The Lib Dems give Labour a much deserved kicking

[Plekhanov]

Two fantastic results for the Lib Dems obliterating one massive Labour majority and overturning another, I was in Leicester all week campaigning I’m bone weary, sunburnt, my feet are blistered and after the victory party hungover but it’s worth it. We’re taking the fight to labour in their heartlands and stuffing the Tories into 3rd place, roll on the general election.

Lib Dems stun Blair at polls

A LIBERAL Democrat by-election surge stunned Tony Blair as they seized one safe Labour seat and came within a whisker of winning a second.

Leader Charles Kennedy hailed the victory in Leicester South as a turning point in British politics.

And he was delighted that his party got within 460 votes of seizing Birmingham Hodgehill. The Tories were beaten into third place in both constituencies in the English Midlands.

Parmjit Singh Gill became the first Lib Dem MP from an ethnic minority as he overturned a 13,243 Labour majority in Leicester South on a 21 per cent swing.

Nicola Davies came within 460 votes of overturning Labour’s 11,618 majority in Birmingham Hodgehill on a swing of almost 27 per cent, but Labour’s Liam Byrne hung on.

Both seats had low turnouts - 41.46 per cent in Leicester and 37.89 per cent in Birmingham Hodgehill.

Both Labour and the Liberal Democrats agreed the results were a disaster for the Tories, who trailed in a poor third.

Mr Kennedy went straight to Leicester where the by-election was caused by the death of sitting MP Jim Marshall.

The winning candidate Mr Gill said the voters have spoken for Britain and that "the message is that the Prime Minister has abused and lost their trust" over Iraq and other issues.

Mr Kennedy said the two results were "devastating" for the Tories and showed that talk of a rejuvenation under new leader Michael Howard was "rubbish."

He said: "As Labour becomes unpopular, people are not turning to the Conservatives as an alternative, they are turning to the Liberal Democrats."

Health Secretary John Reid admitted: "This presents the Government with a challenge and I think it presents Michael Howard and his party with a crisis because they are going backwards.

"I have not denied there is an element of protest in the results but it is not entirely about Iraq." Conservative co-chairman Liam Fox said there was a clear message from last night’s votes and the European and local elections last month: "Voters feel let down by Labour and they are looking for a party that will beat Labour."

He said the Tories never had high hopes of winning either seat.

[Sharp-kun]

Why oh why must it be the Lib Dems...

Can't we have the Tories instead? I trust them with the country more.

[A Big Flying Fish]

hmm, can't say I'm terribly surprised. Although the Lib Dems still won't get into anywhere near a position to challenge the Tories for second place in the next general election. And if Kennedy makes on more attempt at trying to turn an election into a vote over Iraq I swear I'll go nuts. He did it for the local elections, the European elections and has tried to in more than a few by-elections. Its beginning (well it always was) to get annoying. I sense a one issue campaign coming on.
Problem is, everyone will keep voting for the same parties, and thus we'll continue on as is. Role on the next borefest, I mean election, and I'll keep hoping for a UK libertarian party.

[Tribun]

So the Wigs gain land back?

Just a question:
When had the Libs lost thier big political power in the UK, and what happend with them from then to now?

[Tatterdemalion]

Just a question:
When had the Libs lost thier big political power in the UK, and what happend with them from then to now?

Well the Liberal party (now Liberal democrats) hasn't had a government since the first world war, although they really ceased to be major players just after WW2, at which point the Conservative party pretty much usurped their portion of the electorate, while Labour (who were at this point pretty much the socialist party) gained popularity among the working class. Basically, politics got more polarised after the war (again, probably due to socialism/communism, although I'll admit I'm just making an educated guess on that) and the Liberals were left in the dust.

Plek'll probably disagree with me on this, but personally I think the Lib-Dems recent resurgance is just a fluke. People are fed up with with the Blair government and the Lib Dems are the ideal protest vote. They're fairly moderate, if populist, and they actually have enough power that it's not throwing your vote away to select them. Once Blair is deposed (regardless of how hopeless that seems, next term will likely be his last, I mean it's fairly obvious he's trying to break Thatcher's record) or the Tories finally get their act together (which I reckon isn't as far off as some people think, it's already visibly happening under Howard, all they have to do now is finally shake off the legacy of Thatcherism and put someone fairly moderate as leader and they'll be electable again) Lib Dem votes'll probably slump.

[TheDarkling]

We’re taking the fight to labour in their heartlands and stuffing the Tories into 3rd place, roll on the general election.

The Anti-War Quasi race baiting won't work come the general election and neither will the traditional protest vote.

The Lib Dems are going nowhere fast (thankfully) and these results make it rather clear that the Tories aren't regarded as government material, Blair may be hated by people from across the realm (unjustifiably so IMO) but compared to the Tories he is still seen as the better choice.

[Plekhanov]

Why oh why must it be the Lib Dems...

Can't we have the Tories instead? I trust them with the country more.

Why the dislike of the Lib Dems? Which of our policies cause you to distrust us so much? And what on earth about the Tories inspires any level of trust in you?

hmm, can't say I'm terribly surprised. Although the Lib Dems still won't get into anywhere near a position to challenge the Tories for second place in the next general election.

I know that Thursday was just a by-election and that they are very different animals to general elections but the fact is that no matter how pissed off people are with Labour they aren’t turning to the Tories who currently seem utterly directionless

And if Kennedy makes on more attempt at trying to turn an election into a vote over Iraq I swear I'll go nuts. He did it for the local elections, the European elections and has tried to in more than a few by-elections. Its beginning (well it always was) to get annoying. I sense a one issue campaign coming on.

Iraq is increasingly less of a hot issue that it has been, though all it takes is a car bomb to kill a few of our troops or photos of our troops misbehaving and it will become a burning issue once again.

