PDA

View Full Version : In denial



Doggy Styles
18th July 2010, 09:49
Just as a matter of interest, has anyone in the previous government said sorry for the deficit yet?

Have any of their leadership contenders conceded that they f***ed up?

Or are they still all ignoring it as an irrelevance?

MarillionFan
18th July 2010, 09:58
Just as a matter of interest, has anyone in the previous government said sorry for the deficit yet?

Have any of their leadership contenders conceded that they f***ed up?

Or are they still all ignoring it as an irrelevance?

No of course not.

They've been taking tips of my partner. Basically when challenged on the massive overspend on her credit card she will justify this by saying 'Look at all the wonderful things you have in the house'.

I of course counter this by saying 'It's no freaking good if the house gets repossessed is it!!!'

She votes Labour, I vote Tory. Go figure.:eyes

HairyArsedBloke
18th July 2010, 10:06
More importantly, when will the new lot put B'Liar, snot goblin, et al in nuLieBore on trial for their crimes? The new mob are quietly ignoring the issue too.

I am getting the impression that there is a growing feeling in the markets that the Office of Budget Responsibility (OBR) is not going to cut it. It will not be enough to convince rating agencies and government debt buyers and other investors in the UK that the fiscal position won't get out of hand again.

I think that there will need to be a proper line drawn under the past behaviour of governments and that can only be done by putting them on trial. Unfortunately (in some eyes), they will have to be found guilty otherwise the process will be seen as a whitewash and the problem will remain.

I see that JP Morgan are sabre rattling again over their site in docklands.

Green Mango
18th July 2010, 11:55
More importantly, when will the new lot put B'Liar, snot goblin, et al in nuLieBore on trial for their crimes? The new mob are quietly ignoring the issue too.

I am getting the impression that there is a growing feeling in the markets that the Office of Budget Responsibility (OBR) is not going to cut it. It will not be enough to convince rating agencies and government debt buyers and other investors in the UK that the fiscal position won't get out of hand again.

I think that there will need to be a proper line drawn under the past behaviour of governments and that can only be done by putting them on trial. Unfortunately (in some eyes), they will have to be found guilty otherwise the process will be seen as a whitewash and the problem will remain.

I see that JP Morgan are sabre rattling again over their site in docklands.

Nobody is going to try New Labour for war crimes as 1) It will do the UK as a whole no good and cause us loads of complications
2) It would embarrass our allies such as the US

HairyArsedBloke
18th July 2010, 12:10
War crimes are another issue.

I'm talking about treason through financial mis-management.

centurian
18th July 2010, 12:27
Of course not, it was all due to

a) A "global recession"
b) Essential to overspend to address "years of underinvestment under the Tories"
c) Neccessary to keep overspending into eternity to "avoid a double dip recession"

Now most of this is just political rhetoric, but there are many, many Labour party members that actually believe this hype and still think that what they did was brilliant.

doodab
18th July 2010, 12:49
No one is going to try them for treason either, because they haven't committed treason.

You get the leaders you deserve. All of this wanting revenge on new labour for simply being those leaders is ridiculous. Give it 10 years and you'll be voting them in again while demanding the current lot are hung, drawn, and made into waffles.

Green Mango
18th July 2010, 13:25
No one is going to try them for treason either, because they haven't committed treason.

You get the leaders you deserve. All of this wanting revenge on new labour for simply being those leaders is ridiculous. Give it 10 years and you'll be voting them in again while demanding the current lot are hung, drawn, and made into waffles.

Yes thats a good example of denial. Labour have committed treason.

They are just going to get away with it thats all.

doodab
18th July 2010, 13:38
Yes thats a good example of denial. Labour have committed treason.

They have overspent a bit. They probably could have done a better job. But that isn't treason. Get a dictionary or google or something and look it up.

doodab
18th July 2010, 13:43
Hindsight is always 20-20 isn't it? Nobody liked the lot before them, and in ten years time nobody will like the current lot either.

I think the vitriol that is directed at this lot is symptomatic of a deeper malaise in British society TBH. Whatever made Britain great is long gone, the place is falling apart and has been since the 70s or 80s, maybe even longer.

Green Mango
18th July 2010, 14:05
They have overspent a bit. They probably could have done a better job. But that isn't treason. Get a dictionary or google or something and look it up.

