PDA

View Full Version : Looks like another four years of Labour



Getz
06-05-2005, 06:22
So, the UK general Election results are in and we've got Labour again.

Personally, I'm a Labour supporter and therefore and pretty happy about this, even if my (marginal) constituency was lost to the Conservatives.

At the time of writing I don't know what the Majority is, but it was predicted at 66. This is a pretty typical working majority for a Government so it looks like business as usual after three rather remarkable General Elections.

I was very disappointed to see George Galway win Tower Hamlets, however. I was especially outraged by his bombastic and hypocritical victory speech. Here we have a man who stands acused of accepting bribes from Saddam Husssein denouncing the Government as corrupt... :rolleyes: Really, I was spitting with rage when I saw it, especially as this man cherry picked a constituency where he could exploit the underlying racial tensions within the ethnic community... :mad:

Anyway, I'm going to shut up on that point before I work myself into a froth. ;)

So, what do the rest of you think?

Darkzeer
06-05-2005, 07:08
That's it!
I'm migrating to Canada!

peteratwar
06-05-2005, 08:32
It will be interesting how they are going to deal with:

The smashed up Pensions System
Burgeoning Council Tax
The killing of our troops in an illegal war
The ever increasing Quangoes
The everincreasing tax burden
The chaos that is immigration
The appalling chasing of targets which e.g. are more important than doing the job
The increase in violent crime
The inability to tell the truth to anyone when a lie will do
Worsening public services

This new government have taken over an awful mess

Sojourner
06-05-2005, 09:00
They won't. They'll bail in the next election and let the tories handle it.

Shuya
06-05-2005, 09:21
dissapointed that labour won but not suprised, beside labour is better than tories imo

wierd that most people complain all year then when it comes to voting they all vote for labour because they cant be assed or they fear change

Cheesejoff
06-05-2005, 09:25
dissapointed that labour won but not suprised, beside labour is better than tories imo

wierd that most people complain all year then when it comes to voting they all vote for labour because they cant be assed or they fear change


Agreed. In Scotland, we'll have an Election in 2007 so it might not be labour for us.

Darius Rhiannon
06-05-2005, 09:54
Personally I think labour has strayed from its "roots" as much as the US Republicans have strayed from conservatism.

But, you say, the US is not allowing gay marriage, and I would retort that they have strayed from their fiscal conservatism.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa543.pdf

As an outsider I hoped that labour would have lost this election. I am no fan of the Tories but a government that retains power for too long, even if the people agree to it.

Sojourner
06-05-2005, 10:10
I detest labour simply because one cannot trust a word they say. I'd take the tories simply because they aren't labour, though I would have preferred dems.

Still, their majority decreased drastically.

Forgotmytea
06-05-2005, 11:02
I detest labour simply because one cannot trust a word they say.

Yep, I detest Labour too. And, short of a full-country riot, we can do jack all to stop them doing whatever they want behind whatever lies they want :(.


Still, their majority decreased drastically.

I suppose that's good, but it didn't fall drastically enough....


That's it!
I'm migrating to Canada!

Take me with you!

salty
06-05-2005, 11:19
Darkzeer, mind if I come with you?

Labour are going to sell us out to Europe. Simple. Were I old enough to vote, I would have gone for the Liberal Democrats, although I don't feel Charles Kennedy is much of a leader.

Salty :)

Odin
06-05-2005, 11:34
We got rid of Labour in my area, got Tories now. Might go some way towards sorting out the Chav problem. Annoyed, but not surprised to see Labour still in power. Some scary facts arise from this though:

Labour have approx 66 seat majority with only 36% of votes cast, and only 22% of those eligible to vote voted Labour. How they can say they represent the country I don't know.

Scotland and Wales have their own devolved administrations (a pointless politically motivated bureaucratic waste of taxpayers money), yet it is because of the votes in Scotland and Wales that Labour are in power. England voted overwhelmingly for the Conservatives. We clearly need to either abolish the devolved administrations or set up an English parliament. Personally, I prefer the former option - I don't like seeing the UK break up, and I have seen first hand the utter pointlessness of the devolved administrations.


Here we have a man who stands acused of accepting bribes from Saddam Husssein denouncing the Government as corrupt

Er, unless I'm much mistaken Galloway was wrongly accused of taking bribes by a forged document "leaked" to a newspaper. Not that I like the guy, I think he's a prat, but I still enjoyed seeing him give Labour a bloody nose.

peteratwar
06-05-2005, 11:48
Galloway may be a prat but he was cleared of all and any bribery allegations.

If you want the Lib-Dems then you have to have Europe; If you don't want Europe (at least until it cleans up its act and ditches the current silly constituion) then you can't have the Lib-Dems. They would take us at the blink of an eye.

Other point to add is how are we to stop the Labour government destroying our Constituion (which they are well on the way to doing) ? They then end up voting themselves into power with no elections for ever (if they want). Would be quite constitutional without the Monarch and House of Lords who provide the checks against a dictatorship by Parliament. This was proposed by a Labour Minister a few years ago when they were on the verge of losing an election.

