Thedelldays Posted 19 January, 2011 Share Posted 19 January, 2011 Call me Dave on top form today Putting down gromit on every issue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 19 January, 2011 Share Posted 19 January, 2011 Call me Dave on top form today Putting down gromit on every issue Would that be in your opinion? Or is there a universe somewhere out there where everything you say makes sense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyNorthernSaints Posted 19 January, 2011 Share Posted 19 January, 2011 http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2011/jan/19/politics-live-blog-pmqs 12.20pm: Labour's Grahame Morris asks about private healthcare companies donating £750,000 to the Conservatives. He suggests there is a conflict of interest. Is this what Cameron means by "we're all in this together". Cameron says that Labour, in its manifesto, said private providers should be allowed into the NHS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 19 January, 2011 Share Posted 19 January, 2011 http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2011/jan/19/politics-live-blog-pmqs 12.20pm: Labour's Grahame Morris asks about private healthcare companies donating £750,000 to the Conservatives. He suggests there is a conflict of interest. Is this what Cameron means by "we're all in this together". Cameron says that Labour, in its manifesto, said private providers should be allowed into the NHS. They'll get a massive return on that little investment! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docker-p Posted 19 January, 2011 Share Posted 19 January, 2011 http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2011/jan/19/politics-live-blog-pmqs 12.20pm: Labour's Grahame Morris asks about private healthcare companies donating £750,000 to the Conservatives. He suggests there is a conflict of interest. Is this what Cameron means by "we're all in this together". Cameron says that Labour, in its manifesto, said private providers should be allowed into the NHS. Same old bent tories, taking bribes and and attacking the NHS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 19 January, 2011 Share Posted 19 January, 2011 Did you see how uncomfortable Cleggon looked when DC was answering EM about the NHS? Maybe it was because DC had to field two aggressive questions from Lib MPs. Maybe he (Clegg) realises, finally, that it isn't quite working out as he'd imagined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingeletiss Posted 19 January, 2011 Share Posted 19 January, 2011 Same old bent tories, taking bribes and and attacking the NHS. Does that apply to the union contributions that Labour get? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Warrior Posted 19 January, 2011 Share Posted 19 January, 2011 private healthcare companies donating £750,000 to the Conservatives. There not that successful look at what happened to southampton Liesure holdings ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Bognor Posted 19 January, 2011 Share Posted 19 January, 2011 Same old bent tories, taking bribes and and attacking the NHS. You're bang on the money there, because no Labour MP has ever been "bent" and done things like fiddle their expenses.....oh. ....and as for the Labour Party, they would never try to solicit funds in order to influence policy http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/937232.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 19 January, 2011 Share Posted 19 January, 2011 private healthcare companies donating £750,000 to the Conservatives. There not that successful look at what happened to southampton Liesure holdings ! Was SLH a healthcare company? I thought it was formed on the back on nursing homes (whilst providing care, are not on the same level as healthcare companies like BUPA and all lthe american ones like United Healthcare). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 19 January, 2011 Share Posted 19 January, 2011 I know I'm bound to say this (being the biased selfish Tory toff that I am) but Milliband does look way out of his depth. My 10 year old could read his script more convincingly than he does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 19 January, 2011 Share Posted 19 January, 2011 I know I'm bound to say this (being the biased selfish Tory toff that I am) but Milliband does look way out of his depth. My 10 year old could read his script more convincingly than he does. You should offer that phrase to DC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 19 January, 2011 Share Posted 19 January, 2011 Same old bent tories, taking bribes and and attacking the NHS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 19 January, 2011 Share Posted 19 January, 2011 You should offer that phrase to DC If you say so Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 19 January, 2011 Share Posted 19 January, 2011 Anyway, why does Alan Johnson want to spend less on the NHS going forward than the nasty Tories.....? :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 19 January, 2011 Share Posted 19 January, 2011 You're bang on the money there, because no Labour MP has ever been "bent" and done things like fiddle their expenses.....oh. ....and as for the Labour Party, they would never try to solicit funds in order to influence policy http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/937232.stm at least you dont feel the need to deny that tories take bribes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 19 January, 2011 Share Posted 19 January, 2011 Donations from companies or unions is a system which smells