Well I'm not talking about their gross financial incompetence.

I only see the dogy dossier and the Iraq war as being their treasonous behaviour.

I think that the government which tries to tackle a £153 billion debt per year on top
of the existing £903 billion debt, not to mention all the pension problem, not to mention all
the off balance sheet debts like the PFI schemes is doing a job that not many will thank them for.

It should leave us in a better place, but not without much pain.

Labour could well reap a victory in 5 years time .. thats the irony of life ...
Labour craps on us someone else sorts out their problems and Labour is
back in to crap on us all again.

centurian
18th July 2010, 14:28
Labour must be doing cartwheels at how things are turning out. Not only can they blame the Tories for all the pain to come - they can blame the LibDems as well, for whom it is easier to woo voters from - as a chunk of them thought it was effectively a proxy Labour vote in the first place.

doodab
18th July 2010, 14:30
I only see the dogy dossier and the Iraq war as being their treasonous behaviour.

Morally dubious as it may have been, that wasn't treason either.

FWIW, I posted this the other day, the motion to go to war in Iraq passed a vote in parliament. it was the first time the decision to go to war was put to such a vote. The motion would not have passed were it not for the fact that most tories voted for it. In fact, only 15 of them voted against.

If you really think "this wouldn't have happened under the tories" you are delusional.

Of course, this whole debate also ignores the fact that the Americans would have invaded regardless of whether we joined them.

d000hg
18th July 2010, 14:42
Just as a matter of interest, has anyone in the previous government said sorry for the deficit yet?Not sure about the deficit, but I saw an interview with John Prescott where he freely admitted mistakes had been made under Labour. Of course he's free to say such things as a Lord, it would be unwise for any current MP to say the same for obvious reasons.

Green Mango
18th July 2010, 15:24
Morally dubious as it may have been, that wasn't treason either.

FWIW, I posted this the other day, the motion to go to war in Iraq passed a vote in parliament. it was the first time the decision to go to war was put to such a vote. The motion would not have passed were it not for the fact that most tories voted for it. In fact, only 15 of them voted against.

If you really think "this wouldn't have happened under the tories" you are delusional.

Of course, this whole debate also ignores the fact that the Americans would have invaded regardless of whether we joined them.

I'm afraid I can't agree. The Americans have admitted that Labours treasonous behavior was very important in persuading the
American public that they were not alone in the war and getting the war on.

Green Mango
18th July 2010, 15:26
Not sure about the deficit, but I saw an interview with John Prescott where he freely admitted mistakes had been made under Labour. Of course he's free to say such things as a Lord, it would be unwise for any current MP to say the same for obvious reasons.

I've heard the Lord Myners one of Labours treasurey minister franky say that there is nothing progressive in sinking the country in debt,
not to mention James Purcell who left the Labour government over there reackless and irresponsible behavior with regards to the debt mountain.

doodab
18th July 2010, 15:49
I'm afraid I can't agree. The Americans have admitted that Labours treasonous behavior was very important in persuading the
American public that they were not alone in the war and getting the war on.

It might have helped sweeten the pill for the American public, but it would have happened anyway. Bush issued an ultimatum stating that the Americans would invade unless Saddam stepped down before the vote in parliament happened.

Also, as I said, it wasn't just Labours behaviour. Parliament voted it through despite a large labour rebellion, literally minutes after an amendment that would have avoided the war was voted down. Details of the voting here:

Iraq — Declaration of War — 18 Mar 2003 at 22:00 — The Public Whip (http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2003-03-18&number=118&display=allpossible)

Iraq — Case for war not established — rejected — 18 Mar 2003 at 21:15 — The Public Whip (http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2003-03-18&number=117)

Parliament also rejected an earlier motion stating that a 2nd UN resolution was necessary.

Iraq — UN Security Council Resolution 1441 — Second resolution necessary — rejected — 25 Nov 2002 at 21:34 — The Public Whip (http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2002-11-25&number=6&dmp=219)

However wrong you think it is, that is democracy at work.

Had it been a Tory government, they may not even have put it to a vote, as there was no precedent dictating this had to occur.