Forgotmytea
06-05-2005, 12:07
Darkzeer, mind if I come with you?

That makes three of us then :).


Labour are going to sell us out to Europe. Simple. Were I old enough to vote, I would have gone for the Liberal Democrats, although I don't feel Charles Kennedy is much of a leader.

Salty :)

Yep, we're gonna become part of the European constitution, get the Euro, etc etc. It's just so depressing... :(

Ah well, at least there'll be Portenters in Canda if I migrate, Trouble is, ti's quite a long way from England. Ah well, nowhere's far anough away from Blair. :p

worldshatterer
06-05-2005, 12:17
This isn't America we do not have a constitution, or a bill of rights, just a long established body of common law.

No one wants to hand us over completely to Europe, it goes against every political instinct ie taking the power out of the hands of the scum who lied cheated and stealed their way to the top . The only reason to be more into Europe is to provide a convenient scapegoat for any problems we find ourselves in in the future .

Parliamentary elections never really change who's in power just which members of the same group get to put a different spin on the samle old stuff. These group memebers will continue to ignore us whenever it suits them and go about the business of governing without listening to the rabble . Why would any party want to get rid if elections its the sociological crutch that lets them get away with all of this . Elections let people believe they're exerting influence over the way their lives are run, take that away and they'll fall into listless apathy followed by general revolution .

Theres my rant on the state of democracy in Britain today, Tony Blair is the solution for the moment . The tories still have too many memories of thatcher tied up with them to be any good, and can't seem to find anyone amongst them that appears to be a born leader . I don't want to see the LibDems in power it would ruin their appeal, as they would have to make the same horrible compromised political decisions as anyone else in power . I'd like to see them come out with a leader with some backbone[charles kennedy is a nice man, but i wouldn't want him being the man we sent to talk with diehards in the buish administration] and show that they can be a proper party of opposition . All the other parties can go hang for a multitude of reasons .

Sai-Lauren
06-05-2005, 12:28
Well, Blair wants EU Presidency, but I think he's got two hopes on that count, and Bob's no longer with us. :p

There was no way Howard could overturn 160 seats to get back in, 60 odd next time around is much more doable, especially if they can blame the new government for the recession that's starting to bite now (and get a new leader that looks like they can go out in daylight without bursting into flames ;)), the after-shocks of Iraq (especially as some british lawyers are starting to look at war crimes trials) and so on.

I've a feeling they'll run the clock out on the next election, same as Major did between '92 and '97. Worst thing about it is that you can be sure Blunkett will get home secretary back when the cabinet's announced - he abused his position as a government minister for personal ends, even though they tried the Henry II defence (Henry II? - "Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?" anyway), should never return, end of story - and we'll be marched into having ID cards that are pointless, have no relevancy for what they being touted for and are effectively a tax on existing - got to admit it's a new one.


Other point to add is how are we to stop the Labour government destroying our Constituion
It's news to me that we actually had a constitution. We've a load of laws, and some commonly accepted rights, but they're not actually guaranteed anywhere. Closest thing is the Magna Carta.

BTW, did anyone catch Ian Hislop in the BBC's elction coverage (presume he'd come straight from recording tonights HIGNFY)? He was brilliant - kept asking all the questions the other guests didn't really want to answer :D.

hairyman
06-05-2005, 12:59
[QUOTE=Getz]
I was very disappointed to see George Galway win Tower Hamlets, however. I was especially outraged by his bombastic and hypocritical victory speech. Here we have a man who stands acused of accepting bribes from Saddam Husssein denouncing the Government as corrupt... :rolleyes: Really, I was spitting with rage when I saw it, especially as this man cherry picked a constituency where he could exploit the underlying racial tensions within the ethnic community... :mad:

QUOTE]

woah, there....

Galway was accused, slandered and had a lot off mud thrown at him, then cleared of everything.

He stood on the fact that our government were complicit in the murder of tens of thousands of Iraqi and Afghan civillians over the last few years, and over the fact that we have invaded a nation that posed no threat to us and the we had actually spent the last ten years starving and bombing back into the stone age.

House prices lower? Tens of thousands killed. Ecomonic stability? Tens of thousands killed. Which one do you think is more important when choosing who to vote for?

Meeting Saddam Hussein (gasp! not like any british or us politicians did that in the 80's..ummm. or sold him chemical weapons.. ummm) balanced off against being directly responsible for mass death and region-wide uranium poisoning that will last centuries. Hmmmm..... wonder which one is the lesser crime?

I find myself "spitting with rage" when people lap up the spin and ***** put out in the press slandering anyone who stands up for basic decent values (like not bombing children and invading countries at the behest of US multinationals and the most f*cked up presidential cabal I've ever seen).

:mad:

sorry dude... rant.

Rathgar
06-05-2005, 13:02
The really sad thing about this election has been the negativity of the campaigns. Both the Tories and Labour have been telling us more about why we shouldn't vote for the other party rather than why we should vote for them. Isn't democracy about deciding who would be best for the country based on what they want to sort out rather than how crap the opposition is?

