Jump to content
Welcome to the new software - Please read! Read more... ×
Fans Focus - Non League football clubs
Sign in to follow this  
Guest

General Election 2005

MOTM v Sutton  

27 members have voted

  1. 1. Who was your Man of the Match?

    • P Nicholls
    • A Lacey
    • C Robinson
    • K Millington
      0
    • D Young
      0
    • J Haverson
      0
    • J Keister
    • W Wilson
      0
    • J Healy
      0
    • L Blackman
      0
    • S West
      0
    • S Cliff
    • L Smith
      0


Recommended Posts

Quote:
Unrecognized Genius said:
Until they can find someone to lead them who has credibility & charisma, didn't serve under Major or Thatcher & who is prepared to drag them kicking & screaming into the 21st Century, the Tories will remain unelectable. EC


Well the people of Gravesham disagreed!

Adam Holloway Conservative 19,739
Chris Pond Labour 19,085
Bruce Parmenter Liberal Democrat 4,851
Geoff Coates UK Independence Party 850
Christopher Nickerson English Independence Party 654

Majority 654

Turnout

Congratulations to our new Tory M.P. - Adam Holloway.

Watch out Blair - the tide is turning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
FleetFanatic said:
Quote:
Unrecognized Genius said:
Until they can find someone to lead them who has credibility & charisma, didn't serve under Major or Thatcher & who is prepared to drag them kicking & screaming into the 21st Century, the Tories will remain unelectable. EC


Well the people of Gravesham disagreed!

Adam Holloway Conservative 19,739
Chris Pond Labour 19,085
Bruce Parmenter Liberal Democrat 4,851
Geoff Coates UK Independence Party 850
Christopher Nickerson English Independence Party 654

Majority 654

Turnout

Congratulations to our new Tory M.P. - Adam Holloway.

Watch out Blair - the tide is turning.


As a Labour voter, I am quite pleased that the Government's majority has been substantially cut, because I think it needs an effective opposition to keep it on its toes. Its huge majorities have done it & the country no favours.

However, I think it would be a mistake by the Tories to see what has happened as the start of a huge revival. According to the BBC, their share of the vote will not turn out to be substantially different to what they achieved under Hague & many of the people wo abandoned Labour in key marginals will return next time.

Unless the Tories really do something about re-building themselves properly, that is. I probably would never vote for them, but I'd be delighted if they could make themselves credible again, because there has to be an alternative to the centre left or our democracy will go stale. That means the balance of power behind the scenes being relinguished by the Blue Rinse brigade & energetic, younger people coming to the fore (and to be honest, Adam Holloway looks as if he might be one of these.) FL will hate to hear it but Andrew Marr pointed out that they actually had more non white candidates standing last night than any of the other parties, so maybe the signs are there. But it will come to nothing until they have a leader who, as UG says, isn't associated with the bad old days of sleaze. A leader too who will have to sort out their bitter divide over Europe, which still festers under the surface - or as Max Hastings, a Tory supporter says rather graphically, "lurks like a cache of internet pornography."

Obviously Labour has a lesson to learn too. If it doesn't it will go the way the Tories themselves went in 1997.

Graham S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All sounds very proper of thought and balanced,but you labour voters (less than one third of the voters)cling on to power at the feet of a proven lying cheating cynic who caused the deaths of over 100,000 human beings with an illegal invasion and has broken more pledges than your local pawnbroker

No labour supporter will be able to claim the high moral ground ever again

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except that plenty of Labour supporters did not back the invasion of Iraq. And what was the alternative? Howard, on his own admission, would have gone to war without the 2nd UN Resolution. Vote Liberal Democrat? That would only have led to the same thing - a Tory government who, even if they'd have been honest about the reasoning for going to war, are not in any condition to govern yet. Even their own most experienced hands admit that.

 

This election will spell the end of TB's leadership I feel. He knows his decision to force the Iraq issue is the reason his party dropped so many seats. Although he intended seeing through a full term, I wouldn't be surprised if this makes him change his mind and he goes sooner rather than later. Might be wrong, of course. Only time will tell.

 

I also think you'll find that 1/3 (ie33%) of the people who voted, voted Tory & Labour got about 3% more. Not enough to justify the difference in seats, though, I'll give you that. But then the Tories were hardly champions of PR all the time first past the post swung things nicely their way.

 

Graham S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since when did the killing of thousands gain moral value because someone else did it first

And lets remember during the reign of Saddam there was never a threat from Iraq, in terror attack terms, within our borders where as now every little or large group of fanatics has a base in Iraq planning to inflict damage where!ever they can

No! power corrupts and the ultimate ego with ultimate power becomes a Tony Blair and you voted for him

I.E. you and yours will vote for any evil that keeps you in power

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Stu M said:

But they have to mix with you, so that's one lowlife at least in your Garden of Eden.


