UK Forum members

[STEED]

Do you feel there should be a general election when Tony Blair steps down this year?

I do feel we should have a general election after all it was Tony Blair who went to the country with a mandate which resulted him being re-elected, so why should his successor just take over just like that, after all did you vote for the successor for PM.

Yahoo news has been running a poll and the results when I last checked were.


Q. Should there be a general election when Tony Blair quits?

Yes 82% No17% Unsure2% Total Votes19,658

[ABBAFAN]

Absolutly.A General election.
or a return to monarchy.

[Melonfish]

absolutely the mere thought that gorden (the go-for) brown gets in makes me quake with terror.
the man couldn't budget a p*ssup in a brewery. not to mention how he tows the party line of "blanket ban solves all" police quota's, id cards, ammendments to acts without the consultation of the houses of parliment! (yeah i know) he'd promote this in its entirety and he'd kick and spit till he gets his way.

what worries me more is that the tory leader.....oh dear.....he's just not in touch (nothing new there then)

lib dems? oh geez.

and the rest? racists and xenophobes the lot of em...

can we ressurect the monster raving loony party? our manifesto should start with "all uk residents over 9 should play at least an hour of SHIII a week"?

that or give the queen power. which would solve alot of problems, and create about a million more for that matter.

Sod this i'm emigrating.
pete

[danlisa]

Too right, although I'm not sure whether there is actually anyone capable.:rotfl: Well, more than TB or GB.

[mr chris]

Sod this i'm emigrating.
pete

Yep get out why you can. Im proud of where i come from dont get me wrong but the place as just become a nightmare. I will not ever be returning to live.
Its off down south with me.

[lesrae]

I don't think so, I think you should vote for party policies - not the personality of the figurehead - so I don't really care who's in charge, they're all as bad as each other.

OT:

CHOOSE RFA! LESS GRAFT AND MORE PAY SO JOIN TODAY! www.rfa.mod.uk (http://www.rfa.mod.uk)

Are you with the RFAs then mate? My new job has me on them more and more these days, Largs Bay and Sir Bedivere in the last couple of months.

[STEED]

I don't think so, I think you should vote for party policies - not the personality of the figurehead - so I don't really care who's in charge, they're all as bad as each other.

There is always one. :p

Point taken about they are as bad as each other. :yep:

[The Munster]

absolutely the mere thought that gorden (the go-for) brown gets in makes me quake with terror.
the man couldn't budget a p*ssup in a brewery. not to mention how he tows the party line of "blanket ban solves all" police quota's, id cards, ammendments to acts without the consultation of the houses of parliment! (yeah i know) he'd promote this in its entirety and he'd kick and spit till he gets his way.

what worries me more is that the tory leader.....oh dear.....he's just not in touch (nothing new there then)

lib dems? oh geez.

and the rest? racists and xenophobes the lot of em...

can we ressurect the monster raving loony party? our manifesto should start with "all uk residents over 9 should play at least an hour of SHIII a week"?

that or give the queen power. which would solve alot of problems, and create about a million more for that matter.

Sod this i'm emigrating.
pete

I had to laugh at the Tory leader, when he was running for leadership, all you saw was him cycling around London; he was so so concerned about our Environment then .. as soon as he became leader ? .. straight into the Daimler [chaffeur driven].

Vote ? Did we get the opportunity to vote for the Channel Tunnel when Margaret Thatcher was in power ? NO .. she just railroaded it thru without a care what people thought or felt.
Labour are no different to the Tories as far as I'm concerned.

[Oberon]

Election? No.

Revolution? Yes.

[martxyz]

Hard to tell. I think it's important in our system to vote for PARTIES and not leaders of parties, because we don't have a presidential system. The problem for me is that this relies on parties keeping to the policies that were in their manifesto when they were elected. I think people of all political persuasions would concede that Tony Blair has ditched this well-established notion and replaced sticking to manifestos with a "trust me" approach. He's had a very presidential, and unpredictable style, reducing the power of the cabinet and of parliament, as he sees fit.
My gut reaction is that Blair has made himself the complete arbiter of what labour stands for, effectively wrecking government by the Party and the manifesto. Sadly this makes it very difficult to see how the normal practice of the "Party" just carrying on, is going to work.
I think that if Brown gets elected, he should lay out his stall, make it clear that parliamentary/party government is now back in business, and call an election based on the policies the new administration wishes to pursue.If Reid wins the party leadership election, I'll just commit suicide. The man is so depressingly populist , irrational and power-mad, I'll eventually get horrendously depressed , so I might as well get it over with.
If there is an election and Cameron wins, I'll think "different name - same ****". If the Lib Dems get some influence, or Gordon Brown gets in, I'll give them a chance to see how they shape up. If UKIP or Kilroy-Silk's party gets in, I'll wait until the public eventually lynch them, and in the meantime, I'll take to my sun-bed in the full knowledge that the electorate has gone insane.