It's also sad that the war on Iraq was such a huge issue. Personally i'm against it, but so were a lot of labour MPS, and I'd like to point out to the conservative supporters that they BACKED the war. Do you guys really think it'd would have gone any differently if the Tories were in power? That's just my opinion tho.

It was nice to see LibDem gains (i voted for 'em), 3 party politics is they way to go IMO. Also Peter Law winning Blaenae Gwent as an independent was a highlight.

Tell you what did scare me. the BNP getting 1,000+ votes in a lot of places. Did they get over 4,000 in one constituency? What's everyone else's take on this?

The CONs just held my constituency. Bugger. :rolleyes:

Brother Munro
06-05-2005, 13:34
Well I was forlornly hoping for a hung parliament, maybe next time. New Labour may just be the conservatives in disguise (apart from the rather cool old school Labour guys still kicking around) but the Tories proper are worse. I would have voted Lib Dem if they had a chance in Angus, but they didn't so I tactically voted to keep the conservatives out :p I've had more than enough of tories from living in Surrey. Whilst I think the BNP are racist facists they do have a right to express their views, as does every other political party, we just don't have to listen.

And i think we all know who would be the best young dynamic replacement for Howard. BORIS! :D

peteratwar
06-05-2005, 13:35
Well the war in Iraq is a big issue when you have your relatives killed for no good reason, when billions of pounds are spent which could have been used elsewhere.

Constitution wise we do have a constitution even if it isn't written down with n amendments.

One major plank is the trinity of Monarch, Lords, Commons which allows each to check the other. Take away the powers of the Lords & the Monarch & you have a Parliamentary Dictatorship.

Sojourner
06-05-2005, 13:37
It's news to me that we actually had a constitution.

Yep, we do. Written up after the Civil War I believe. It's simply not written up in a big document. A democratic nation must have a constitution, it's otherwise known as The Law.

worldshatterer
06-05-2005, 13:41
The BNP are an odd one, they can profit off the media scaring folks about immigration and Europe and say that they genuinely offer an alternative to the tired and compromised political parties .

A few years back in France LePen the leader of their equivalent of the BNP did very well in the Presidential elections . Why? it wasn't that there was a sudden upsurge of rascist biggots across the nation . no, it was because people looked at all the candidates from the traditional parties and were not impressed, a vote for such a radical even if personally distasteful is a vote that registers your disatisfaction with the way things are being run .

If a lot of Labour MP's[not just those who backpeddled later on] were so opposed to the war on Iraq, then why did it happen? What kind of an excuse is "i found the war completely against my morality, yet i'm still a member of the organisation that took us to war and is still unrepentant that going to war was a good idea" . I would not vote for someone capable of compromising themselves to that extent .

redemptionist15
06-05-2005, 17:23
Im just glad that Lib Dems got another growth in their popularity, they now look like they could be a proper opposition party, and come the next election i hope they can actually get in.

Its a shame but the Labour MP in my constituency has stopped in, i went to meeting with all of the runners in my constituency, Labour slagged off the tories, Tories slagged off Labour, Veritas and UKIP proceeded to preach their middle-class white man racism, whilst the Lib Dem candidate took the time to actually show he had the right policies.

Getz
06-05-2005, 17:29
We got rid of Labour in my area, got Tories now. Might go some way towards sorting out the Chav problem. Annoyed, but not surprised to see Labour still in power. Some scary facts arise from this though:

Labour have approx 66 seat majority with only 36% of votes cast, and only 22% of those eligible to vote voted Labour. How they can say they represent the country I don't know.

I'm not sure if those Stats are entirely accurate. I understood that 36% of eligable voters had Voted Labour with a turnout of about 60%, although I stayed up until five this morning to see my constituency come in (it was recounted twice I think) so I could well be remembering it all wrong or we might be talking at cross purposes...

The low National majority is the inevitable result of an increasingly genuine triparty political system. The Previous record low was 40.2% for Howard Wilson's Labour Government of 1974. However, in 1974 England had an almost purely biparty political system, so that was a lot more damning that the outcome of this election. Not only have the Liberal Democrats proved themselve a genuine threat to Labour and the Conservatives for the first time (although they are still a long way from forming a Government I feel) but there is an unprecedented number of small, single issue arties that are capturing a significant proportion of the National Vote. Granted Veritas failed ( :D ) but UKIP and the BNP, not to mention the Green Party and the other less radical alternative parties have all got ever increasing shares of the vote as people are increasingly turning from the major parties or voting on local issues at General elections (as is their right) - hence the success of several of the Independent candidates.

The good news, of course, is that National turnout seems to have been up by a couple of percentage points over 2001, which is an encouraging sign.


Er, unless I'm much mistaken Galloway was wrongly accused of taking bribes by a forged document "leaked" to a newspaper. Not that I like the guy, I think he's a prat, but I still enjoyed seeing him give Labour a bloody nose.

@ Hairyman as well...

There is also the unresolved issue of "irregularities" in the financing of his election campaign, which is a very serious crime...