bad whether it actually leads to favours or not. No organisation should be able to fund a political party imo. Political parties should be membership led with part state top up funding based on number of members and votes at last election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 19 January, 2011 Share Posted 19 January, 2011 Red Ed will hopefully stay as leader, but I can see him being replaced before 2015. He's too much of a nerd to ever win a general election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Bognor Posted 19 January, 2011 Share Posted 19 January, 2011 (edited) at least you dont feel the need to deny that tories take bribes The last tory government had more than its fair share of sleaze, only an idiot would deny that. But the last Labour government weren't exactly whiter than white. I don't know about you, but it seems worse when a leftie is at it (as you almost expect a tory to do it) even though it is actually as bad, no matter the colour of the purpetrator. The nasty wasty tory party are all bad, but even they didn't take the country to war on the back of a lie. Some people on here need to take a closer look at themselves. Those in glass houses and all that..... Edited 19 January, 2011 by Johnny Bognor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 19 January, 2011 Share Posted 19 January, 2011 The last tory government had more than its fair share of sleaze, only an idiot would deny that. But the last Labour government weren't exactly whiter than white. I don't know about you, but it seems worse when a leftie is at it (as you almost expect a tory to do it) even though it is actually as bad, no matter the colour of the purpetrator. The nasty wasty tory party are all bad, but even they didn't take the country to war on the back of a lie. Some people on here need to take a closer look at themselves. Those in glass houses and all that..... So the people whose beliefs you share are expected to be corrupt. Surely a sign that your beliefs need some serious revision - but it'll presumably take some Scrooge-like conversion to do it, since you seem to hold on to them with such irrational tenacity. As for your point about Labour and Iraq, I never fail to be amazed that the Right try to beat Left and liberal opinion with this. The opposition to the war was at its most vociferous among the centre and centre-left. Personally, I'd certainly be happy to see Blair hauled up in The Hague and charged as a war criminal - if nothing else as a warning to all those who would consider throwing in their lot with loopy neo-con administrations in the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 19 January, 2011 Share Posted 19 January, 2011 So the people whose beliefs you share are expected to be corrupt. Surely a sign that your beliefs need some serious revision - but it'll presumably take some Scrooge-like conversion to do it, since you seem to hold on to them with such irrational tenacity. As for your point about Labour and Iraq, I never fail to be amazed that the Right try to beat Left and liberal opinion with this. The opposition to the war was at its most vociferous among the centre and centre-left. Personally, I'd certainly be happy to see Blair hauled up in The Hague and charged as a war criminal - if nothing else as a warning to all those who would consider throwing in their lot with loopy neo-con administrations in the US. yep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 19 January, 2011 Share Posted 19 January, 2011 The opposition to the war was at its most vociferous among the centre and centre-left. Personally, I'd certainly be happy to see Blair hauled up in The Hague and charged as a war criminal - if nothing else as a warning to all those who would consider throwing in their lot with loopy neo-con administrations in the US. You have a point. I firmly supported the Iraq war because it was the right thing to do. I never did believe the spin about WMD's and the "war on terror" because I saw Saddam as a dictator and as such self preservation was always his agenda. My support for the conflict was based purely on the oil issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Bognor Posted 19 January, 2011 Share Posted 19 January, 2011 So the people whose beliefs you share are expected to be corrupt. Surely a sign that your beliefs need some serious revision - but it'll presumably take some Scrooge-like conversion to do it, since you seem to hold on to them with such irrational tenacity. Come on, Verbal, they are all corrupt. As for my expectation, I blame the media. I grew up in the 80's when Yes Minister and The New Statesman were on the TV and so perhaps I was brainwashed by them. I am not an out and out tory, but unfortunately no party exists that represents my views. If this party did exist (http://www.freshbusinessthinking.com/news.php?CID=&NID=3181&Title=The+Entrepreneurs+Manifesto%3A+Empowering+The+New+Wave), they would get my vote. As there is only one party that is "close" to my views, who else should I vote for or should I not bother? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 19 January, 2011 Share Posted 19 January, 2011 come on, verbal, they are all corrupt. As for my expectation, i blame the media. I grew up in the 80's when yes minister and the new statesman were on the tv and so perhaps i was brainwashed by them. I am not an out and out tory, but unfortunately no party exists that represents my views. If this party did exist (http://www.freshbusinessthinking.com/news.php?cid=&nid=3181&title=the+entrepreneurs+manifesto%3a+empowering+the+new+wave), they would get my vote. As there is only one party that is "close" to my views, who else should i vote for? ukip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 19 January, 2011 Share Posted 19 January, 2011 You have a point. I firmly supported the Iraq war because it was the right thing to do. I never did believe the spin about WMD's and the "war on terror" because I saw Saddam as a dictator and as such self preservation was always his agenda. My support for the conflict was based purely on the oil issue. well we wont be seeing any of that, Halliburton et al probably got their mitts on it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 19 January, 2011 Share Posted 19 January, 2011 As for your point about Labour and Iraq, I never fail to be amazed that the Right try to beat Left and liberal opinion with this. The opposition to the war was at its most vociferous among the centre and centre-left. Personally, I'd certainly be happy to see Blair hauled up in The Hague and charged as a war criminal - if nothing else as a warning to all those who would consider throwing in their lot with loopy neo-con administrations in the US. This. Although for some reason the hard of thinking Right don't seem to understand. Blair and his ilk took us to war and the left / center were set four square against it. They also seem to forget that the Labour government had to rely to Tory votes in the HoC to go to war as many Labour backbenchers voted against it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 19 January, 2011 Share Posted 19 January, 2011 well we wont be seeing any of that, Halliburton et al probably got their mitts on it Which is why i'm delighted BP are now doing so well despite obama's attempts to derail the company. The Gulf of Mexico spill has taught BP a lot and that combined with their deep sea drilling expertise has put them in a great position. The Russians need us, the Chinese need us. **** you Obama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Bognor Posted 19 January, 2011 Share Posted 19 January, 2011 (edited) As for your point about Labour and Iraq, I never fail to be amazed that the Right try to beat Left and liberal opinion with this. The opposition to the war was at its most vociferous among the centre and centre-left. This. Although for some reason the hard of thinking Right don't seem to understand. Blair and his ilk took us to war and the left / center were set four square against it. They also seem to forget that the Labour government had to rely to Tory votes in the HoC to go to war as many Labour backbenchers voted against it. Slight misrepresentation there VFFT, which I do say disappoints me. Had the tories abstained, the vote still would have carried as the Labour MP's that voted for, far outweighed the Labour MPs that voted against, by a factor of nearly 2 to 1. Even if you add in the entire support of the Lib Dems, there were still 50 labour votes spare. To say the left and centre were set four square against is simply not backed up by the facts and to me it looks set four square for it. Then to top this, leftie voters re-elected them. Edited 19 January, 2011 by Johnny Bognor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 19 January, 2011 Share Posted 19 January, 2011 Slight misrepresentation there VFFT, which I do say disappoints me. Had the tories abstained, the vote still would have carried as the Labour MP's that voted for, far outweighed the Labour MPs that voted against, by a factor of nearly 2 to 1. Even if you add in the entire support of the Lib Dems, there were still 50 labour votes spare. To say the left and centre were set four square against is simply not backed up by the facts and to me it looks set four square for it. Since I'm also quoted, I wasn't thinking of what happened in the mother of all Parliaments. More the million plus demo and the campaigns to stop it before it started. Again, I don't know why 'the left' or the 'centre' gets equated with what happens in WC1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Bognor Posted 19 January, 2011 Share Posted 19 January, 2011 I wasn't thinking of what happened in the mother of all Parliaments. More the million plus demo and the campaigns to stop it before it started. .... and how many of them voted for Labour at the next election? So much for socialists and their principles, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 19 January, 2011 Share Posted 19 January, 2011 Which is why i'm delighted BP are now doing so well despite obama's attempts to derail the company. The Gulf of Mexico spill has taught BP a lot and that combined with their deep sea drilling expertise has put them in a great position. The Russians need us, the Chinese need us. **** you Obama. thought most of BPs shareholders were american anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 19 January, 2011 Share Posted 19 January, 2011 (edited) More the million plus demo and the campaigns to stop it before it started. Again, I don't know why 'the left' or the 'centre' gets equated with what happens in WC1. We all saw Muslims burning the Union Flag and UAF scum marching alongside them. Edited 19 January, 2011 by dune Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 19 January, 2011 Share Posted 19 January, 2011 .... and how many of them voted for Labour at the next election? So much for socialists and their principles, eh? i didnt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 19 January, 2011 Share Posted 19 January, 2011 .... and how many of them voted for Labour at the next election? So much for socialists and their principles, eh? I doubt very many of them at all. You have no idea how angry so many people were who opposed the war. The sense of betrayal was palpable. Sadly, I suspect many felt they were safe in eventually moving their votes to the Lib Dems (although from the actual results of the last election, not THAT many). National politics can stuff you sometimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 19 January, 2011 Share Posted 19 January, 2011 thought most of BPs shareholders were american anyway Not sure. I think more are british, but Americans make us a sizeable tranche. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuengirola Saint Posted 19 January, 2011 Share Posted 19 January, 2011 .... and how many of them voted for Labour at the next election? So much for socialists and their principles, eh? I think quite a lot of them voted for the Liberal Democratsas shown in the 2005 result, Labour's majority being slashed. Anyway no self respecting liberal on the centre left or left would vote for the Conservatives would they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 19 January, 2011 Share Posted 19 January, 2011 You have no idea how angry so many people were who opposed the war. I bet more people were against the hunting ban. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Bognor Posted 19 January, 2011 Share Posted 19 January, 2011 I think quite a lot of them voted for the Liberal Democratsas shown in the 2005 result, Labour's majority being slashed. Anyway no self respecting liberal on the centre left or left would vote for the Conservatives would they? What about scargill's real socialist party? There was no surge in support for them, although I am sure they would get your vote :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 19 January, 2011 Share Posted 19 January, 2011 Slight misrepresentation there VFFT, which I do say disappoints me. Had the tories abstained, the vote still would have carried as the Labour MP's that voted for, far outweighed the Labour MPs that voted against, by a factor of nearly 2 to 1. Even if you add in the entire support of the Lib Dems, there were still 50 labour votes spare. To say the left and centre were set four square against is simply not backed up by the facts and to me it looks set four square for it. Then to top this, leftie voters re-elected them. You assume that when I say left / centre left / centre I refer solely to the HoC. The left, outside of the party politics of Westminster was four square against it, however, I accept your point regarding Labour MPs. Many lefties, myself included, didn't vote for Blair in the subsequent General Election but shifted our votes to the Greens and Liberals. I think we both know that it was the large swathe of Middle England voters that Blair wooed and, TBF, he did do it well. I'm ex-HM Forces so I've always been fully supportive of those involved in the front line and every time another one dies I blame Blair and his lies. I have a personal reason to hate Blair and his government for Iraq http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.operations.mod.uk/telic/clarke.htm He was the son of a very dear friend of mine and they live on the road behind mine. I bought him a pint before he deployed and watched him come back in a box. I've watched his father whither and his mum fight the MoD for the truth behind her sons death, only to be stonewalled at every turn. I watch them place a wreath on our local cenotaph every Rememberance Sunday. Them wanting to feel proud but only feeling deep, deep grief at losing their eldest boy, for a lie. Blair and his government has blood on their hands. So when you say the Left supported the war in Iraq in an attempt to get a rise, think of David Clark, aged 19 of Bedford Ave in Stafford and remember that many of us did stand four square against it and see the cost of our failure in the unending grief of others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 19 January, 2011 Share Posted 19 January, 2011 Very sorry to read that. A reason why we all went to march in London that day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Bognor Posted 19 January, 2011 Share Posted 19 January, 2011 (edited) I have a personal reason to hate Blair and his government for Iraq http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.operations.mod.uk/telic/clarke.htm He was the son of a very dear friend of mine and they live on the road behind mine. I bought him a pint before he deployed and watched him come back in a box. I've watched his father whither and his mum fight the MoD for the truth behind her sons death, only to be stonewalled at every turn. I watch them place a wreath on our local cenotaph every Rememberance Sunday. Them wanting to feel proud but only feeling deep, deep grief at losing their eldest boy, for a lie. Blair and his government has blood on their hands. So when you say the Left supported the war in Iraq in an attempt to get a rise, think of David Clark, aged 19 of Bedford Ave in Stafford and remember that many of us did stand four square against it and see the cost of our failure in the unending grief of others. RIP David, you made the greatest sacrafice anyone could make. True life stories like this put "dicking" around on the internet into perspective. I think I'll leave the iraq argument and I sympathise / empathise with your personal position on this (and apologise if I have wound you up). Edited 19 January, 2011 by Johnny Bognor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mao Cap Posted 19 January, 2011 Share Posted 19 January, 2011 What about scargill's real