Howzat? :)

[Linton]

I shall be looking up the family tartan design when Brown takes over and trying to get as much of my money off shore so that b*****d can't get any more of it.

[jumpy]

This reminds me of that episode of south park where stan has to choose between a giant douche and a turd sandwich as the school mascot...

Though in all honesty I'd be tempted to break my idealistic view of voting (ie you actually vote for who you think best serves the country and its people) and instead simply use your vote 'by default' meaning you vote for the next strongest party than the one you don't want to win; so I hate labor and while I might not agree or support the tories, they are much more likely to succeed than the lib dems or greens etc so I vote tory :hmm:
urgh, it's a distressing outcome either way is mob rule ya know.

An unrealistic idea would be to have a 'none of the above' box where if a certain percentage of the voters check that box then the election is void, kind of like a vote of no confidence for all of the parties out there. Mayhap it would force mp's to get off their backsides and start earning that 50k pa and take notice of what people want instead of steamrollering ludicrous schemes like id cards etc.
Ah well all of this is making me light headed... perhaps the gas boiler is leaking again :dead:

/wanders off to turn up the central heating whilst I can still afford it.

[Kapitan_Phillips]

I don't think so, I think you should vote for party policies - not the personality of the figurehead - so I don't really care who's in charge, they're all as bad as each other.

There is always one. :p

Point taken about they are as bad as each other. :yep:


BNP! :smug:



:rotfl:

[Linton]

Kapitan Phillips I had not put you down as a BNP supporter from your posts but I can see this party growing rapidly in the next year.

[STEED]

I shall be looking up the family tartan design when Brown takes over and trying to get as much of my money off shore so that b*****d can't get any more of it.


I hear you on that one. :up:

[Kapitan_Phillips]

Kapitan Phillips I had not put you down as a BNP supporter from your posts but I can see this party growing rapidly in the next year.


Nah, I never said I was supporting it, but it *does* seem they're the only ones who give a toss about the welfare of its existing citizens, rather than what Europe and America thinks. I'll give them careful consideration, thats for sure.

[martxyz]

The BNP have its originin the Nazi movements in the 50's and 60's which hgave themselves a variety of name changes and makeovers, in order to disguise the fact. The BNP is a direct descendant of those National Socialist paties, but try, when in public, to present a less racist and, less white-supremasist image. You would be voting for NAZI's (and their paramilitary offspring - the black-shirted "Combat 18"). If you want to, then it's a matter of your choice, and conscience.
I won't be moving assets abroad because a) only the rich benefit from doing so and b) I believe that the avoidance of legitimate taxation is an abdication of civic duty.
I do, though, share the frustrations of people. Like others, I feel that voting is civic duty (others having died in the past to gain me that right) and I should be allowed the option of being able to tick "None of the above", as opposed to just spoiling your my paper.

[The Avon Lady]

What Martxyz said. The BNP is a sickening racist party.

The problem is that both the Conservative and Labour parties are afraid to deal firmly with Britain's national problems. Hence the vacuum. As everyone knows, vacuums suck. :smug:

Sample reading about the BNP: Melanie Phillips - An offensive reaction (http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles-new/?p=464).

Don't let the BNP con you.

[martxyz]

Hi Avon Lady (???)

Couldn't agree more. The BNP aren't just after "stemming immigration". They want repatriation and disenfranchisement of all non-British (or even non-English), non-whites, and Jews. Quite how you "send back to their own country", people whose families have been British for generations, I don't quite know. Still, the BNP never were very good in the IQ department.
The current climate of hysteria only feeds their support among the gullible.

Cheers now

Martin

[The Avon Lady]

Hi Avon Lady (???)
No question marks required.

[Letum]

In theory you aren't supposed to vote for parties in British politics, you just vote for the person who you feel represents you best, what ever his party, or whoever the party leader is.

People who say it is unfair, when the person they voted for changes parties or the leader of the party changes, show that they do not know what they are voting for.


You don't vote for Jo-Politician because he is a Lib-Dem. After-all, he would be perfectly within his rights to change to Labor the day after you voted for him.

You don't vote for Jo-Politician because his leader is Mr-X. After-all, Mr-X might be voted out of his leadership by the party the day after you vote.

You don't vote for Jo-Politician because he says he is against the spoon ban. After-all, he would be perfectly within his rights to change his mind and decide he wants a spoon ban the day after you voted for him.

You do vote for Jo-Politician because you feel he will represent you well. You can take the fact that he is currently a Lib-Dem lead by Mr-X and he is against the spoon ban in to consideration when judging weather he will represent you well, but those should not be the reason you vote for him.

This may, or may not be unfair, but it is how British politics works.

[Wim Libaers]

I won't be moving assets abroad because a) only the rich benefit from doing so and b) I believe that the avoidance of legitimate taxation is an abdication of civic duty.


Of course, some might question how legitimate they are.