I'm sorry, I detest the man. He's a hypocrite and has played the Iraq war angle solely for his own self-aggrandisement. The fact is that he chose to run in a constituency that is crying out for a dedicated MP (Labour, Conserative, Lib Dem, it doesn't matter who...) concerned about the serious local issues, such as the terrible poverty in the region, because he knew he'd be able to play the Race/Iraq war card to maximum effect. So instead of an MP that will stand up for their local interests, Bethnal Green has voted for a man who will do literally nothing for them in the next four years and will instead spend his time trumpeting an International issue that he has no moral concern for.

Anyway. This is why you should never talk about politics and religion at dinner parties... ;)

tzeentchgiant
06-05-2005, 17:56
The two things I have to say are:

George Galoway is a profesional politician, knows how it's all done, this does not make him a good man or politician, I think very little of him and I believe that he could do no good for anyone. He's out to get one over on Tony not to help people.

The second thing is a funny factlet about the BNP, at the SECC in Glasgow upon the reading of the results, every other party agreed to stand on one podium to ditch the BNP and show that there racial values are flaud.

TG

Norminator
06-05-2005, 18:08
Everyone complains about Labour, but they forget that the economy is going better than ever before (especially in the tory years - it was a bloody recession!), Saddam was a torturous git who needed to be ridded, and health and education has never been better (you could argur top-up-fees, but to be fair at least you don't have to pay until after uni). The problem with British people is they get bored and want a change. Thank our lucky stars we haven't got that idiot howard!

Wez
06-05-2005, 18:09
Labour are going to sell us out to Europe. Simple. Were I old enough to vote, I would have gone for the Liberal Democrats, although I don't feel Charles Kennedy is much of a leader.

Lib Dems are more pro-European than labour afaik. It's like saying you want the BNP, just with lax immigration controls.

-Wez

Great Harlequin
06-05-2005, 18:15
Labour are going to sell us out to Europe. Simple. Were I old enough to vote, I would have gone for the Liberal Democrats, although I don't feel Charles Kennedy is much of a leader.

I would never vote for the Liberal Democrats because they believe in gay marriges.

alterion
06-05-2005, 21:53
i reckon we should start up our own party " none of the above".. speaks for itself really..

worldshatterer
06-05-2005, 21:56
Why are gay marriages such a bad thing? the state recognises that homosexuality is legal- why should gay people be refused the official recognition of their union? I'm leaving religion out of this entirely as marriage is a very binding legal status. if religous folks have a problem with it then their church dosn't have to carry out gay marriages, thats a matter of conscience, but why should gay people not be allowed to be married in registry offices or more tolerant churches?


, Saddam was a torturous git who needed to be ridded,
thats not a legal or even sensible reason to go to war, and devalue the international law upon which our unprecendentedly peaceful era is based upon . Many of our allies in the war on terror, war on drugs, and the cold war behaved in equally despicable manners towards their civilian populations . We don't go to war with them cos its politically stupid and militarily unfeasible to take on every "bad guy" in the world . Squandering vast amounts of resources and tying up a large portion of our military manpower in invading a country that we all knew posed no real threat is against the national interest, plain and simple . What did Britain get out of it? absolutely nothing except the hatred of a good portion of the Arab world- this is not good politics or international statesmanship .

metzler
06-05-2005, 23:24
That's it! I'm migrating to Canada!

lol, I thought only we americans were doing that.

Minister
07-05-2005, 03:51
I am ashamed and shocked at the foolishness of the south of my country. you're letting the rest of us down! FOOOOOOLS! There's a TORY MP in my country!

Gyyyeeeck. I feel unclean.

:D

tzeentchgiant
07-05-2005, 11:11
You mean your from Bonnie Scotland, hurrah someone else who feels my tory shame.

Nah I don't mind, tories do a lot of sensible things and they're tough on crime so they are actually ok in my books.

TG

hairyman
07-05-2005, 13:03
I would never vote for the Liberal Democrats because they believe in gay marriges.

Dude, that's a pretty medieval way to think.....

@ Getz: At least Galway had the nerve to stand up and describe the Iraq war accurately, unlike anyone in the press or the main three political parties. And I'm willing to wait and see what he actually does/doesn't do for his constituancy before laying into him over his work in Bethnall Green.

@ Worldshatterer: well said, sir

return of teh 13bells!
07-05-2005, 13:10
I would never vote for the Liberal Democrats because they believe in gay marriges.
And thats bad because....... :confused:
edit:damn confused smilie

Forgotmytea
07-05-2005, 13:16
I'm with GH on this one. It's just - well, not really how things are meant to work. I mean, if they love each other, that's fine, but marriages are sort of against the church, and imagine if everyone was gay - the whole human population would be wiped out in one generation! :eek:

I hope Blair gets kicked out by his own ministers :evilgrin: * But, it's a shame about Howard resigning (pulls on fire-retardent suit to stop himself getting flamed by labour supporters) - I know he's getting old, but he would've made a good PM....

*We really need that :evilgrin: smiley back - I've seen loads of people who need it....