They’re all like minded trust me on that. Quite refreshing actually to hear those good old fashioned British traditional references for certain sections of society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can spout all the platitudes you like but the truth is the labour party bottled getting rid of Blair being afraid of losing power

Where or not TB lasts one month or four years the labour party lacked the moral fibre needed to rid its self of a proven lying disgraced leader, and for what? fear of losing control! smacks of the old Soviet leadership and followers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
pabird said:
And lets remember during the reign of Saddam there was never a threat from Iraq, in terror attack terms, within our borders


yeah, they said the same thing about Hitler in the early 1930s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now lets get this right, when Saddam invaded another country we correctly invaded Iraq and smacked his [****!!****], when Hitler invaded Poland we went to war with Germany, in fact we should have gone to war with Germany earlier when he bullied other european countries but socialist peaceniks got in the way

No! get it right this labour party if it accepts Mr Blair as its leader then it accepts responsibility for an illegal invasion (and all the lying and cheating along the way)and the 100,000 plus human deaths that resulted

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PS. When were the up for war socialist British legions considering invading North Korea only they are now breaking UN resolutions in testing nukes, PPS they have no oil and George Bush will not be going

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
pabird said:
You can spout all the platitudes you like but the truth is the labour party bottled getting rid of Blair being afraid of losing power.


Platitude: "a trite or hackneyed remark."

Just which one of the comments I've spouted qualifies as such? I thought they were all pretty specific. You might not agree with them, but that doesn't make them platitudinous.

Would the Tories have got rid of a leader if it had meant almost certainly losing power? No. No party would. They only get rid of leaders when they suspect this will avoid them losing power - viz the ruthlessly efficient move against Maggie Thatcher when it was obvious she'd lost the plot.

Graham S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

never heard of Kritallnacht, you know when the Germans went on the rampage against German Jews? Oh I forgot you're twisting what I said to make your own point, which is fair enough as all tree hugging hippies are want to do. What I meant to say and which you blatantly ignored was that the Nazi regime was carrying out atrocities on its own people for five years before WW2 started which funnily enough is what Saddam was doing to the Kurds before the Kuwaiti invasion and was doing before the last war. Not to mention the other dozen or so UN Security Resolutions laid down after the first Gulf War which didn't refer to WMD he was blatantly ignoring for the last ten or so years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that Saddam is a very nasty piece of work, but that was not the issue, the issue was that Blair lied in saying Saddam had the weaponary to endanger world peace and could commence to offload said weapons in 45 minutes

Not only did he lie but his fellow cabinet members knew he lied with only two of them prepared to fall on their swords

No! the labour party knew and knows that Blair is unfit to be their leader but in fear of losing privilage and power bottled getting rid of him

Labour party members accept a proven lying cheating cynic as their leader and that clearly leaves the water mark of their own moral value

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

=the 45 minute claim was flawed intelligence buts seeing as how it was proved that he was gassing the Kurds it's not beyond the possibility that he could have 'stolen' a rocket or two and gassed some other places. I'd imagine it would be quite easy to destroy a chemical lab deep in the heart of iraq in a day

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have a look at the actual history I.E. when did he gas the kurds,when was he asked to destroy his weapons of mass destruction and what were the search teams telling Blair and Bush

No old son Bush and Blair had made their decision to invade it was all that UN stuff that got in the way

Have a read of your Mr Cooks writing on the subject

PPS and what are you to do about North Korea? remembering there is no oil and they can and will fight back

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what I am to do about North Korea? Order a takeaway?

 

And let's be honest, are you really trying to say that Saddam never, EVER, in all his time in power never had any WMDs? Or that he would never EVER build them in the future? If NUTS magazine can find the recipe to make sarin gas on the internet and find the ingredients are readily available do you really think that Saddam would never used WMDs if given half the chance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When Saddam invaded another country (Kuwait) we did not invade Iraq. We, the colaition that is, "liberated" that country but did not press on further into Iraq than was deemed necessary. Was this the gallant West rushing to the aid of poor little Kuwait? Nope. There was no freedom or demovracy in Kuwait before Saddam and there still isn't. Their "government" has just defeated a motion to allow women the vote - the debate took less than an hour. Not all men can vote either, I think it's something like 33%.

 

I don't really see how or why we should go to war every time one country is nasty to its neighbour or its own people (we'd never be at peace) unless we have a direct treaty with that friendly nation (as with Poland) or it directly or inddirectly affects our own security or interests. Iraq could not directly threaten us, but I daresay they could upset supplies of oil from the region. We need oil, no point in going misty eyed about it, if someone tries to cut it off we have to go and fetch it. Big bad world and all that.

 

Now, if they'd said that was why Saddam had to go, I'd have quite understood it. No need to wrap it up as a noble and selfless excercise.

 

Anyway there are more issues than Iraq, and thank god the real tories didn't get in, it's bad enough with the pretend ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The sooner the Iraqi's hang Saddam, the better !

 

It'll happen !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×