Green Mango
18th July 2010, 15:57
Had it been a Tory government, they may not even have put it to a vote, as there was no precedent dictating this had to occur.

I don't a Conservative government would have produced the treasonous dogy dossier and they certainly wouldn't have had Blair's insane desire to fullfil Bush's every wish so I have to say you're wrong.

We will just have to agree to disagree ...

Joe Bloque
18th July 2010, 16:38
No one is going to try them for treason either, because they haven't committed treason.

You get the leaders you deserve. All of this wanting revenge on new labour for simply being those leaders is ridiculous. Give it 10 years and you'll be voting them in again while demanding the current lot are hung, drawn, and made into waffles.

WHS.

Feb 2003 - Million people march in anti-war protest.

March 2003 - Iraq invasion.

August 2003 - UN reports WMD don't exist in Iraq.

May 2005 - Labour get re-elected under TB with Full Majority

Gordon wouldn't have got into no.10 only if tories had pretty face Cameron in 2005. You get leaders you vote for - that is democracy.

doodab
18th July 2010, 16:45
I don't a Conservative government would have produced the treasonous dogy dossier and they certainly wouldn't have had Blair's insane desire to fullfil Bush's every wish so I have to say you're wrong.

We will just have to agree to disagree ...

However much you dislike the war, and dislike Blair for his part in it, you are deluding yourself if you think a Tory government wouldn't have joined it.

Iain Duncan Smith (the then Tory leader) was one of the first people to suggest an invasion of Iraq, a year or so before the dossier was even released. He also lied on his CV, so the chances that he would have baulked at cooking up a few extra "facts" for a dossier seem fairly slim. The only thing that might have gone differently under a Tory government is that they probably wouldn't have been silly enough to put it to a vote and hence wouldn't have needed to present evidence of any sort to parliament in the first place.

Cameron, and in fact most Tory MPs backed the war. The bill would not actually have passed without Tory support, and the amended version stating that the case for war was not established would have passed if the Tories had backed it. The Tories were also unanimous in voting against the idea that a second UN resolution was required.

From what Cameron has said since it seems he would do it all again:

BBC NEWS | Politics | Cameron backs Blair on Iraq war (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/5108584.stm)

December 2009 sky news interview (http://www.skynewstranscripts.co.uk/transcript.asp?id=782)

Green Mango
18th July 2010, 16:50
However much you dislike the war, and dislike Blair for his part in it, you are deluding yourself if you think a Tory government wouldn't have joined it.

Iain Duncan Smith (the then Tory leader) was one of the first people to suggest an invasion of Iraq, a year or so before the dossier was even released. He also lied on his CV, so the chances that he would have baulked at cooking up a few extra "facts" for a dossier seem fairly slim. The only thing that might have gone differently under a Tory government is that they probably wouldn't have been silly enough to put it to a vote and hence wouldn't have needed to present evidence of any sort to parliament in the first place.

Cameron, and in fact most Tory MPs backed the war. The bill would not actually have passed without Tory support, and the amended version stating that the case for war was not established would have passed if the Tories had backed it. The Tories were also unanimous in voting against the idea that a second UN resolution was required.

From what Cameron has said since it seems he would do it all again:

BBC NEWS | Politics | Cameron backs Blair on Iraq war (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/5108584.stm)

December 2009 sky news interview (http://www.skynewstranscripts.co.uk/transcript.asp?id=782)

You forget the commons was deceived on the basis of a fabricated treasonous dossier .....

doodab
18th July 2010, 17:02
You forget the commons was deceived on the basis of a fabricated treasonous dossier .....

You're missing the point. Under a Tory government there would not have been a dossier because there would not have been a vote.

MrMark
18th July 2010, 17:03
Of course not, it was all due to

a) A "global recession"
b) Essential to overspend to address "years of underinvestment under the Tories"
c) Neccessary to keep overspending into eternity to "avoid a double dip recession"

Now most of this is just political rhetoric, but there are many, many Labour party members that actually believe this hype and still think that what they did was brilliant.
Yet in 2006 (and possibly even 2007) the Conservative party were quite happy with the financial spending figures of the Labour government, and said they intended to maintain current spending figures. Go figure...
Everyone at the time (well the entire political class it seems) thought that house prices (and thus revenues) would keep going up continuously. Luckily the current coalition are now prepared to see house prices fall and to concentrate on the productive side of the economy:
Coalition ready to let property values fall | News | Money Marketing (http://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/mortgages/coalition-ready-to-let-property-values-fall/1015197.article)

It's going to take 7-10 years though before things feel stable again, imo.