Rabid Bunny 666
07-05-2005, 13:16
not surprising that they won, i would have voted, but im only 16 :(

my dad normally vote labour, but he thought that the last couple of years was a disgrace and voted Respect, thaen Respect won the seat, unlike Veritas :D

Forgotmytea
07-05-2005, 13:22
not surprising that they won, i would have voted, but im only 16

Yeah, me too - I'm only 17. :( Shame - I would've liked to vote...

What we need is our own political party - the

PORTENT POLITICAL PARTY! :cool:

Rights for hobbyists, democratic polls on Portent to decide how the country's run, etc etc. I'm sure there's gotta be a lawyer or two on portent somewhere - that'll stop and legal opposition... :evilgrin: Damn, need that evilgrin again... :(

Anyone with me here? One small step for Britain, but one huge step for Wargaming! :rolleyes:

hairyman
07-05-2005, 13:48
[COLOR=DarkOrchid]I'm with GH on this one. It's just - well, not really how things are meant to work. I mean, if they love each other, that's fine, but marriages are sort of against the church

Not how things are meant to work????? I suspect we're straying into religion here...

Marraige can be a civil ceremony as well as a religious one, and I'm afraid being gay is as natural as being left handed or blue eyed. People should be allowed to love who they want to love, and have that relationship given the same legal standing as any other.

As for Howard making a good PM... go back to the 1980's and see what he and his party did when they had power. Poll tax (Howard's idea), destruciton of public services, the miner's strike (where the army was sent in), sale of chemical and biological weapons to Iraq and the unswerving support for Hussein, Pinochet etc.....

No thank you.

Rabid Bunny 666
07-05-2005, 13:50
cool, can i be defence minister?

Baggers
07-05-2005, 13:50
My first general election vote, and I went for the conservatives becasue out of the main partys they were the only ones who did not want to have closer relations with Europe. But I dont really trust any of the parties.

Mr Blair was saying that he has learnt from the election, but what will he do about it in his term of office, most likely not a lot. If one million protestors can change his mind about Iraq, then there will be no change now.

worldshatterer
07-05-2005, 14:07
My whole point is that in this day and age marriage is only to do with the church if you want it to be . I do not believe that churches should be forced to allow homosexuals if that violates their morality .

Being a devout secularist I do not believe religous interests should have any say in a well run country, but we should respect their moral code as long as it does interfere with peoples humans rights[which is why i'm for hanging,drawing and quartering asians who do honour killings and arranged marriages, as well as anti-abortion and gaybashing christians .]

Not allowing gays to be married in civil ceremony, is discrimination and bigotry plain and simple . It is the kind of view point i find despicable in this day and age .

tzeentchgiant
07-05-2005, 16:32
Worldshatterer said it better than any,

it is just bigotry to not accept gay or homosexual marriages today, honestly marraige doesn't have to be to do with religion, so why does/should it matter if the church is against it.

TG

The boyz
07-05-2005, 17:50
I must amit, all though I didnt vote for labour, I do have alot of respect for Tony Blair over the war in Iraq.

However, Farming in Britain has got worse and worse over the last several years in Britain. Farming used to be a way of life, but now with all this red tape from Brussels and DEFRA'S (Department for Environmental Food and Rural Affairs) stupid and costly dead livestock collection and its general lack of understanding of Rural and Agricultural affairs.Its a case of getting up working all hours of the day, constanly doing paper work, for hardly no income.

The Government, in my opinion doesnt really care much for the countryside and the people who live andwork in the countryside. They seem to like to turn their back on rural issues. For instance in the South West of England where I live TB is rampant amongst cattle. Taxpayers spend nearly 42 million pounds a year on compensation, because the Government wont cull badgers. Which tests have proven in Ireland do contribute to the spread of TB.

I was also very upset and angry with the way the Government handled the Foot and Mouth out break a thew years ago. The government should of got the army in straight away to asist in culling of livestock and the subsequential burning of dead stock. In some cases dead livestock was left lying around in fields for weeks on end waiting to be burned.

Now with the new Single Payment Scheme coming into practice soon and the scraping of the old subsidys CAP (Common Agricultural payment). I dont know what the future will hold for Farming in Britain.

I think we are personally as a member country of the EU we are far to involved, to just simply pull out and say thats that. But I do think we need a Government that will put its foot down and say stuff you in certain subjects.And I dont think the Labour Party has got the balls to do this.

worldshatterer
07-05-2005, 18:38
Why should you respect our countries elected leader for systematically lying to us and adopting a dictatorial "i'm right, you're all stupid " attitude towards running the country, i must be missing something here?

Farming is dead in this country, get over it . If the rural lobby had any real power in this democracy then we'd see them treated more favourably . We are an urban based highly advanced part of the global economy, if we can get food cheaper from else where -we will thats how supply and demand works.

Great Harlequin
07-05-2005, 20:12
Not allowing gays to be married in civil ceremony, is discrimination and bigotry plain and simple . It is the kind of view point i find despicable in this day and age .
Now we all know that Liberal Democrats believe in multi-culturalism. So hear me out, I don't want to start a heated debate as I'm sure it won't aid anything but heres my view.

