Sums it up nicely. :rofl:

Brilliant:D A picture can speak a thousand words sometimes.:eek:

They are Labour, what did you all think they would do? It's in their ideology.

There's some truth in the old adage that the opposition never gets voted in, it's the government that gets voted out.

People voted against the Conservatives in 1997 and at the last election they voted against them again ... after being the Government for 18 years the memory of them was still very fresh. I don't think much of Middle Britain has ever enthusiastically embraced Labour, 'new' or otherwise. Sadly I think we're paying the price now for people not voting with their heads.

where the **** do people think the money for services is going to come from?
what are other options for government, the conservatives spent 18 years crippling this countries heavy industry destroying workers rights and bludgeoning common working class people into the dirt under the conservative the rich got much richer and the poor got poorer at least labour have helped staunch off the critical damage the Tories did to the UK does anybody believe the present bunch of lemmings they have at the moment could do a better job.
the lib's are a joke they have neither the policy's or people to govern this country god help us if they ever get in.
it is not possibly without serious parliamentary reform the create a coalition government so it seems labour are the only choice, labour throughout it's history has changed it's form to suite the public undercurrent of the time what TB has done now is nothing spectacularly new

We could start by spending what we already have more wisely. Unreformed public services are a serious risk to this country's future prosperity - as were over-staffed, inefficient, nationalised heavy industries in the 1970s and 1980s.

Tory Blair at least recognises this. Sadly most of his party have not changed to 'suit the undercurrent of the times' as you put it, and want to bolster hopelessly inefficient working practices with ever increasing amounts of our hard-earned cash. Hence constant battles between 'new' and 'old' Labour.

If the Tories 18 years in office was so universally bad:

1. Why did they win three general elections, two of them (1983 and 1992) at times of great economic distress in the UK? And don't say it was The Sun wot won it, that's hopelessly simplistic.

2. Why did the incoming Labour government in 1997 stick to Tory economic policy for almost two years after taking office? (I'll tell you the answer to that one - it's 'cos Tory policy was fundamentally sound and Labout knew the economy was in good shape).

Do you really believe this country would be in better shape today if were still stuck with the National Coal Board, British Steel and the trade unions that suffocated them, and nationalised utilities including British Telecom? Would we even be using this forum if the 'communications revolution' had been left to that dinosaur?

Based on this present government's current record, come the next election I intend to do my bit to try to find out.

Now there I agree with you completely. They're a bunch of Euro-sychophants who would sell us down the river to a Brussels-based Superstae quicker than you can say 'common economic policy'.

What, coalitions like the ones that have 'ruled' Italy for the last 50 years? Berlusconi is the first man to have run that country for more than about 18 months. Coalitions don't work. They just put disproportionate power into the hands of minority groups - like the Lib Dems.

Rubbish. Labour gave itself a fresh coat of paint but after 6 years it's flaking off. Tony is trying to hold it together by the force of his personality but it can't last much longer.

The money for services will come from the taxpayers and council tax payers.

Neither the Labour party or the Conservative party have anything to be proud of given their record in government. Both these parties and their followers derided the Lib-Dems and both parties, in their arrogance, made a great mess of running the country.

The Lib-Dems, at least, have a good record at local government level and deserve a chance in government. After all, John Major and Tony Blair were allowed into power on the assumption that they could run the country efficiently. It was only after they got in that they were found wanting. Charles Kennedy is being written off without being given the chance to show what he and his party can do.

A coalition is not on the cards as it is unlikely that the parties will find enough that they can agree on.

One possibility is a 'hung' parliament where no party has a clear majority. Perhaps then parties might work together in the interests of the people, but it's unlikely.

It's also worth bearing in mind that MPs are now on such good salaries and pensions that they now belong to the much derided 'middle class' and live a life far removed from the 'working class' people they purport to represent.

They've forgotten the communities of people destroyed by the collapse of the iron & steel industries, the shipbuilding industry, textiles, engineering, fishing and farming. They could have done so much to restore these communities but so much money has been wasted and our National borrowing is at its highest level.

New Labour have become 'champagne socialists' living the 'Tory' good life at the expense of their constituents. They've clearly forgotten what it's like to be a poor 'working class' person.

I'll tell you what Charles Kennedy and his party can do:

1. Set up 'proportional representation' for UK General Elections, effectively placing power permanently in the hands of minority parties, single interest pressure groups and extremists.

2. Raise taxes in a ridiculous, outdated attempt to spend their way to a better Britain without any consideration of how that money should be spent more efficiently.

3. Scale down UK defence when the world is more dangerous than at any time in the last 20 years.

4. Sign us up for the Euro, whether we want it or not (and every poll ever conducted on the subject says we don't want it).

5. Agree with any and all future moves by federalist members of the European union to place tax, defence and foreign policy matters in the hands of Brussels...

6. ... Thereby ensuring there is no Nation called the UK left to govern....

7. ...and relegating the Houses of Parliament to the status of a very grandiose town hall.

But then running town halls, as you point out, is something the Lib Dems are reasonably good at, so I s'pose you can't blame them for sticking to what they know.

at local government they are OK but most councillors don't follow party politics and are more independent than wearing the red,blue or yellow ribbon.
there will be a rapid temperature change in hell before a slimy little turd like Kennedy gets into any real power

Most of this applies to New Labour now!!

I remember reading at the time of the recession in the late 80s and early 90s that the government knew that what they were doing (mainly allowing banks to provide mortgages) would cause massive economic problems. They carried on regardless, and we had a recession. I read this about 1987.

Not because Tony Blair is a closet Tory then?

No, we wouldn't generally be in better shape. There was a lot of wastage in the public sector.

However, we would have a more reliable, and less expensive (both in fares and subsidies) rail system. And I doubt the NHS would be the state it is now.


Good for you!

Unfortunately, the only things we know about the plans for europe are what the the government of the day (be they Tory or Labour) wanted us to know. Does anyone here understand the TRUE ramifications of the Maastricht treaty that was signed by the Government under John Major? I can't find a copy of the agreement to verify this, but one of the costs for what the government wanted was that the EU would have the right to veto any of our laws. I would take that to mean they can effectively overrule the government.

True, coalitions don't work. What we need is an honest government that cares about it's voters. Sadly, none of our current political parties offer that.

Labour copied the tories. Labour made the same or similar mistakes.

Labour admitted recently that systematic under-investment over the last 40-50 years is to blame for the woeful state of our railways. That implicates both Labour and Tory governments of the past.

The infamous Dr Richard Beeching began to weild his axe over the network under a Tory government in 1963 but much of the damage was done following a Labour election victory in 1964. Despite sacking Beeching the Government did nothing to stop his branch line closure plan. Thanks to this even if the network were in good shape, it would have no answer to many of the kinds of journeys you just can't do efficiently by rail in the UK today.

the arrogance of this goverment knows no bounds. it is a shame we have to wait another two years before we can finally rid ourselves of them....

Actually, it was unfair of me to place the blame for the quality of the railway on the previous government. It is true, most of the damage was done by Beeching.

However, service levels have deteriorated noticably (compared to the final year of nationalisation), and subsidies are now higher.

Having said all that, the current government have done nothing, despite all their promises to improve public transport..