socialist party? There was no surge in support for them, although I am sure they would get your vote :-) One of those little far-left parties are getting my vote the next election. They may be loons, but I at least agree with about half of their views. lib dems (I refuse to dignify them with capital letters) are traitors (always were) and Labour are sh*teing c*nts (always were). Might as well vote for the party most in line with my views rather than the Thatcherite mainstream parties or the fash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingeletiss Posted 20 January, 2011 Share Posted 20 January, 2011 Very sorry to read that. A reason why we all went to march in London that day. Did we, I was all for it, hell, I even attended the first one. SH was a brutal dictator, who was killing his own people, and threatning surrounding countrys with his posturing. Forget the oil, he was the real reason we went to war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 20 January, 2011 Share Posted 20 January, 2011 Did we, I was all for it, hell, I even attended the first one. SH was a brutal dictator, who was killing his own people, and threatning surrounding countrys with his posturing. Forget the oil, he was the real reason we went to war. we meaning the 1 mill+ whjo were there. Im glad you are still alive, hundreds of thousands are not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 20 January, 2011 Share Posted 20 January, 2011 (edited) Of course, Saddam came through the 'first one' STILL in power. Not only that, he survived well enough that, thanks to the 'coalition' leaving him where he was, he was able to go on a murderous rampage against the Shai in the South - AFTER the Bush Snr encouraged the Shia to rise up. Of course, when they did, the 'coalition' was nowhere to be seen and Saddam's henchmen murdered at will. The sense of betrayal felt by the Shia against the West is still powerfully strong today. Edited 20 January, 2011 by Verbal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 20 January, 2011 Share Posted 20 January, 2011 (edited) Did we, I was all for it, hell, I even attended the first one. SH was a brutal dictator, who was killing his own people, and threatning surrounding countrys with his posturing. Forget the oil, he was the real reason we went to war. lol. if you really think we did this as some altruistic fight against evil you are a simpleton. "killing his own people..." - aside from the pedantic view that they weren't his own people, Saddam was a Sunni and those he murdered were overwhelmingly Shias and Kurds, this doesn't stack up in any way as an explanation as to why Gulf War 2 started. When he gassed the Kurds in the 80s the West did nothing, hell we even supplied weapons! When he put down the Marsh Arabs the West merely enforced a no fly zone having recently decided not to take him out even though his army was in tatters. "threatning surrounding countrys with his posturing" - any country bordering Iran would be giving it large. Look at the rhetoric coming from the USA at Iran and they're 1000s of miles away. Edited 20 January, 2011 by anothersaintinsouthsea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 20 January, 2011 Share Posted 20 January, 2011 You have a point. I firmly supported the Iraq war because it was the right thing to do. I never did believe the spin about WMD's and the "war on terror" because I saw Saddam as a dictator and as such self preservation was always his agenda. My support for the conflict was based purely on the oil issue. I hope you didn't think that from the point of view of a consumer! Oil has been really cheap since the Iraq War hasn't it.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 21 January, 2011 Share Posted 21 January, 2011 (edited) I hope you didn't think that from the point of view of a consumer! Oil has been really cheap since the Iraq War hasn't it.... Yeah it has, especially for Great Britain. It's the duty that makes it expensive, but we've now got the Conservatives in charge and once our country has recovered from 13 years of incompetent Labour rule and the public finances and public sector are put right we will see tax cuts and everyone will be better off. For the first time since the 1930's youngsters face the prospect of being worse off than their parents. I hope all the thick people who voted labour are pleased with themselves. Edited 21 January, 2011 by dune Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackFrost Posted 21 January, 2011 Share Posted 21 January, 2011 Yeah it has, especially for Great Britain. It's the duty that makes it expensive, but we've now got the Conservatives in charge and once our country has recovered from 13 years of incompetent Labour rule and the public finances and public sector are put right we will see tax cuts and everyone will be better off. For the first time since the 1930's youngsters face the prospect of being worse off than their parents. I hope all the thick people who voted labour are pleased with themselves. . . .he says as fuel prices are about to reach a record high Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackFrost Posted 21 January, 2011 Share Posted 21 January, 2011 If you want an indication of how well prepared we were for Iraq, I went to a talk by canon Andrew White (aka the vicar of Baghdad) a few years ago http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_Andrew_White He was told in the build up to the war by one of the top UK foreign officials on the phone "Religion isn't that important in Iraq" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now