Poll: 2nd Leaders debate - Live tonight at 8pm on BBC news and SKY news

Who will you vote for?

  • Labour

    Votes: 50 9.0%

  • Conservatives

    Votes: 245 43.9%

  • Liberal Democrats

    Votes: 227 40.7%

  • Other

    Votes: 36 6.5%
  • Total voters
    558
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
scorza said:
Instead they had a grossly disproportionate representation in the House of Commons and as such were able push the country into a wrong war with the help of the Conservative party.
Click to expand...
I don't see your point. You're saying that we had a grossly disproportionate distribution of commons seats (which is right), but you then go on to say that the Iraqi intervention was only possible with the aid of Conservative votes? Surely you've just nullified your own argument?

I'd advise you take a look at the ratio of Labour MPs that voted for, compared to the ratio of Conservative MPs that voted for. I'd also like to point out that just because you deem the Iraqi intervention to be 'wrong', that doesn't make it so.
 
scorza said:
Only if whoever is in government tries to pass controversial laws where the benefit for the country is dubious. Like for example, going to war in Iraq - that wouldn't had been possible if the Labour party had a coalition with the LibDems at the time. Instead they had a grossly disproportionate representation in the House of Commons and as such were able push the country into a wrong war with the help of the Conservative party.
Click to expand...

Not quite, its not just bad things people disagree on, its good things as well.

If you think for only a couple of minutes you can bring up 5 or 6 different laws that have been passed that were good, that could only of been passed with a large majority.
 
Well Cameron has again dismissed any form of change to PR

But it's also why a Conservative government will not consider introducing proportional representation, as many participants in A New Politics have demanded.
Click to expand...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/25/david-cameron-a-new-politics1

I suppose he has a get-out where he can say that if it's a hung Parliament, a coalition with the LibDems isn't a 'Conservative government' so he can escape on a technicality and not seem naive or a liar.
 
naffa said:
I don't see your point. You're saying that we had a grossly disproportionate distribution of commons seats (which is right), but you then go on to say that the Iraqi intervention was only possible with the aid of Conservative votes? Surely you've just nullified your own argument?

I'd advise you take a look at the ratio of Labour MPs that voted for, compared to the ratio of Conservative MPs that voted for. I'd also like to point out that just because you deem the Iraqi intervention to be 'wrong', that doesn't make it so.
Click to expand...

If we had a proportionally representative parliament back in '03 the government would have been a Labour/LibDem coalition. It's hard to believe that that coalition would have survived an issue so divisive as the Iraq war.

It's also hard to accept that now, with the benefit of hindsight, the Iraq war can be looked upon as anything other than a colossal mistake. The LibDems were the only party with leadership that called it right.
 
scorza said:
If we had a proportionally representative parliament back in '03 the government would have been a Labour/LibDem coalition. It's hard to believe that that coalition would have survived an issue so divisive as the Iraq war.
Click to expand...
I don't see how you can say that, as all MPs could potentially have voted in exactly the same way.

It's also hard to accept that now, with the benefit of hindsight, the Iraq war can be looked upon as anything other than a colossal mistake. The LibDems were the only party with leadership that called it right.
Click to expand...
I disagree, the Iraqi Ba'ath party and Saddam being removed is a good thing for so many reasons. I'm not saying that I support the intervention, but there are are a lot of good reasons why one could.
 
Gaidin109 said:
Who would be deterred has no bearing on the very specific question of whether Trident is the best and cheapest of the current options to keep our nuclear capability. ...
Click to expand...
So you are suggesting that Trident is the best way of deterring something without actually knowing who or what exactly it is you are deterring . . . and yet you have the front to talk about "idiocy" and "valid arguments" :rolleyes:


I'm not actually having an argument with you sunshine, have you ever heard the phrase about having a battle of wits with an unarmed man? ;)
 
naffa said:
I don't see how you can say that, as all MPs could potentially have voted in exactly the same way.
Click to expand...

What I'm saying to you is that the coalition would have collapsed, forcing a general election which in effect would have become a referendum on the Iraq war. Fair play to the British public too - they called the Iraq war right too, to my shame I didn't.
 
it is interesting that only a few short weeks ago Stockhausen and yourself were singing the praises of Labour, and now you both support the Liberal Democrats. It shows either what little grasp you have of policy or how fickle and easily manipulated you are.
Click to expand...
Tbh I'd rather expect that comment to have included the rest of the public also lol :D

I'd rather expect the two in question to have assumed Labour as more prefferential to the Conservatives, only now realising that the Lib Dems could now become a more viable and possible choice?
 
scorza said:
What I'm saying to you is that the coalition would have collapsed, forcing a general election which in effect would have become a referendum on the Iraq war. Fair play to the British public too - they called the Iraq war right too, to my shame I didn't.
Click to expand...
I fail to say how you can say such a thing with any degree of certainty.

This question is seperate from the debate that the thread is centred around, however, I'm curious to know the answer. Are you opposed to the Mesopotamian intervention in principal, or is it the British foreign policy that you were opposed to? If the UK were not involved, would you still be opposed?
 