Joe Bloque
18th July 2010, 17:05
What gets my goat is - People had 2 years knowing full well that 2003 dossier was dodgy before elections in 2005. Now in 2010 people complain they've been hoodwinked into Iraq war. In fact I admire TB in convincing the country to vote Labour keeping tories at bay. Surely, people knew who they were voting. I voted Labour btw. I knew why I voted.

centurian
18th July 2010, 17:06
May 2005 - Labour get re-elected under TB with Full Majority

:spel

A lower percentage of the vote - and total number of votes - than DC got in 2010.

By Labour's commentary of how the 2010 vote went, Tony Blair would have "lost" the 2005 election.

Labour have fiddled the electoral boundaries over the past 13 years making it virtually impossible for the Tories to get an outright majority. I'll admit the tories don't have a perfect record on this either, but not to the degree that New Labour did.

Joe Bloque
18th July 2010, 17:14
A lower percentage of the vote - and total number of votes - than DC got in 2010.

It doesn't matter - Labour were given mandate to govern. Period.
What they clearly didn't have from my vote was GB taking over reins from TB.


Labour have fiddled the electoral boundaries over the past 13 years making it virtually impossible for the Tories to get an outright majority.

If you are Tory, you have my sympathy.

centurian
18th July 2010, 17:14
Yet in 2006 (and possibly even 2007) the Conservative party were quite happy with the financial spending figures of the Labour government, and said they intended to maintain current spending figures.

I think 'happy' is probably stretching it a bit - but you're right - they weren't jumping up and down about it.

Part of the problem goes back to losing the 2005 election where they said that they weren't going to let spending rise as much as Labour, so Labour (very successfully) labelled this as a cut compared to their plans. The Tories then got paranoid about stating they were going to spend a penny less than Labour.

shaunbhoy
18th July 2010, 17:17
In fact I admire TB in convincing the country to vote Labour keeping tories at bay. Surely, people knew who they were voting. I voted Labour btw. I knew why I voted.

Well good for you Bertie Big-Bollocks.
You are either a Public servant, or feeble-minded. Not a great deal of difference when it comes to voting preference apparently.

:eyes

centurian
18th July 2010, 17:27
If you are Tory, you have my sympathy.

You jest (I think), but part of why Labour got stale is that they started to think they were invincible - the same happened to the Tories in the late 80's, but they managed to hang on for another 6-7 years.

It's never good for democracy when it becomes almost impossible to get rid of a government.

Joe Bloque
18th July 2010, 17:27
Well good for you Bertie Big-Bollocks.
You are either a Public servant, or feeble-minded. Not a great deal of difference when it comes to voting preference apparently.

:eyes

Atleast I don't moan about NuLibour - when it doesn't matter after all the commissions and enquiries.

Green Mango
18th July 2010, 17:33
You're missing the point. Under a Tory government there would not have been a dossier because there would not have been a vote.

Exactly the Tories were only persuaded to go to war by Labour ministers say we could be hit by Iraqi missiles in 45 minutes and the rest of the lies.

Thus Tory government would have had no war.

Now finaly I think we should agree to disagree....

Joe Bloque
18th July 2010, 17:38
It's never good for democracy when it becomes almost impossible to get rid of a government.

Can't agree more. But I don't agree with NicCam on 5 year definite parliament either. I want to have the option to kick'em out whenever I(we) want to. But please, dont sell me stable govt bull tulip.

centurian
18th July 2010, 18:06
Can't agree more. But I don't agree with NicCam on 5 year definite parliament either. I want to have the option to kick'em out whenever I(we) want to. But please, dont sell me stable govt bull tulip.

Yeah, I'm still on the fence on this one. It's not like we have ever had the option to kick them out before their time anyway.

Fixed terms aren't a bad idea. The PM has previously held a huge advantage by being able to call the election whenever he/she saw fit. This levels it up a bit.

