I know, I know - very "so what have the Romans ever done for us?"
Low unemployment, low inflation, low interest rates, strong economy, record spending on schools and hospitals....
I used to get into endless trouble in campaigns because on the doorsteps I'd stand have an all out row with them... (I think that's why they stuck me in an office with a computer).
That said, I'd rather have the Britain's rude TV presenters and disrespectful audiences than the obsequious stepford wives they parade over here.
I'm afraid Iraq is a legitimate issue, but being pragmatic, if you don't want a Tory government...
I wasn't being critical of the disinterest, I agree, some elections are very dull. 2001 was bad, this is worse. Although, if you are on the winning side, dull isn't necessarily a bad thing, this time it could be if all those bored Labour voters stay home.
the decision to go to war was made unanimously by the war cabinet.
which included Conservatives (if not Michael Howard himeself.)
the decision to go to war was made unanimously by the war cabinet.
which included Conservatives (if not Michael Howard himeself.)
Actually, no.
The 'war cabinet' such as it was, consited entirely of Labour cabinet members, a couple of political aids (Ali Campbell for example) and the various military and intelligence bods.
No Tories or Lib Dems.
They will have received some briefings through the Privy Council and generally Prime Ministers do keep opposition leaders informed - but they do not have any vote.
That said, Howard would probably have done the same.
If he only wins by a small margin, would it not be interpreted as a vote of no confidence in his handling of the war in Iraq?
In which case, he might get "Thatchered".
Same with Bush, only Bush pantsed up a few more things. There must be some kind of group denial in action.
the decision to go to war was made unanimously by the war cabinet.
which included Conservatives (if not Michael Howard himeself.)
Actually, no.
The 'war cabinet' such as it was, consited entirely of Labour cabinet members, a couple of political aids (Ali Campbell for example) and the various military and intelligence bods.
No Tories or Lib Dems.
They will have received some briefings through the Privy Council and generally Prime Ministers do keep opposition leaders informed - but they do not have any vote.
That said, Howard would probably have done the same.
ok so I stand corrected.
I believe too that Howard would have done the same.
If there was any chance of it being even remotely close
I think he would have been ousted already by the Labour upper-echelons.
I still think it will be closer than they would like.
However, all the "Liberals" looking to run away to Canada in November from the USA, I wonder how many Daily Mail readers will be looking to get out if/when Labour win again
Yes I don't doubt that either.
A pedant writes
The only people voting for Tony Blair are those who live in the constituency of Sedgefield.
Having said that, it is still better than seeing Howard gurning on Friday morning.
True, and you wouldn't believe the fun and confusion that causes in polling stations...
Sorry Manc - didn't intend to lecture.
As to the closeness... well it will be interesting to see how 'close' gets defined. remember, Major had a majority of 21 and couldn't do much. Anything less than 50 is bad news IMHO 50-100 not good on a slidingscale. 100+ is a landslide...
We wait with baited breath... or not. :wink:
What a wanker, this guy is the prototypical expat, “everything back there is crap”, excuse, to justify their guilt and inadequacy. He's obviously living in a country that suits his idiocy.
And, Those aren't myths, they are a priori axioms.
The American political environment is saturadated by corporate money, politicians have no real debate, they don't have a left wing, they don't have a critical mainstream media, its nasty, viscous, cynical and corrupt system. And the Americans deserve everything they get.