If there was a general election tomorrow...

[mjmooney]

I guess if you took the Martin Bell thing people clearly voted on local issues , but as Mike says I doubt many people really know what the local candidate is all about ... I don't even know the name of mine but then i don't usually vote so I've not really ever made the effort to find out

and 10% of the Tories.

your previous posts said 0 % tory .. does that mean you mellowing towards them , Cameron is convincing you :winkold:

Did they? Can you find, please?

If I did say that, I retract it. There are usually SOME things in there that I can agree with, just as there some in Labour's that I don't. I'm pretty sure you asked me how I stood on EC membership when the Tories were for it, and Labour agin it. And my answer was that I was still for it, admittedly for "woolly liberal" rather than hardnosed economic reasons.

But it wouldn't have been enough in itself to make me vote Tory, not by a long chalk.

[Condimentalist]

Well group me in with the **** idiots then.

Because, on the whole, I don't really care too much about local issues. I'm much more interested in what direction the PM and cabinet are taking the country. I vote on what's in the party manifesto, rather than what my local candidate has on his leaflet. That used to mean a pretty automatic vote for Labour, because I could usually agree with at least 75% of the Labour manifesto, compared to maybe 50% of the LibDems and 10% of the Tories.

That has, admittedly, changed in recent years, to the point where I'm swinging towards the LibDems in disillusionment with Labour. But the point stands. I think that who the PM is is far more important than who my local MP is.

Similarly, I read national newspapers, never local ones, and take far more interest in the BBC news at ten than "the news where YOU are".

A good local MP is of little use to me if the PM is implementing policies I radically disagree with, on a national and international scale.

As it happens, I know my local Labour candidate fairly well - and he's a ****. Which makes my choice a little easier anyway (although I suspect the other candidates are equally if not more fuckwitted). Ho hum.

I think your view would be echoed by a lot of people in this country.

Electoral reform?

[Demitri_C]

To be brutally honest a lot of people who vote are **** idiots that do not deserve the privilege

.

so because someone disagrees with your opinion they dont deserve the privilege? sorry but that is outrageous

[leviramsey]

With the degree to which power is centralized in Westminster and the degree to which the whip has grown more powerful, it's eminently rational for voters to focus on the party leadership when deciding their vote.

To a large extent the UK has incorporated the bad aspects of PR (elevation of the party above the individual candidates) and of FPTP (which have been exhaustively documented in this thread).

[drat01]

To be brutally honest a lot of people who vote are **** idiots that do not deserve the privilege

.

so because someone disagrees with your opinion they dont deserve the privilege? sorry but that is outrageous

Why is it outrageous?

So you vote for Cameron / Clegg / Brown do you?

The point is simple, too many people vote on image and personality of a leader of a party, when in fact what they are actually voting for is a local MP. Surely if you are going to cast a vote then you need to understand what that MP stands for or is willing to say / do? There is nothing outrageous about that view. Maybe if politics was more about what they did not how they looked it would be a lot better.

[drat01]

A good local MP is of little use to me if the PM is implementing policies I radically disagree with, on a national and international scale.

I would disagree with that Mike. Your local MP is the way that you have a say in politics. Look at that near to me and Skinner. Is he a good MP? would you not vote for him based on a dislike of Brown? (Note I tried and failed to think of an equivalent Tory MP but the same rule applies)

[mjmooney]

A good local MP is of little use to me if the PM is implementing policies I radically disagree with, on a national and international scale.

I would disagree with that Mike. Your local MP is the way that you have a say in politics. Look at that near to me and Skinner. Is he a good MP? would you not vote for him based on a dislike of Brown? (Note I tried and failed to think of an equivalent Tory MP but the same rule applies)

I think if a local candidate was outstandingly bad or outstandingly good I might change my voting preference.

This has never happened - I've always had a choice of "meh" candidates.

So I vote for the party.

[drat01]

Move to Bolsover Mike :-)

[tonyh29]

How do people think Brown's lying today at Chilcot today will affect his rating .. lucky for him they didn't put him under oath I guess

[drat01]

The Iraq thing is drifting away Tony - you say he was telling lies but you have no proof to back that up?