However a 5 year fixed term seems a long time. 4 years would be better, but the coalition is going for 5 years because 4 years from now, the pain of the cuts will be very fresh in people's memories.

Ruprect
18th July 2010, 18:11
Damn, I was hoping this thread was going to be about your holidays in Egypt.

:rolleyes:

swamp
18th July 2010, 18:55
If the Tories were in power in 2002/2003, then Labour would have massively opposed an Iraq invasion. It's hard to say whether the Tories would have pressed ahead with the war without at least some cross-party support.

doodab
18th July 2010, 20:07
Exactly the Tories were only persuaded to go to war by Labour ministers say we could be hit by Iraqi missiles in 45 minutes and the rest of the lies.

Thus Tory government would have had no war.

There are numerous attributable quotes and newspaper reports, both from the time and later, making it quite clear that the American position did not depend on UK support. It really wasn't a question of "whether we have a war" it was a question of "whether we will join them". The idea that a war in Iraq could have been avoided if it wasn't for that nasty Mr Blair is absolutely ridiculous.

As regards the Tories, it wasn't them who needed persuading, it was the labour back benches. You might like to think that the Tories wouldn't have committed British troops but the reality is that IDS fully backed a war, even suggesting an invasion before the dossier's publication, and Cameron has also stated that the WMD claims were not the sole reason he supported the war.

I'm not suggesting that Blair & co didn't manipulate the truth, simply pointing out that there would have been a war in Iraq anyway. But you keep on kidding yourself if it helps you sleep.

Green Mango
19th July 2010, 05:11
There are numerous attributable quotes and newspaper reports, both from the time and later, making it quite clear that the American position did not depend on UK support. It really wasn't a question of "whether we have a war" it was a question of "whether we will join them". The idea that a war in Iraq could have been avoided if it wasn't for that nasty Mr Blair is absolutely ridiculous.

As regards the Tories, it wasn't them who needed persuading, it was the labour back benches. You might like to think that the Tories wouldn't have committed British troops but the reality is that IDS fully backed a war, even suggesting an invasion before the dossier's publication, and Cameron has also stated that the WMD claims were not the sole reason he supported the war.

I'm not suggesting that Blair & co didn't manipulate the truth, simply pointing out that there would have been a war in Iraq anyway. But you keep on kidding yourself if it helps you sleep.


Your position seem to deny the Labour parties responsibility and instead use the defense well if LAbour hadn't done it someone else would have.

I'm afraid you are the type of Labour part supporter who can admit no fault although I know many who readily admit that the Iraq war was a treasonous act by the LAbour cabinet of the time.

doodab
19th July 2010, 07:02
Your position seem to deny the Labour parties responsibility and instead use the defense well if LAbour hadn't done it someone else would have.

I'm afraid you are the type of Labour part supporter who can admit no fault although I know many who readily admit that the Iraq war was a treasonous act by the LAbour cabinet of the time.

A couple of places where your blinkers are getting in the way there.

I'm not a labour supporter.

I'm not saying Blair and co played no part. But to suggest that the responsibility lies solely with him or labour is bollocks. You seem to forget the labour party provided most of the votes against going to war, and overlook the fact that the Tories supported it wholeheartedly. You also seem unable to comprehend that Britain no longer rules the world and couldn't have prevented this war.

You I think are the sort of blinkered idiot who voted Tory because they aren't labour and has no idea what you actually voted for.

should have voted lib dem

Scrag Meister
19th July 2010, 07:51
She votes Labour, I vote Tory. Go figure.:eyes

Same in my house, but then she was bought up in Wales when all the mines shut down and Arthur Scargill was on the rampage.

Scrag Meister
19th July 2010, 07:55
I see that JP Morgan are sabre rattling again over their site in docklands.

Do you have a link re this HAB?

Doggy Styles
19th July 2010, 08:38
Your position seem to deny the Labour parties responsibility and instead use the defense well if LAbour hadn't done it someone else would have.Does that apply to running up a large budget deficit as well?

doodab
19th July 2010, 08:50
Does that apply to running up a large budget deficit as well?

I don't think the Tories would have let the deficit get quite as out of hand, but I think we would still have seen the bank bail out, not least because in time it will prove to be a moneymaker. We would probably have seen a few privatisations as well.

