Q) Guess who wants a second crack at being Prime Minister?

captain red dog wrote:Isn't it more likely they actually did just make the decision on flawed evidence? I honestly think people give Bush and Blair too much credit by suggesting it was cleverly constructed plot.

Well exactly.

The actual reasons used were wrong in the end but in my mind a dictator was removed who had used chemical weapons on civilians and had invaded another country. We should have just got rid of him the first time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack

Go see the pictures of dead kids.

As for Blair it will never happen as the grass roots Labour party/Unions will never have him back, their parting shot was electing Ed instead of David as leader.

I thought he was on the whole a good PM, he totally revived the NHS after Thatcher for starters.

Lagamorph wrote:To be honest I'm far more concerned about communist dictatorships like China (and let's face it, Russia ) having WMD's than a sparsely populated desert country.

Makes no sense whatsoever. China are a part of the international trade community and are a well organised nation with structured governance and clear policy goals. Clearly such weapons are far safer in their hands than in some less well developed country with a disfunctional government where terrorists, answerable to no nation, could wrestle control of them.

Lagamorph wrote:So he strawberry floats up the country and now that we're finally getting his mess cleaned up he wants to come back and strawberry float it up all over again?

Yes, the tories have done well getting us out of recession and reducing the need for borrowing... oh... Well, still, at least he and his and his millionaire cabinet are giving those entitled peasants what for. Jolly good show.

Edit - just realised these comments were both from Lagamorph after posting.

Oh, and just in case anyone thinks I'm defending Blair or his government, no. I hold them as complicity within in the neoliberal scourge that has devestated the world economy and damaged, often ended, many human lives. However, I find it harder to feel any sympathy for those who continue to support such blinkered ideology even after it has been starkly disproven.

captain red dog wrote:Isn't it more likely they actually did just make the decision on flawed evidence? I honestly think people give Bush and Blair too much credit by suggesting it was cleverly constructed plot.

In my eyes, not really. You don't invade a country as low threat as Iraq was without being pretty damn sure. I mean, assuming you are correct are you not in any way concerned with how easily a decision was made to invade Iraq based on stuff which was essentially made up? Anyone with a half functioning brain knew what was being said wasn't true, and yet we are to believe that Blair just accepted it as fact and killed tens of thousands of people off the back of it? A guy people elected to run the country?

Lagamorph wrote:For the first time in 15 years I actually feel like I'm living in a democracy.

Democracy; living in a country controlled by a party that the magority voted against, with about 23.5 percent of the electorate in support.

Meep wrote:

Lagamorph wrote:For the first time in 15 years I actually feel like I'm living in a democracy.

Democracy; living in a country controlled by a party that the magority voted against.

I think Lagamorph thinks demoncracy means "Living in a country controlled by the party he voted for".

Lagamorph wrote:Spending is being brought back under control after Labour's "Throw money at it until it goes away" policy of dealing with problems. The deficit is actually being tackled whilst Labour were just happy to spend and borrow their way out of recession ( )
All of the U-Turns we've had are are a fantastic thing as it indicates that, for once, the government is actually listening to the people. For the first time in 15 years I actually feel like I'm living in a democracy.

Pretty much everything you've said there is nonsense.

Spending is not being brought under control, it's no different to under Labout.
National borrowing has continued to rise.

It's a well known fact that you can't cut your way out of recession (I was taught this in A-Level Economics a decade ago), it's never worked anywhere in the world at any point in human history. It's easy to convince simple people that it's the right thing to do because it makes sense on a micro level. If a family was in debt the best way to repay that debt would be to cut spending and save. That's not true with a country/government, they are the main economic stimulators for the country, money spent by the government should generate wealth for others (and in turn the gov) and lead to economic growth, this is fairly basic economics.

I actually saw Vince Cable talking about it prior to the election, but he's shut up since getting his cushy cabinet position - you can bet we wouldn't be using this broken economic model had he been Chancellor.

Meep wrote:

Lagamorph wrote:For the first time in 15 years I actually feel like I'm living in a democracy.

Democracy; living in a country controlled by a party that the magority voted against, with about 23.5 percent of the electorate in support.

It's an odd concept of democracy for sure.

Was it really a blazing democracy for the 18 years prior to that or is it a case of too young to remember?

Somebody Else's Problem wrote:

Meep wrote:

Lagamorph wrote:For the first time in 15 years I actually feel like I'm living in a democracy.

Democracy; living in a country controlled by a party that the magority voted against.

I think Lagamorph thinks demoncracy means "Living in a country controlled by the party he voted for".

No I mean democracy as in "Living in a country where the government actually listens to public opinion and doesn't go ahead with a decision the majority don't want"
U-Turns are a strawberry floating good thing people

Listens to the people?

The wealthy ones anyway.