The whole non-tax paying thing is still more big news and the Tory party are trying every trick to deflect any questions - even not talking to the investigation on Ashcroft despite requests!

[mjmooney]

Move to Bolsover Mike :-)

But ironically, I'll bet Skinner - unlike most MPs - gets votes BECAUSE of who he is, rather than "default Labour" votes.

[markavfc40]

Listening to Radio 5 on the way back from work they were discussing how Brown came over at the enquiry and it appears that he came over exceptionally well.

It is also worth noting that there were very few protestors at the enquiry today.

[Awol]

The Iraq thing is drifting away Tony - you say he was telling lies but you have no proof to back that up?

To misquote Jack Nicholson, "you can't handle the proof!"

Ex-defence chief attacks Brown's evidence to Iraq inquiry

Former commanders accused Gordon Brown of deliberately misleading the Iraq inquiry after he blamed the military for failing properly to equip the Armed Forces for war.

The Prime Minister denied putting the lives of British troops at risk by starving the military of equipment. In a confident performance yesterday at the Chilcot inquiry, he admitted curbing spending while troops were fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan to stop public finances spiralling out of control. But he insisted this had not affected soldiers on the front line.[Right, that's why it helicopters all round then Gordon? Oh no, that's a big whopping lie, again.]

Admiral Lord Boyce, the Chief of the Defence Staff up to the start of the invasion of Iraq in 2003, disagreed. “He’s dissembling, he’s being disingenuous. It’s just not the case that the Ministry of Defence was given everything it needed,” he said.

“There may have been a 1.5 per cent increase in the defence budget but the MoD was starved of funds.”

Year on year when Mr Brown was Chancellor it failed to get the money it needed to meet the level of activity demanded by the Government, he said.

Mr Brown said that every request for money for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and occupation of Iraq was swiftly approved by the Treasury. He shifted the blame on to generals when confronted with complaints from the relatives of soldiers killed by in attacks on Snatch Land Rovers.

Colonel Stuart Tootal, former commander of 3rd Battalion, The Parachute Regiment, said: “I am quite staggered by the lack of any sense of responsibility. He was the man with the purse strings.”

Don't blame me for Iraq: Gordon Brown tells Chilcot Inquiry that war, lack of kit and chaotic aftermath were not his fault

He insisted he had never turned down any request for money to buy military equipment as Chancellor and suggested defence chiefs had been happy with what they got.

........

Senior military sources expressed incredulity at Mr Brown's evidence, pointing out that General Lord Walker, former Chief of the Defence Staff, had revealed how in 2004 Britain's senior commanders threatened to quit over cuts sought by the Treasury.

........

The former head of the Army, General Sir Richard Dannatt, who is now an adviser to the Conservatives, said: 'Gordon Brown bears responsibility for not fully funding the defence review of his government, and for claiming credit for increasing funding when actually there was a reduction in value.

'There is a certain amount of wishful thinking and rewriting history. But of course the elephant in the room was that underlying underfunding of defence that has been endemic for the last several years going right back to the defence review of 1997/98.'

......

Lord Guthrie, former chief of the defence staff, said: 'The Prime Minister was economical with the truth.

'Undoubtedly, we did lack many things when we went to Iraq and Afghanistan. To say we didn't need more helicopters or armoured protection was quite wrong. It is astonishing and offensive to suggest that if officers had a choice they would have chosen the Snatch Land Rover.'

So Defence Chiefs were so "happy with what they got" that they "threatened to quit over cuts". How could anyone honestly believe that Brown is telling the truth here???

More:

Iraq inquiry: Army big guns attack Gordon Brown’s defence budget claims

General Lord Walker, chief of the defence staff from 2003 to 2006, has said that defence chiefs threatened to resign over the cuts they had to make because of the 2004 settlement.

Mr Brown insisted that the chiefs had been happy with that budget. [!!]

"The spending review of 2004 was welcomed by the chiefs of our defence staff,” he said. “They were satisfied at the end of the review that they had the resources they needed.”