I'm hoping they do the royal mail. That needs a kick up the arse.

original PM
19th July 2010, 10:39
whilst I agree that no governement is great the main thing we need to understand is that politicians cannot wave a magic wand and make the country great again.

It is the citizens of the country which make it great and until we stop paying the large and growing underclasses for doing nothing but breeding the country will get progressivly worse.

The government who shake up the welfare system and stop the payments to lazy chav scum will be the ones who really start to tunr the country around.

I mean we have all these chavs and we cannot even send them overseas to stop bullets and get crotch rot.

What is the world coming to...??

Sysman
19th July 2010, 10:42
I see that JP Morgan are sabre rattling again over their site in docklands.

Yes, I spotted that one.

Green Mango
19th July 2010, 11:15
A couple of places where your blinkers are getting in the way there.

I'm not a labour supporter.

I'm not saying Blair and co played no part. But to suggest that the responsibility lies solely with him or labour is bollocks. You seem to forget the labour party provided most of the votes against going to war, and overlook the fact that the Tories supported it wholeheartedly. You also seem unable to comprehend that Britain no longer rules the world and couldn't have prevented this war.

You I think are the sort of blinkered idiot who voted Tory because they aren't labour and has no idea what you actually voted for.

should have voted lib dem

Resorting to insults because someone doesn't accept your point of view.

That is pathetic.

doodab
19th July 2010, 11:48
Resorting to insults because someone doesn't accept your point of view.

That is pathetic.

The voting record isn't my point of view, it's a matter of public record.

George Bush publicly announcing that there would be military action unless Saddam left Iraq is not my point of view, it's a matter of public record.

David Cameron's support for the war is not my point of view, it's a matter of public record.

Iain Duncan Smith's support for the war is not my point of view, it's a matter of public record.

Several senior Labour figures resigned because of the war. Again, a matter of public record. There was no such strong feeling shown by any Tory in reaction to their parties support for it.

I have no problem with people disagreeing with my point of view, but when they wilfully refuse to acknowledge facts under the assumption that I'm a labour apologist, while offering nothing to support their blinkered, black and white "labour is bad and Tories are good" view of what is a nuanced world I do tend to conclude that they aren't very smart and are running purely on misguided propaganda.

So yes, I have concluded that you are exactly the sort of person who voted Tory because they aren't Labour, and you don't know what you voted for, as you have made abundantly clear by asserting that the Tories wouldn't have taken us to war when the evidence and the voting record shows that they supported the war more strongly than any other major party, including labour

I tend to consider these people "Blinkered Idiots" because they are making a simple minded emotional responses to something complicated that they don't like, and while Blair is an obvious target and must take some of the blame, the fact of the matter is that most of them seem not to have an inkling that the people they voted for "to get labour out" are just as bad or worse.

Apologies if the phrase "blinkered idiot" has touched a raw nerve. Perhaps "incapable of seeing the bigger picture or conducting independent research" or "easily led" might have been better?

As I said, if you wanted an anti war party, you should have voted Lib Dem. They voted consistently against the war in Iraq, and they were united in doing so. Perhaps you did, in which case I apologise, but I do wonder why you are going to such lengths to stand up for the Tories.

SupremeSpod
19th July 2010, 12:08
Resorting to insults because someone doesn't accept your point of view.

That is pathetic.

WHS! That's one of my bête noire, that and people who use the expression "bête noire"...:wink

sasguru
19th July 2010, 12:52
Resorting to insults because someone doesn't accept your point of view.

That is pathetic.

Having read this thread, I think his description of you as an idiot was factual, rather than an insult.

HTH.

Not So Wise
19th July 2010, 13:14
However a 5 year fixed term seems a long time. 4 years would be better, but the coalition is going for 5 years because 4 years from now, the pain of the cuts will be very fresh in people's memories.
Of complete opposite mind, 5 years is to short, double would be better.

The number two problem* with democracy is the frequent election cycles. Basically elected governments get about a year to 2 years tops to plan and enact any good but painful long term planning, after that it’s all about the next election. And even if they do major work in those first 2 years in most cases the real results, good or bad, are not seen until well after the next election

Quote by a unnamed euro MP pretty much sums up whole problem, “we know what needs to be done and how to do, just not how to get re-elected if we do it”

*The number one problem is a stupid electorate

shaunbhoy
19th July 2010, 13:24
Having read this thread, I now need to go and lie down

FTFY

northernladuk
19th July 2010, 13:28
Having read this thread, I think his description of you as an idiot was factual, rather than an insult.