If Liberal Democrats believe in multi-culturilism then they must know that religion is the largest and most influencial part of a culture. There are numerous parts in holy books such as the "Bible" and the "Quran" that say gay marrige is wrong. With this in mind in most if not all religions they tell us to put God's law above state law. So in doing this are they not contradicting their own policies?

hairyman
07-05-2005, 20:22
No, they are not contradicting themselves.

There is no obligation for the church to marry same sex couples. However, a civil non-religious service which is recognised by the law is absolutely nothing to do with religion. It does, however, have a lot to do with a modern, non-prejudiced society.

@ the boyz: how on earth can you respect Tony Blair for invading Iraq? He deserves to be in handcuffs, not 10 downing street.

worldshatterer
07-05-2005, 20:37
Are you honestly telling me that in modern Britain one of the least religous countries on the planet, that religion plays an important part in the culture???Just go watch some TV and you'll see why i beg to differ.

The lib-dems are not contradicting their own policies by agreeing with gay marriage and multiculturalism . We do not put Gods law above state law, the result is a theocracy i haven't seen many folks recomending living in Iran or Taliban controlled Afghanistan .

The whole point of multiculturalism is that People can privately object to gay marriage all they want, its their right to do so, but when that private objection spills into the public sphere in abuse,discrimination and trying to affect the law it is wrong . This is how come people from many different cultures can live alongside one another tolerantly even if they ideologically loathe each other . We live this way, as it is the only way we can . Anything else results in war and the kind of country that the BNP has wet dreams about .

Great Harlequin, you didn't want to start a heated debate, tough . You started one the moment you started posting bigoted bs against gay marriage on a forum .

anarchistica
08-05-2005, 02:13
I would never vote for the Liberal Democrats because they believe in gay marriges.
You can only believe in things that have not been proven to exist like fairytales, democracy and god(s).

I suspect you mean they think it's ok. I.e. they have an opinion about something we know exists.


I'm with GH on this one. It's just - well, not really how things are meant to work. I mean, if they love each other, that's fine, but marriages are sort of against the church,
Who decides how things are meant to work?

And what has the church to do with this?


and imagine if everyone was gay - the whole human population would be wiped out in one generation! :eek:
Best. Argument. Ever.


Now we all know that Liberal Democrats believe in multi-culturalism.

So in doing this are they not contradicting their own policies?
It seems you do not know what multiculturalism is. I'd suggest you read this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiculturalism).


If Liberal Democrats believe in multi-culturilism then they must know that religion is the largest and most influencial part of a culture.
Not in civilised countries. Sects have been losing ground for many years now and barely have any influence in NW-Europe.


There are numerous parts in holy books such as the "Bible" and the "Quran" that say gay marrige is wrong.
And these books that were written 2000 years ago matter why exactly? You also think it's ok to sell your daughter as a slave? You made a tent to serve as altar for Jahwe? You bring foods to the Levitites to sacrifice it to Jahwe in this tent? You think women aren't people? You think rape and incest are just fine? You think the sun and moon are lamps? You don't find it curious this god took 5 days to create the earth and created the billions of other planets in just 1 day? Not to mention taking 40 days to write down 10 simple rules on 2 stone tablets? You believe in angels? You believe a woman can turn into a pile of salt because she looks at the rain of fire that destroys 2 cities? You don't think it's just a little bit curious that Jahwe didn't give a damn if the ancient kings did what pleases him and just wreaked havoc at random?

:rolleyes:


With this in mind in most if not all religions they tell us to put God's law above state law.
Let's leave the 'God's law above all else' thing for countries where women have no rights and where people think pigs are dirty because they eat their own poop, ok? Thanks. ;)

aser
08-05-2005, 05:41
Indeed, in a country with multiple systems of faith, how could it be run with Gods law above all other (State) laws? :o

Sojourner
08-05-2005, 13:09
anarchistica=pwn.

Lord Lucifer
08-05-2005, 14:57
I'm with GH on this one. It's just - well, not really how things are meant to work. I mean, if they love each other, that's fine, but marriages are sort of against the church, and imagine if everyone was gay - the whole human population would be wiped out in one generation! :eek:

Hey Gobbo, where I live (NZ), civil unions have come into effect.
They're open to same-sex partners as well as heterosexual couples

This is, in essence, gay marriage
Now here's the funny thing, I haven't yet thought about having sex with another guy. Everyone was saying it'd open the floodgates, but the country has just about as many gay people now as it did before the civil union bill was passed.
The whole population hasn't suddenly decided to switch sexual preferences, that cataclysm hasn't happened. Call it Y2Gay, so much dread that goes out with a whimper rather than a bang ;)

Also, if everyone WERE gay, there IS artificial insemination.