That claim has been challenged by senior military figures, with one former head of the Armed Forces calling it “disingenuous.”

“To say Gordon Brown has given the military all they asked for is simply not true,” Lord Guthrie, a former chief of the defence staff, writes in The Daily Telegraph.

“He cannot get away with saying I gave them everything they asked for, that is simply disingenuous.

A senior military figure involved in the 2004 spending talks said Mr Brown’s claims were “nonsense.”

The commander said: “To say it was ‘welcome’ is to use a great deal of poetic licence.

“To say the outcome of that process was ‘welcome’ is frankly hyperbole.”

....

The inquiry has also heard from Geoff Hoon, the former defence secretary, that he had to make “difficult cuts” as a result of the spending settlement he received from Mr Brown’s Treasury in 2004.

And Sir Kevin Tebbit, the former permanent secretary at the MoD, has said Mr Brown “guillotined” his budget and left him operating a “crisis budget”

So, do you believe a raft of people for whom honesty and integrity is a way of life, or, do you believe Gordon Brown whose record of speaking the truth is at best, highly questionable? Still he selected the inquiry members so it's not really surprising they allowed him to sail through it.

[drat01]

What a biased way of looking at it Jon. The general consensus from the reasonable media - not the rabid right of the Telegraph and Mail etc - is that Brown gave an assured and fair submital to the enquiry. It seems that you would not be happy unless he came up there and said that he had eaten Cameron's babies. Just because an enquiry does not give you the answers that you crave for does not make him a) a liar (Note: inital spell check put that as a lira :-) ) some sort of traitor. There have been little / no objections to the people appointed to run the enquiry, maybe that ominous uber right wing group of young Tories who support relaxing gun laws and disbanding the NHS - the Young Britons Foundation - a group that Cameron welcomes and encourages - should have been there to chose the people for your kangaroo court?

[Awol]

A kangaroo court? No, just the usual hand picked pet enquiry.

I notice that you try to attack the media outlets who are only quoting a number of senior Generals who were happy to make on the record comments about Brown's disembling to the enquiry. It's about the substance of what he said, not the style with which he said it.

They all say that Brown's assertions to the enquiry were untrue. I suspect they are infintely better placed to make that judgement than any journo who frankly knows little more on the issue than you or I. Don't you agree?

That's not being biased by the way, it is merely reflecting the facts, unless of course you think it's the Generals who are lying and Brown who is being honest?

[peterms]

General Lord Walker, chief of the defence staff from 2003 to 2006, has said that defence chiefs threatened to resign over the cuts they had to make because of the 2004 settlement.

Mr Brown insisted that the chiefs had been happy with that budget. [!!]

"The spending review of 2004 was welcomed by the chiefs of our defence staff,” he said. “They were satisfied at the end of the review that they had the resources they needed.”

That claim has been challenged by senior military figures, with one former head of the Armed Forces calling it “disingenuous.”

Here's a slightly different take on it:

In the final section on funding, Brown was dismissive of General Lord Walker of Aldringham, the former chief of the defence staff, who told the inquiry that Britain's military chiefs nearly resigned in a row over funding after the war. Brown read out a letter from Walker following the 2004 financial settlement.

"Although the settlement is tight I shall be able to make it clear that the chiefs have been the architects of the modernisation plans and they are not the result of inadequate funding," Walker wrote.

Seems like the Torygraph missed that bit. Still, I expect it's hard to maintain concentration all through such a long hearing. Or perhaps the journo had to nip to the toilet at that point. Could happen to anyone.

So, do you believe a raft of people for whom honesty and integrity is a way of life, or, do you believe Gordon Brown whose record of speaking the truth is at best, highly questionable? Still he selected the inquiry members so it's not really surprising they allowed him to sail through it.

So, do I believe the claims now being made by these people that they were so outraged that they threatened to resign but, er, didn't, or do I believe the quote from the letter Walker wrote at the time?

Should we accept the account they are now giving on the grounds that you think that honesty and integrity must be necessary parts of their makeup, or do we believe what Walker wrote at the time?