HTH.

LOL and I have to agree. Doobab has been putting a reasoned argument up about any party doing as badly in that position (to a greater or lesser degree) and has been attempting to argue against Mango's singleminded witch hunt against a party he obviously has an issue with.

Mango forgets that this type of witch hunt happens everytime a party leaves power after a long stint whether it is Tories or Labour. It happens, it is the way of politics. It obviously doesn't matter which party is in power they will incur the wrath of the hunt. Maybe it isn't actually one particular party that is the problem, it just happens in that situation. Deep breath in and just let the history of politics roll on.

Gibbon
19th July 2010, 13:35
Of complete opposite mind, 5 years is to short, double would be better.

The number two problem* with democracy is the frequent election cycles. Basically elected governments get about a year to 2 years tops to plan and enact any good but painful long term planning, after that it’s all about the next election. And even if they do major work in those first 2 years in most cases the real results, good or bad, are not seen until well after the next election

Quote by a unnamed euro MP pretty much sums up whole problem, “we know what needs to be done and how to do, just not how to get re-elected if we do it”

*The number one problem is a stupid electorate


Indeed, this was one of the main arguments the Spartans used against the Athenian democracy in the Pelopenesian wars. For anyone who thinks atrocties are only carried out by tryants etc then behold the fate of Melos and the Athenian vote to kill all males capable of carrying arms.

northernladuk
19th July 2010, 16:13
Indeed, this was one of the main arguments the Spartans used against the Athenian democracy in the Pelopenesian wars. For anyone who thinks atrocties are only carried out by tryants etc then behold the fate of Melos and the Athenian vote to kill all males capable of carrying arms.

Whooaaa. This looks impressive but is far too heavy for my tiny brain to comprehend late on a Monday. Will try read and digest tomorrow lol.

doodab
19th July 2010, 16:21
Whooaaa. This looks impressive but is far too heavy for my tiny brain to comprehend late on a Monday. Will try read and digest tomorrow lol.

They killed all the adult males and sold the women and children into slavery. What we now call "genocide" or "barbarism" was once considered fairly normal.

Gibbon
20th July 2010, 06:30
They killed all the adult males and sold the women and children into slavery. What we now call "genocide" or "barbarism" was once considered fairly normal.

Actually this case wasn't the norm, as Melos was an independent island and not a rebel one. Also the city surrendered and so would expect to be taken into slavery but not have all it's menfolk butchered. Aristophone alludes to it in a play about the sack of Troy (can't remember the name) and Thucydides later castigates his fellow Athenians for this atrocity.

doodab
20th July 2010, 07:56
Actually this case wasn't the norm, as Melos was an independent island and not a rebel one. Also the city surrendered and so would expect to be taken into slavery but not have all it's menfolk butchered. Aristophone alludes to it in a play about the sack of Troy (can't remember the name) and Thucydides later castigates his fellow Athenians for this atrocity.

Didn't the sack of Troy involve killing the entire population?

Gibbon
20th July 2010, 08:15
Didn't the sack of Troy involve killing the entire population?

From what I remember yes. But Troy didn't surrrender and so this was 'legitimate' and also they weren't fellow Greeks.

doodab
20th July 2010, 08:33
From what I remember yes. But Troy didn't surrrender and so this was 'legitimate' and also they weren't fellow Greeks.

Well, it's good that they had rules about it. That's what makes them civilised I suppose.

I might have to get some books on all this ancient history stuff. It's quite interesting.

Gibbon
20th July 2010, 09:03
Well, it's good that they had rules about it. That's what makes them civilised I suppose.

I might have to get some books on all this ancient history stuff. It's quite interesting.

I find it fascinating. A good starting point would be Tom Hollands 'Persian Fire' and 'Rubicon'. If you're still interested after this then dive in to the ancient sources.

Herodotus, Thucydides and Xenophon for intro to Greece.
Livy, Tacitus, Polybius and Plutarch for Rome.

IMHO

HTH