quote:

Originally posted by NYCTrancefan Okay I have seen in Great Britain and specifically England the criticism of Tony Blair by the Conservatives and Liberals as well as Mr. Blair's own party Labor. My question then becomes unlike the U.S. where I feel we would be better off with another leader, who in God's green Earth could lead Britain better than Tony B. Michael Howard, Charles Kennedy(ROFL) Everytime I see these two guys on TV I cringe to think of them as future leaders of Great Britain, just don't seem right to lead such a nation. Honestly for all the Brits in here if an election was held today who would you vote for between the three- Charles Kennedy, Michael Howard, Tony Blair. I know where my vote would go. He may have blundered in Iraq but overall you don't hear as much whining in Grand Britania as opposed to the rest of Europe over the economy for starters and that cannot be denied. It's just something that has been bugging me for all those who want's Blair's scalp on a golden Buckingham Palace platter, BBC included.

I would, and will do vote for Blaire. Although i do not agree with allot of the policies he has brought in, i do not see anything that i actually like fromthe Conservatives or the Liberal Democrats that would swade my choice.

After coming throuhg the Hutton report, Tuition Fees and the Iraq War still as Prime Minister, you have to admit he holds allot of qualities that go along with being a leader of the country.

But if a person came along and looked a decente enough bloke, id probably vote him/her.

Gordon Brown (Chancellor of the Exchequer), you can tell beneath his shiny Blairite façade, he’s a hard left commie monster.

However, unless Blair steps down, I'd vote Lib Dem.

quote:

Originally posted by Spin Doctor Gordon Brown (Chancellor of the Exchequer), you can tell beneath his shiny Blairite façade, he’s a hard left commie monster. However, unless Blair steps down, I'd vote Lib Dem.

Lib Dem. really. Maybe its because I don't live in England but on the news whenever I hear of Charles Kennedy he is in an anti-Blair discussion and I never hear any concrete policies of his party as far as benefiting British society. All I know about the man is that he takes every opportunity to attack Tony Blair, that is a short term strategy what about down the road when people are concerned no longer about Iraq but their own domestic affairs, hmmm. Hence the reason I posed the question.

___________________
Trance = Heart, Mind, Body and Soul all in 1

Current fav. Global Experience = Madras

quote:

Originally posted by NYCTrancefan Lib Dem. really. Maybe its because I don't live in England but on the news whenever I hear of Charles Kennedy he is in an anti-Blair discussion and I never hear any concrete policies of his party as far as benefiting British society. All I know about the man is that he takes every opportunity to attack Tony Blair, that is a short term strategy what about down the road when people are concerned no longer about Iraq but their own domestic affairs, hmmm. Hence the reason I posed the question.

Nah Charles Kennedy is actually a pretty resonable person. He's not an opertunistic bastard like Howard. He opposed the war all the way unlike the Torries so he can attack Blair if he wants on that plus as the oposition it's his job to do that really. Please don't say England sometimes when you mean Britain by the way Scottish people hate that or atleast I do plus until recently, the Labour, Torry(now Howard not scottish) and Lib Dem leaders and the Chancellor and head of the house and so on are all Scottish not English. I recon Mr Brown will be the next PM myself though. I do like Tony but if I was him I'd just be tired as fuck from all these battles. Torries and Lib Dems will be waiting a long time to get in there. Satan will be wearing ear muffs

___________________
If you can read this, I'm seriously fucking bored.

quote:

Originally posted by NYCTrancefan Lib Dem. really. Maybe its because I don't live in England but on the news whenever I hear of Charles Kennedy he is in an anti-Blair discussion and I never hear any concrete policies of his party as far as benefiting British society. All I know about the man is that he takes every opportunity to attack Tony Blair, that is a short term strategy what about down the road when people are concerned no longer about Iraq but their own domestic affairs, hmmm. Hence the reason I posed the question.

In an nut shell, Lib Dem = protest vote. I will elaborate more on my reasoning, going from most important to least important as I see it...

1) ELECTORAL SYSTEM: Lib Dems have the next biggest majority in my constituency (Conservatives with the most). I would NEVER vote for the Conservatives, and voting for Labour would be a wasted vote. So, in order to get the best chance of beating the Conservatives, my vote must be Lib Dem.
2) PROTEST VOTE: As I have said, I would NEVER vote Conservative, and “New” Labour is just Conservatism repackaged with a shiny exterior. The Lib Dems, realistically at this point in time, have no chance of winning the election, so you can vote for them in protest at the actions or policies of the other parties.
3) POLICIES: Increase in taxation to pay for public services, a reduction in the “business welfare state”, anti-top up fees.
4) CHARLES KENNEDY: On the whole, has reflected my general view with regards to the Iraq fiasco (dossiers, PM misleading parliament etc.)

quote:

NYCTrancefan: "Honestly for all the Brits in here if an election was held today who would you vote for between the three- Charles Kennedy, Michael Howard, Tony Blair"

Dont like to nit pick (well, ok, I do) but unless I move to another part of the country I cannot vote for any of them!