Shadow wrote:

Lagamorph wrote:Spending is being brought back under control after Labour's "Throw money at it until it goes away" policy of dealing with problems. The deficit is actually being tackled whilst Labour were just happy to spend and borrow their way out of recession ( )
All of the U-Turns we've had are are a fantastic thing as it indicates that, for once, the government is actually listening to the people. For the first time in 15 years I actually feel like I'm living in a democracy.

Pretty much everything you've said there is nonsense.

Spending is not being brought under control, it's no different to under Labout.
National borrowing has continued to rise.

It's a well known fact that you can't cut your way out of recession (I was taught this in A-Level Economics a decade ago), it's never worked anywhere in the world at any point in human history. It's easy to convince simple people that it's the right thing to do because it makes sense on a micro level. If a family was in debt the best way to repay that debt would be to cut spending and save. That's not true with a country/government, they are the main economic stimulators for the country, money spent by the government should generate wealth for others (and in turn the gov) and lead to economic growth, this is fairly basic economics.

I actually saw Vince Cable talking about it prior to the election, but he's shut up since getting his cushy cabinet position - you can bet we wouldn't be using this broken economic model had he been Chancellor.

What did your A-Level in economics tell you about borrowing your way out of debt? Perhaps they also taught you about digging yourself out of a hole.

Something Fishy wrote:Listens to the people?

The wealthy ones anyway.

True. I often see people with Monocles and Top Hats queuing up at Greggs.

And no input at all from a wealthy director of ginsters donating 100k of course.

Something Fishy wrote:Listens to the people?

The wealthy ones anyway.

Call me cynical but I wouldn't put it past them to be baiting us all with gooseberry fool laws to u-turn on. We all rage about insignificant things like pasty tax things they go off and make big decisions on their own.

Oh no doubt.

They dismantle the NHS whilst we are all distracted.

Fatal Exception wrote:

Something Fishy wrote:Listens to the people?

The wealthy ones anyway.

Call me cynical but I wouldn't put it past them to be baiting us all with gooseberry fool laws to u-turn on. We all rage about insignificant things like pasty tax things they go off and make big decisions on their own.

Like forcing disabled people into work that is unsuitable for them? I've seen this happen.

As you can see up until the worldwide financial crash the % budget defecit to GDP was lower than even when Major was in charge.

Spain for example had a balanced budget up until the financial crash and look at the mess they are in.

Fatal Exception wrote:

captain red dog wrote:Isn't it more likely they actually did just make the decision on flawed evidence? I honestly think people give Bush and Blair too much credit by suggesting it was cleverly constructed plot.

In my eyes, not really. You don't invade a country as low threat as Iraq was without being pretty damn sure. I mean, assuming you are correct are you not in any way concerned with how easily a decision was made to invade Iraq based on stuff which was essentially made up? Anyone with a half functioning brain knew what was being said wasn't true, and yet we are to believe that Blair just accepted it as fact and killed tens of thousands of people off the back of it? A guy people elected to run the country?

Well I seem to remember all the opinion polls before the war suggested something like 60% supported the war and there weren't any major calls at all that the evidence was fake. Internationally the evidence was accepted but the means of dealing with it caused the disagreement. Of course, the evidence wasn't actually faked, it was just misinterpreted because Saddam had been trying to dupe the world into believing he had WMDs as he was worried about the threat posed by his neighbours. In retrospect it is easier to see the decision was wrong, but if the intelligence suggested a threat you would expect them to act.

Yes I am concerned about how the decisions were made and the failings that occurred. The various inquiries showed lots of reasons why the evidence was so wrong which you would hope have been acted on to prevent it happening again. That's why I don't want Blair to return and I don't think there is a realistic chance anyway.

Fatal Exception wrote:
What did your A-Level in economics tell you about borrowing your way out of debt? Perhaps they also taught you about digging yourself out of a hole.

You've heard the concept "You've got to spend money to make money."?

Well that's a thing.

Also although the new chemical weapons programme that could be fired in 45 minutes was wrong it isn't true to say there was no WMD in Iraq, as revealed by of all people Wikileaks.

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/10/24/wikileaks-documents-show-wmds-found-in-iraq/

The truce 0f 1991 said that all chemical weapons should be destroyed, however some were still present at the second war.

Shadow wrote:

Fatal Exception wrote:
What did your A-Level in economics tell you about borrowing your way out of debt? Perhaps they also taught you about digging yourself out of a hole.

You've heard the concept "You've got to spend money to make money."?

Well that's a thing.

Ironically, you can see this very effect in the videogame industry. It wasn't until all the publishers put the mockers on development because "it's an economic downturn don'tcherknow" that the economic downturn actually affected the video-game industry.

During a depression like this is when companies who've been making money hand over fist during the good times should be spending to keep money circulating.