All it's done was afford equality to a portion of society that was previously denied certain legal rights
Curiously, this bill was was opposed by the opposition party who had stated they stand for equal rights for all people, one law for everyone (in response to cultural issues, indigenous rights and customary title... apparently it's all fine and well having the same rights, and they are the right to be a straight, white european :rolleyes: )

Delicious Soy
08-05-2005, 15:20
I think many politicians (this goes for Australia too) have watched one too many movies and fear that guys will 'queer it up' in order to be entitled to the same benefits as married heterosexual couples in social security. Not really as issue in the USA (you are free to starve to death over there), but in Australia the commoners are easily scared by Today Tonight or A Current Affair telling them that everyone but them is bludging off welfare.

As far as I'm concerned, it should be legal for everyone to be legally married, but as for marriage in a church, thats for that faith to decide, not the government.

Kyuss
08-05-2005, 16:47
Personally, the real shame about the Tories is that they haven't learnt the Lessons of the 'Post War Consensus'. You only thrive if you can offer a decent alternative.

I mean the whole Tory manifesto could have been done in a month, what then? There was no positive ideological statement, backed up with practical policies.

Hence, they should offer the below:

Flat Taxes: Simplifies the Tax system, allows governments to concentrate on redistrbution

School Vouchers: Actually injects competition, rewarding decent management without a thousand and one time consuming and circumvented targets.

Insuranced Health Care, not NHS: Poor people should get health care for free, not everybody.

Re-introduction of punishment by objectives: Prison should be tied into harsh re-conditioning. Boot camps for delinquences, Early release tied into passing education objectives, long term prisoners actually being made to work to keep themselves fed etc. Of course give people a choice, boot camp or 20 years in prison, guess which one they would choose then.

In short, that Government should be a safety net but not a crutch.

An organisation which people can rely on for somethings, not a sprawling mass ground down in bureacracy, achieving things too late and too wastefully.

Thats how to kill apathy, give people an actual debate!


Kyuss

PS Homosexuals should be allowed legal marriages, not for any ******** 'moral' reasons, simply because it causes chaos if people have been living together for 30+ years, and have no rights to each other assets.

worldshatterer
08-05-2005, 17:20
Flat Taxes:Discriminates against the poor.

School Vouchers:Schools are not a market and should not be treated like one . What happens when everyone wants to go to the best ones? as few people want a poor start in life . It merely cements the class divide by giving some folks subsidies to go to private school with .

Insuranced Health Care, not NHS:We show that we are civilised by allowing access to healthcare for all, also discriminates against middle income earners who are just outside of the bracket for qualifying for the free stuff . People can choose to private in order to ensure a better standard of care, that more than enough.

Re-introduction of punishment by objectives:Sounds a bit victorian to me, and where exactly do we develop the widespread infrastructure for such changes??? Rehabilitation and re-education is an important part of prison changing people from criminals into civilians- the most common reason its lacking in modern prisons is law and order fanatics overcrowding them so such "unessentials" must be cut down on .

Allowing gay marriage is not moral bs . If the law recognises homosexual relationships as valid and equivalent to those of heterosexuals, then denying them access to marriage is a contradiction and undermines the law as a whole .

Brother Munro
08-05-2005, 17:21
Hence, they should offer the below:

Flat Taxes: Simplifies the Tax system, allows governments to concentrate on redistrbution

School Vouchers: Actually injects competition, rewarding decent management without a thousand and one time consuming and circumvented targets.

Insuranced Health Care, not NHS: Poor people should get health care for free, not everybody.

Re-introduction of punishment by objectives: Prison should be tied into harsh re-conditioning. Boot camps for delinquences, Early release tied into passing education objectives, long term prisoners actually being made to work to keep themselves fed etc. Of course give people a choice, boot camp or 20 years in prison, guess which one they would choose then.

Flat taxes are frankly unfair, because if you set it low (which you have to really, otherwise some por bod on 15k a year can't afford to buy food) rich people have pots and pots of money, and the rich/poor divide grows ever bigger. Graded tax systems ensure that people who are sucessful contribute more to society, remember there is an upper band, so there is an incentive to get even high incomes.

School Vouchers: Not sure what you're on about here so I won't comment.

Insuranced Health Care: IMHO this is a very very bad idea, where do you set the 'poor' limit at, and how? The system is wide open to fraud, people may even give up promotions so they can keep free healthcare. The NHS can save money by reducing the number of managers to a sane level and removing superfluous treatments (like IVF)

Prisons: Harsh sentancing, and better re-education programs are a good idea, but the infrastructure and staff need to be in place first.

Deaf_Peter
08-05-2005, 17:40
Kyuss, generally what you're suggesting is LAZY fascism.

"PS Homosexuals should be allowed legal marriages, not for any ******** 'moral' reasons, simply because it causes chaos if people have been living together for 30+ years, and have no rights to each other assets. " Lazy.... gay people should be able to get married if they like for reasons why anyone else can get married... not for ease of a lazy government....

Flat Taxes??? what the hell planet do you live on? Rich get richer... the poor get poorer and the middle class disentergrate into working class luiddites and none of you would be playing with your little men that's for sure.

Cheesejoff
08-05-2005, 17:41
Brother Munro, I agree with your points. Although IMO prisoners should have to work to earn their keep. After all we're paying for them but not homeless people.

peteratwar
09-05-2005, 13:32
Flat Taxes where introduced have NOT been having those effects. They have resulted in increased wealth for all.