It's not really a hard call, is it?

[drat01]

I notice that you try to attack the media outlets who are only quoting a number of senior Generals who were happy to make on the record comments about Brown's disembling to the enquiry. It's about the substance of what he said, not the style with which he said it.

I think Peter answers that point very well Jon.

The Torygraph and the Mail have a uber right wing agenda and take any and every opportunity to put a totally biased and often untrue slant on the facts. To use their reporting as a basis for sole fact for your arguments is liable, as Peter points out above, to be picked apart. Your statement that these guys are now saying things to be untrue and then are proven not to be the case again dilutes your and the media outlets you often quote arguments, true?

Again you are in a Brown / Labour bad - ABL mood by the looks of it. I blame sunshine and boogy

[Jon]

Again you are in a Brown / Labour bad - ABL mood by the looks of it.

I think that is a perpetual mood for AWOL Ian. :winkold:

more his raisons d’être, in fact.

[Awol]

General Lord Walker, chief of the defence staff from 2003 to 2006, has said that defence chiefs threatened to resign over the cuts they had to make because of the 2004 settlement.

Here's a slightly different take on it:

In the final section on funding, Brown was dismissive of General Lord Walker of Aldringham, the former chief of the defence staff, who told the inquiry that Britain's military chiefs nearly resigned in a row over funding after the war. Brown read out a letter from Walker following the 2004 financial settlement.

"Although the settlement is tight I shall be able to make it clear that the chiefs have been the architects of the modernisation plans and they are not the result of inadequate funding," Walker wrote.

So Walker didn't say he had threatened to resign but that the Chiefs had - ie, the heads of each service and not Walker as CDS - a political appointment. It sounds to me like he's saying to the PM: "don't worry, although they may be pissed off now I'll be able to throw it back in their faces for wanting the big ticket items (Navy = Carriers, Army = FRES, RAF = Typhoon) they need to perform their roles, and cuts will be dressed up as, er, modernisation.

The post of CDS is to essentially manage the Armed Forces for the politicians, not to look after the interests of servicemen and their individual arms. For example Peter, my own unit was 'modernised' out of exisitence as part of the army restructuring that cut four infantry battalions. Political use of language by a CDS doesn't exactly sink the broader premise that they were underfunded for the roles they were required to undertake.

So, do you believe a raft of people for whom honesty and integrity is a way of life, or, do you believe Gordon Brown whose record of speaking the truth is at best, highly questionable? Still he selected the inquiry members so it's not really surprising they allowed him to sail through it.

So, do I believe the claims now being made by these people that they were so outraged that they threatened to resign but, er, didn't, or do I believe the quote from the letter Walker wrote at the time?

Should we accept the account they are now giving on the grounds that you think that honesty and integrity must be necessary parts of their makeup, or do we believe what Walker wrote at the time?

As suggested I think you have interpreted the letter incorrectly and that it was deliberately used as evidence out of context by Brown to give a false impression to the enquiry. On that basis..

It's not really a hard call, is it?

No, it's not.

Again you are in a Brown / Labour bad - ABL mood by the looks of it. I blame sunshine and boogy

How surprising that you attack me to try and divert the topic away from the issue ("Arrrrre you Mandy in disguise!") poor form but sadly predictable.

Jon,

up your bum :winkold:

[drat01]

How surprising that you attack me to try and divert the topic away from the issue ("Arrrrre you Mandy in disguise!") poor form but sadly predictable.

You do have a grumpy mood on you though again - and no it's not an attack on "you" - there is plenty to attack from the shite biased reporting of the articles you quote, the worrying ultra right of the Young Tory party who likewise are virtually echoing your words and those of the Mail etc, - if you chose to quote them and we answer back it's not deflection at all (a frankly silly accusation).

You missed the reference to blame and sunshine ............... up your bum yourself (mine still aint right following that bug I picked up in Nigeria

:-) )

p.s. you may have a visitor in a couple of months sounds like I have to be in the area so I will be looking for you to buy those bloody beers :-)