Its a little difficult comparing US and UK voting systems as they are not the same. I only get to vote for which ever MP is standing in my constituency, and I have to decide whether to vote for the (wo)man or the party they stand for.

I have seen people on here say "New Labour" is just another Tory party, well true, but who do "New Labour" consist of? Its not the name of a party but a concept. I think it is mainly the cabinet who are new labour. A lot of mainstream members are still left-wing/socialist in their thinking (see opposition to topup fees and Iraq for example)

So, to answer your question I will (continue to) vote Labour as my MP is still one of the old types I think (I live in an ex coal mining region and no party bar Labour will ever win a seat here anyway!) I will not vote Tory ever. I would consider Lib Dem but dont think they would be any diff to Labour (and Labour still contain Old Labor people)

If one day, the Old Labour members get pissed off and form their own social democratic party (ie what Labour were b4 Blair's ego took over) I would vote for them (as long as they promise to Nationalise every industry the Tory's privatised!!!)

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley I have seen people on here say "New Labour" is just another Tory party, well true, but who do "New Labour" consist of? Its not the name of a party but a concept. I think it is mainly the cabinet who are new labour. A lot of mainstream members are still left-wing/socialist in their thinking (see opposition to topup fees and Iraq for example) ... If one day, the Old Labour members get pissed off and form their own social democratic party (ie what Labour were b4 Blair's ego took over) I would vote for them (as long as they promise to Nationalise every industry the Tory's privatised!!!)

It’s already happened. After (I think) the second landslide Tory victory under Thatcher the “gang of four” broke away from the labour party to for the SDP (Social Democratic Party). For a very brief period it was rated higher in the opinion polls than Labour, but then fizzled out into nothingness.

I don't mean this in an offensive way, but you should read up on your Labor Party history a bit more, most of the party just lay down and let the modernisation and drift towards the right happen. The Labour party is a sham at present.

Tony Benn for PM!

quote:

I don't mean this in an offensive way, but you should read up on your Labor Party history a bit more, most of the party just lay down and let the modernisation and drift towards the right happen

None taken! I actually just graduated in Politics this summer, but British politics for some reason do not interest me in the slightest so I know little bout it (international relations was always (well, still is) my passion)

If a social democratic part stood where I live I would vote for them. However, I only get to chose from the main three...

quote:

Originally posted by Spin Doctor Tony Benn for PM!

Eewwwwww, I was agreeing with your post up until that part Tony Benn, as if. The same Tony Benn that remarked that he hoped G.W. was buggered by one of the male palace servants when he visited Britain last year. Benn strikes me as a crass, crude character, just as tactless and obnoxious as G.W. Bush except to the left. Then yet again you might just be kidding.

___________________
Trance = Heart, Mind, Body and Soul all in 1

Current fav. Global Experience = Madras

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley If a social democratic part stood where I live I would vote for them. However, I only get to chose from the main three...

Yeah I know what you mean, I’d vote for them too if they stood in my constituency, but I live in the heartlands of Tory support, the Labour candidate gets a tiny percentage share of the vote. Just to illustrate how Tory-rific it is, Ian Duncan Smith has been seen regularly at our local cinema and lives down the road!

Seriously though, I go on and on about New Labour, but if I only had a choice between Labour and Tory, I’d vote Labour every time as I know, regardless of the way the party leadership heads, there is a strong slant to the left with the grass roots support, and in fairness they have got some things right (I was just reading in the paper today about plans to create a national child care scheme to help parents who can’t afford private crèches. . I’m just feeling highly disillusioned with the trend of things which seem to be going under the rule of Blair.

quote:

Originally posted by NYCTrancefan Eewwwwww, I was agreeing with your post up until that part Tony Benn, as if. The same Tony Benn that remarked that he hoped G.W. was buggered by one of the male palace servants when he visited Britain last year. Benn strikes me as a crass, crude character, just as tactless and obnoxious as G.W. Bush except to the left. Then yet again you might just be kidding.

To be fair, I can’t see it realistically being the same Tony Benn. Regardless of his political stances, you could only really describe the man as a gentleman, and commands a massive amount of respect from MPs across parties. While he has been highly critical of some American foreign policy and Bush, that sounds an uncharacteristic phrase and I highly doubt he actually said that!

I’ve just recently finished reading Tony Benn – A Political Life, by David Powell, something I’d recommend you read too George. It’s gives a detailed, but not too daunting, history of Tony Benn’s politics, outlining the positions he took on certain issues, and his reasons for them. Plus giving a whole lot of detail about the situation at the time. Anyway to cut a long story short, aftet reading this, it turns out I was wrong about the Social Democrats. I though that they left because they were opposed to the modernisations in the Labour party, when in fact they were in favour of modernisation, and left because the others weren’t!

*Spin Doctor eats his humble pie*