Odin
09-05-2005, 13:42
Everyone complains about Labour, but they forget that the economy is going better than ever before (especially in the tory years - it was a bloody recession!), Saddam was a torturous git who needed to be ridded, and health and education has never been better (you could argur top-up-fees, but to be fair at least you don't have to pay until after uni). The problem with British people is they get bored and want a change. Thank our lucky stars we haven't got that idiot howard!

Hmm, I know this was a few pages ago, but no-one really addressed the startling inaccuracies. So here goes. The economy is unsustainable, with ludicrous house prices, spiralling debt and big holes in Mr Brown's sums. He's already spent all the treasury's savings and now the only way to continue is for the government to borrow huge amounts of money or hike taxes up in a big way. When Labour took over in '97 they inherited a good economy which had recoved from the earlier recession. Also, let's not forget the mess the previous Labour government left the country in (at least Blair didn't mess things up that badly - but that's mainly because he nicked most of the Tories policies).

Saddam was a very nasty bloke. So are the leaders of about 150 other countries across the world. Are we going to invade them all? Britain has started a war for the first time in ages, and I find that very worrying.

Education and health are still in a mess - Labour have carried on the stupid privatisation policies which the Tories started. In 30 years time, all the PFI hospitals will revert to ownership of the companies which are already making unbelieveable profits, and will own the land and buildings. What happens then, I'd like to know? The tuition fees are a travesty, and are going to make university only for the rich. I know several people who should have gone to university but just couldn't face the prospect of 20,000 debt.

We haven't got bored, we've got sick of being lied to and screwed over. I'm no great supporter of Howard, but he'd be a damn sight better PM than the one we still seem to be stuck with.


However, Farming in Britain has got worse and worse over the last several years in Britain. Farming used to be a way of life, but now with all this red tape from Brussels and DEFRA'S (Department for Environmental Food and Rural Affairs) stupid and costly dead livestock collection and its general lack of understanding of Rural and Agricultural affairs.Its a case of getting up working all hours of the day, constanly doing paper work, for hardly no income.

The Fallen Stock policy is from Brussels - all Defra have done is try to find a practical solution. So please put the blame where it belongs - Brussels.


Farming is dead in this country, get over it . If the rural lobby had any real power in this democracy then we'd see them treated more favourably . We are an urban based highly advanced part of the global economy, if we can get food cheaper from else where -we will thats how supply and demand works.

Actually, here's how it works - we pay taxes, which go into the Common Agricultural Policy, which for years has been rigged in favour of French farmers. The french farmers get huge subsidies and can produce cheaper goods. So the British taxpayer is paying to put British farmers out of business (and 3rd world farmers as well, with hugely subsidised sugar from France being dumped at ludicrously low prices on the international market).

Brother Munro
09-05-2005, 14:00
Although IMO prisoners should have to work to earn their keep. After all we're paying for them but not homeless people.

I agree, but the prison system at the moment just doesn't have the funding or infrastructure to do it. For some reason Labour seem to ignore that point on a few issues, like housing. They insist on more homes being built but don't upgrade the schools transport networks, hostpitals or other local services.

Wez
09-05-2005, 16:27
Flat Taxes where introduced have NOT been having those effects. They have resulted in increased wealth for all.

Evidence?

How increasing taxes for the poor makes them wealthier is beyond me...


Actually, here's how it works - we pay taxes, which go into the Common Agricultural Policy, which for years has been rigged in favour of French farmers. The french farmers get huge subsidies and can produce cheaper goods. So the British taxpayer is paying to put British farmers out of business (and 3rd world farmers as well, with hugely subsidised sugar from France being dumped at ludicrously low prices on the international market).

Were it an open market then they'd still be out of business due to third world countries being able to do just about everything agricultural cheaper than most Western European countries (there's exceptions such as market gardening, but most agriculture, afaik, in most Western European countries survives mainly due to subsidies and trade barriers.)

-Wez

Odin
09-05-2005, 16:56
most agriculture, afaik, in most Western European countries survives mainly due to subsidies and trade barriers

Indeed. I just object to paying more subsidies to French farmers than British ones. At least give everyone a level playing field (oh god, I just used management-speak!).

Sai-Lauren
09-05-2005, 17:08
Hmm, I know this was a few pages ago, but no-one really addressed the startling inaccuracies. So here goes. The economy is unsustainable, with ludicrous house prices, spiralling debt and big holes in Mr Brown's sums. He's already spent all the treasury's savings and now the only way to continue is for the government to borrow huge amounts of money or hike taxes up in a big way.

Not to mention the god-knows-how-many billion pounds from the sale of 3G licenses. I believe some of the money has gone on reducing the national debt, but there was a lot of gap between the recent predictions of the economy and what's actually happened (basically from the 2003 budget on) - mainly because what economy there was, was based on consumer spending with credit and there was no way that could continue.

Brimstone
09-05-2005, 20:17
OK this has been allowed to go on due to the election but RM is not the place for Politics or Religious discussion.

Thread Closed.