encourages election fraud is scandalous. The liberals - well, i'm fed up with Political Correctness for the sake of Political Correctness and think this would only get worse under the libs. Though, they are probably the best of a bad bunch.

[acker]

Originally Posted by Zainub Razvi

But above all that, he is someone I associate as with the of damaging the international reputation of Muslims around the world, and Islam as a whole. I don't think anyone has been the reasons for more misconceptions about our faith then Bush. The world would be so much better off without leaders like him.

Interesting point about damaging Islams international reputation, to which I can see your point and agree with you on it Zainub.
But it may interest you that here in Australia domestically their appears to be one muslim community (Lebanese) who appear to be at the instigation of 95% of any ethnic tensions between Muslims and non Muslims.
I have met Iranians, Bangladeshi's, Malaysians, Turks and other muslim people over here and they have gotten on fine intergrating into modern Australia. The Lebanese community seems to have brang over here its old fights and problems that they were supposedly escaping to come here.
Unfortunatly Zainub the greater Muslim community are being grouped into via the media, into the circus surrounding the Lebanese community who seem hell bent in turning the cities they move to into neo Beirut's.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by King Aragorn

What do the members here think of the Liberal Democrats and their stance on the different issues? Who will mount the real challenge against the Labour Party...LDs or the Conservatives? The importance of the Iraq war was discussed earlier but will it be all that important to the British people in these elections? What about the Iraqi prisoner abuse by the British army? Or will it be the economy which will be the decisisive factor?

Hi,
The Liberal Demacrats only survive with the votes from people who are not satisfied with either the Labour, or Conservative party, they have in fact no policies, except the odd one which will cost an extra penny in the pound income tax.
The Iraq was should not come into it, because exept for the inconsiquentional Lib dems, there was a concensus between the two main parties.
As for the prisoner abuse by the British Army, that should have no bearing at all, that was just a few rotten apples, in a very big keg of 40,000 btitish sevice personel.
The economy not a lot to choose, it was good when New Labour came to power, is still pretty good, maybe Gordon Brown has borrowed to much!

Originally Posted by King Aragorn

Also, as I have not always followed British politics very closely, do the polls organised by media firms, etc really represent what the majority of the people think? I heard that Labour is ahead according to some polls but Conservatives seem to be catching up. Is that right?

A year ago no one would have given the Conservatives a chance, but the polls are close, could well be a hung parliment this time, but the Conservatives have not played their trump card yet-"Europe", not very popular with the British people as a whole, and going back to Iraq for a moment, memories will still be fresh about the lack of support from Germany and France when British tropps lives were on the line in Iraq.
At this moment forget the bookies, untill we see the agendas to close to call, the UK electorate is very volatile these days.

[Beny]

Originally Posted by Zainub Razvi

Contrary to you Beny, I think the only reason which could bring me remotely close to even consider liking Bush (let alone like him for real) would be his stance on religious issues

On that note... I'm still waiting... You havent given up I hope

Originally Posted by Zanuib

don't think I would term them conservative, religion can never be conservative

The middle east traditions date back to the time of the Babylonians. The old testement/ Pentatuch (which most of the three books use at least as a basis for their faith) were writen between 587-530 B.C.E... Were talking about 200 years before the Roman Empire croped up. This faith is inherintly conservative... I was reading through the bible the other day... came accross a few interesting passages. One said that I shouldent feel guilty if I have to beat my slave because of his disobediance... Others suggested keeping a close eye on my daughter because otherwise nobody will want to marry her (marrige in this period of time was as much about survival as it was about love. Wommen married/ sold, to provide for their family.)

These books are written for the people of this time... They are not written for people of the future.

Originally Posted by Zanuib

I appreciate Bush's strong stance against gay marriage, and abortion amogst other things, but his triumphalism in all things otherwise means I find it very hard to give him any respect what so ever. Somehow he sees him self and America as whole as the custodian of all things in this planet (and who knows, may be even out side this planet, and galaxy), he (and his equally annoying cabinet members) like to think they (and they alone) are the only souls on this plant who can judge what is good and what it is not.

Is'nt that a contradiction? It's ok for Bush to see his own religion as the center of the universe, and impose that moral agenda on others... But He can't do the same with 'American' values?

Originally Posted by Aker

There is an old saying " if it looks manure and it smells like manure, it probably is manure " You can make the "House of Lords" look like some great house of parliment that operates superior to the elected house. But at the end of the day it is a house of parliment appointed by the royal's.
I wonder if a few Englishmen secretly want to return to "serfdom".
I suppose thats why us Aussies now have closer ties to the United States than Great Brittain.

I ( and others), would argue that the best system of goverment is a benevolant tyrany (runs smoother). Here we have a combination of both the benevolant tyrany (the queen must be benevolant or the people will get rid of her) and a democratic system (which tends to serve the majority rather than the whole state as it should). The tyrany is checking the democratic system... Best of both worlds if you ask me.

Originally Posted by Andy

And finally, in my opinion - and it seems to be the opinion of a lot of people here - none of the parties in existence sit well with me.

So what happens if nobody turns up to the polls??