Rich_L said:
Well Cameron has again dismissed any form of change to PR

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/25/david-cameron-a-new-politics1

I suppose he has a get-out where he can say that if it's a hung Parliament, a coalition with the LibDems isn't a 'Conservative government' so he can escape on a technicality and not seem naive or a liar.
Click to expand...

That article is from may 2009 :confused:

Try one from the actual election campaign...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/25/david-cameron-liberal-democrats-nick-clegg-coalition

David Cameron has left open the possibility of a coalition with Nick Clegg's Liberal Democrats by refusing to rule out discussions on reform of Britain's first-past-the-post voting system.

The Tory leader's reluctance to close off the possibility, during an exclusive interview with the Observer, comes amid signs that the Lib Dems are holding on to increased support after two televised leaders' debates – and could deprive the Tories of an outright majority.

Cameron insists that he still believes the first-past-the post system is the best for Britain. "I want us to keep the current system that enables you to throw a government out of office. That is my view," he says.

But when pressed on whether, in the event of a hung parliament, he would be prepared to discuss the Lib Dems' central demand for electoral reform – something he has always opposed until now – he declines to rule it out. When it was put to him that refusal to move on the issue could mean the Lib Dems teaming up with Labour to push through electoral reform anyway, the Tory leader says: "We think this is an important issue."

Cameron's comments suggest the Tories may now be prepared to put reform of the voting system on the table in coalition talks, rather than allow the issue to be a "deal breaker". After being asked four times to rule out such discussions on electoral reform, Cameron said: "Put the question in, you know, Serbo-Croat, if you want to – but you're going to get the same answer." Labour has promised a referendum on the alternative vote system.
Click to expand...

If you're going to criticise Cameron, at least do it on something relevant.
 
naffa said:
I fail to say how you can say such a thing with any degree of certainty.
Click to expand...

Obviously no-one can answer "what-if" questions with any degree of certainty. It's just my analysis of attitudes from the time. Frankly if going to war isn't an issue worthy of dissolving a governing coalition then what is?

naffa said:
This question is seperate from the debate that the thread is centred around, however, I'm curious to know the answer. Are you opposed to the Mesopotamian intervention in principal, or is it the British foreign policy that you were opposed to? If the UK were not involved, would you still be opposed?
Click to expand...

If there had been WMD in Iraq I would still support it to this day, but there weren't. So either the intelligence was wrong (a mistake) or it was fabricated (a conspiracy). Judging from Blair's failure to resign once it was apparent there was no WMD, and the subsequent evidence we heard at the Iraq inquiry, it looks increasingly likely that it was a conspiracy from the start.
 
A conspiracy? The claim the Saddam was a threat to us was scaremongering by the respective governments of the UK and the US to try and get us to support the intervention. I'm sorry to hear that you think that's the only reason that one could cite in support.

I should also point out that Saddam used weapons of mass destruction against the Kurdish people, wrongly described as his own. We also know that Sadddam was developing the nuke (may I refer you to a book entitled "The Bomb in My Garden: The Secrets of Saddam's Nuclear Mastermind" by Mahdi Obeidi and Kurt Pitzer), and that his greatest regret was invading Kuwait before he'd developed it (he's made a speech to this effect).

I'd also like to note that there are even more reaons why someone could support the intervention and I'll close by asking whether you think we should have left it to Saddam to set the date for our intervention?

Edited to add additional clarification.
 
Last edited:
stockhausen said:
So you are suggesting that Trident is the best way of deterring something without actually knowing who or what exactly it is you are deterring . . . and yet you have the front to talk about "idiocy" and "valid arguments" :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I am not suggesting any such thing, I stated that it is the best and cheapest out of the available alternatives. As I said I am undecided on the efficacy of a nuclear deterrent.

I can think of numerous scenarios where the ability to respond in kind would deter rogue states such as Iran, N.Korea or a Pakistan gripped by Islamic fundamentalism. Also the future of congenial diplomacy with Russia or China is not assured as we have seen in the past.

Can you say definitively that we have no need of such a weapon?

stockhausen said:
I'm not actually having an argument with you
sunshine, have you ever heard the phrase about having a battle of wits with an unarmed man? ;)
Click to expand...

As you are so obviously witless, it would seem that I have you at a distinct disadvantage. This does go some way to explain the way in which you compose your posts however. :p
 
Last edited:
Dolph said:
That article is from may 2009 :confused:

Try one from the actual election campaign...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/25/david-cameron-liberal-democrats-nick-clegg-coalition

If you're going to criticise Cameron, at least do it on something relevant.
Click to expand...
Cameron has said he's not going to rule out voting reform, not that he's going to support a proportional voting system.

And besides, surely we should be able to draft in articles from the last few years as they are indeed, still relevant. If Cameron has said something that contradicts something he's saying now (that's not the case with this particular piece), then it's very relevant.
 
Nick Clegg seems to be suggesting that he might be more willing to enter a coalition with the Tories than with New Labour - in the event that New Labour gains fewest votes but most seats.

However, it does appear that the Liberal Democrats will ONLY enter into a coalition in exchange for electoral reform to overcome the manifest unfairness of the exiting outdated system which has no place in a modern democracy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom