UK Election - The vote - Rest of the world ONLY

[Maranello]

Originally Posted by Kirsty Harris

Plus he only has polled about 2% more than the Conservatives

I think that is key issue here Kirsty; that Labour can get maybe as much as 55% of the seats in the Commons with only 36% of the vote. As someone who is close to the Electoral Reform Society, I am saddened by this anamolous result, but hopeful that one day, we will have a fairer system of election.

[Milo]

Technically, under our system, one party could win every constituency by 1 vote.....and have every seat in the commons (with probably 35% of the popular vote).

[Maranello]

Precisely; and that result would be, rightly, termed a landslide!

The constituency boundaries are somewhat skewed agains the Tories, as Labour's safe seats are smaller than many of the Tories'; hence Labour can get an overall majority with a smaller share of the vote than the Conservatives.

[Zainub]

When I said unilaterally I meant
a) Against international law and the laws of UN
b) Against the wishes of their own people
c) And against those of the majority of the rest of the world

[Seamer]

Originally Posted by Zainub Razvi

Please explain the bit where you say this is a "victory for the Iraqi people". .

Do you honestly think they would rather have Saddam back in power? Doubtful to say the least.

Originally Posted by Zainub Razvi

Since January's much malinged polls in Iraq there have been 8 major attacks through out Iraq killing more than 350 people. I have consiously stopped following events in Iraq, the security situtaion there is nothing to write home about, and everday innocent civilians get killed. .

Not by Americans or British - terrorist scum are the ones to blame for that. At least they kill themselves in the process - Barbarians.I

Originally Posted by Zainub Razvi

don't know about others, but I remain very sensitive on this subject, everytime I learn about someone in Iraq dying it reminds me of how all this is happening because of two people who unilaterally decided to take their countries to an illegal war. It does not go down well with me at all.

Let me answer that and see what you have to say. It is a part of an interview i saw on a documentery with this blind Kurd - a survivor of one of Saddams gas attacks on the Kurdish minority." It is like being knocked to the ground and having hydrochloric acid poured on your eyes and down your throat. The pain is unbearable and you just wan't to scream but you cannot because your throat contstricts and you can barely breath. All you can do is lie there in agony and await death, listening to your wife and children gurgle as they slowly die. I wish i had died." He lived but his whole family did not. And what did the UN do? About as much as they ever do - very little. Without the "unilateral, illegal" actions of the U.K and the U.S (with a little help from the Aussie special forces) this monster would still be in power. Is that what you would prefer? Do your sympathies lie with Saddam and his gassing of thousands of Kurds? If so - you are just as evil as he is. If not - you should perhaps rethink you above statement.
People whose sympathies lie with Saddam do not go down well with me at all.

[Maranello]

Originally Posted by Seamer

Not by Americans or British - terrorist scum are the ones to blame for that. At least they kill themselves in the process - Barbarians.

No difference between what they do and what the Occupation Army does in terms of end-result; both are evil and reprehensible actions as innocent civilians are mercilessly murdered in both situations. Fair and decent people should condemn both, instead of jumping on the "patriotic bandwagon" or being taken in by the jingoistic propaganda of the fascist regime in DC. I really cannot fathom how otherwise sensible people's sympathies can lie with those who armed and supported Saddam; with those who were responsible for killing 500,000 Iraqi children during the 1990s and said the "cost was justified"; those who torture, rape and pillage wherever they go under the pretence of spreading "freedom", whether its Indo-China (Vietnam, Laos, etc); Latin America (Haiti, Panama, Chile, Argentina, etc); Mid-East; Africa, or anywhere else - the list of these atrocities in the name of (military or political) interventions truly is endless.

[Seamer]

Originally Posted by Maranello

No difference between what they do and what the Occupation Army does in terms of end-result; both are evil and reprehensible actions as innocent civilians are mercilessly murdered in both situations. Fair and decent people should condemn both, instead of jumping on the "patriotic bandwagon" or being taken in by the jingoistic propaganda of the fascist regime in DC..

Not jumping on any "patriotic bandwagon" I am just a human being that feels for victims of mass murder

Originally Posted by Maranello

I really cannot fathom how otherwise sensible people's sympathies can lie with those who armed and supported Saddam; with those who were responsible for killing 500,000 Iraqi children during the 1990s and said the "cost was justified"; .

Where did you get the "cost is justified " quote and in what context was it said? Certainly not in the death of half a million people i would say. I don't believe that many people died , but if they did, those deaths can be purely attributed to Saddam. If he chose to starve his own people and spend the "food for aid" money on his military then that is another of his crimes which he will have to answer to. Or maybe the Iraqi people will just let him go free because he was really just a nice guy that was only misunderstood. No chance of that is there?

Originally Posted by Maranello

those who torture, rape and pillage wherever they go under the pretence of spreading "freedom", whether its Indo-China (Vietnam, Laos, etc); Latin America (Haiti, Panama, Chile, Argentina, etc); Mid-East; Africa, or anywhere else - the list of these atrocities in the name of (military or political) interventions truly is endless.

That is a very wide ranging generalised statement that can only be answered if given definate instances. I would not say that the US is pure as the driven snow - no superpower can attain that and remain a superpower (as you will see in the near future with China) but in the Iraqi case they were morally in the right. When Saddam is tried by his own people in the future - the truth and extent of Saddams evil will be for all to see and the US/UK actions will be proven to be justified.

[Kirsty Harris]

Originally Posted by Maranello

As someone who is close to the Electoral Reform Society, I am saddened by this anamolous result, but hopeful that one day, we will have a fairer system of election.

I agree, it's pretty strange - it was the same system that helped John major win,back in the final days of Kinnock, because even though Labour won loads of seats off of the Tories, they didn't get a big enough overall swing and had to wait four more years. I suppose it's a bit of the same this time around for Labour. All very strange

That said, I prefer our system to, say the US system, were there is really only two choices for people to make, and the whole voting system seems a bit unorthadox.

[Milo]

The Conservative party must regret the day they won the election in 1992. That was an election Kinnock should have won. His defeat was the best thing for the Labour Party and the worst thing (ironically) for the Tories. Only through this win could Tony Blair have marched to victory with a ridiculously large majority. Kinnock has gone onto political success (from defeat) and we had four years of John Major (who was amongst other things a horrendous Tory prime minister) and the beginning of a long haul back (if ever) for the Conservative party.

Funny how things can hinge on single moments. The 'Sheffield Rally' was in fact a great defining moment for the Labour party...but not the Labour party that Kinnock tried to bring to power.

[Richie Benauds Love Child]

I remember 1992 - I had to do an essay for my politics A-Level called (i think) why Labour lost the 92 election.

Maranello, do you think we'll see any move even just at a local level of electoral reform ? There are load s of different versions of PR all of which are fairer than the first past the post system.