Many people are bored of the war by now but when I was out canvassing it’s the one issue that people mentioned far more than any other (and no I didn’t bring it up that’s not how we’re trained to canvas).

Problem is, everyone will keep voting for the same parties, and thus we'll continue on as is. Role on the next borefest, I mean election, and I'll keep hoping for a UK libertarian party.

You can always found it yourself you know till you do whilst we’re by no means libertarian on economics but in terms of social policy we are the only significant voice for personal liberty in British politics.

So the Wigs gain land back?

Just a question:
When had the Libs lost thier big political power in the UK, and what happend with them from then to now?

The Liberal party was troubled by internal conflicts between it’s older traditional upper class, its radical middle class and working class supporters in the latter half of the 19th Century. These problems came to a head over Irish Home Rule in 1886 which led to a split in the party with many of the upper class members joining the conservatives and the party only holding office for 3 years over the next 20 years.

The expansion of the franchise with the electoral reforms of 1867 and 84 gave the working class increased significance and meant that the liberals working class base was increasingly unwilling to take a subservient role in the party to it’s upper and middle class leaders. The founding of the Labour party in 1900 threatened draw away much of the previously largely liberal WC vote. The LibLab pact of 1903 (with the Liberals as dominant partner) temporarily forestalled this problem.

The Liberals finally returned to power in 1906 with it’s ‘New Liberalism” program of social and welfare reforms which it introduced between 1906 and 1914 when of course WWI came along. Problems caused by the war led to a split in the party in 1916 which left them very poorly positioned to face the challenges of post war politics.

The 1918 electoral reform act finally brought in full male (and partial female) suffrage in the 1922 and 23 elections the bulk of the WC vote abandoned the divided Liberals and voted Labour and the Liberals never really recovered from this point.

In the 20s and 30s there were generally around 50 Liberal mps who served in a series of coalition governments disputes within which led to a series of splits further weakening the party. The party reached it’s lowest point in the post war period the 1951 election bringing just 6 mps with the party just holding on in seats mainly in rural Scotland and Wales and the parties popular support in low single figures.

Under the leadership of Jo Grimond and Jeremy Thorpe we recovered in the 60s and 70s when the party once again became attractive to suburban voters and we began to attract around 20% of the vote however the number of mps remained disproportionally low due to Britain’s first past the post voting system.

In the early 80s a small group of moderates defected from Labour party, which was at the time crazily left wing, and formed the Social Democratic Party. The Liberals fought the 83 and 87 elections in Alliance with the SDP and it seemed for a while that the Alliance might become the major party of the left we polled over 20% each time but FPTP meant that we never made a breakthrough in seats. The SDP and Liberals merged in 88 becoming the Liberal Democrats.

Since then we’ve continued to poll well and win by-elections but the electoral system make it very difficult for us to make significant gains in terms of seats in general elections. Also a lot of the moderate Labour membership that came across with the SDP has since returned to Labour as it reformed itself and in many ways we are once again a Liberal and not a Liberal/Social Democrat party.

Plek'll probably disagree with me on this, but personally I think the Lib-Dems recent resurgance is just a fluke. People are fed up with with the Blair government and the Lib Dems are the ideal protest vote. They're fairly moderate, if populist, and they actually have enough power that it's not throwing your vote away to select them. Once Blair is deposed (regardless of how hopeless that seems, next term will likely be his last, I mean it's fairly obvious he's trying to break Thatcher's record) or the Tories finally get their act together (which I reckon isn't as far off as some people think, it's already visibly happening under Howard, all they have to do now is finally shake off the legacy of Thatcherism and put someone fairly moderate as leader and they'll be electable again) Lib Dem votes'll probably slump.

If by fluke you mean that we were lucky you’re damn right I disagree with you, luck had nothing to do with it. Us Liberals are damn good at by-elections we had a fantastic campaign strategy we were superbly organised and worked incredibly hard. If on the other hand you mean that success in by-elections doesn’t automatically lead to success in general elections I’d agree with you.

I find it astonishing that you can call us populist when we are the one party that for example continually argues for the EU and defends the rights of asylum when these are the exact things a populist party wouldn’t do. The Liberal Democrats are a party of principle which shock horror emphasises the aspects of it’s policies that it thinks certain groups of voters will find attractive when talking to them that isn’t ‘populist’ it’s just politics.

If you want to see a populist in action have a look at bandwagon jumper extraordinaire Howard a man who in the last few months has supported the blockading of cities by fuel tax protestors, in response to tabloid support for Father’s 4 Justice he called for parents to have equal access to and influence over children regardless of how impractical this will be and who this morning tried to simultaneously support and criticise the invasion of Iraq.

If the Tories are getting their act together then why did we stuff them into 3rd place on Thursday when after being shocked into action by our trouncing them in Brent East they threw everything at Thursday’s election which was for seats they held in the 80s? As long as the Tories continue to claim that they can simultaneously cut taxes and raise spending, tie themselves in knots over Europe and as long as their leader continues to jump on every passing bang wagon the electorate will not place their trust in them.

The Anti-War Quasi race baiting won't work come the general election and neither will the traditional protest vote.

The Lib Dems are going nowhere fast (thankfully) and these results make it rather clear that the Tories aren't regarded as government material, Blair may be hated by people from across the realm (unjustifiably so IMO) but compared to the Tories he is still seen as the better choice.

The Lib Dems aren’t anti-war we’re anti unnecessary wars and the current slump in Labours electoral fortunes is more “anti-lying to take us into unnecessary wars” than “anti-war”. Following the lies that took us into the war many people simply don’t trust Blair anymore and it is the lies that seem to be lingering in people’s minds.

What’s all this “race baiting” shit you keep on accusing us of? You must have been watching a different election to the one I took part in because we certainly didn’t do any in Leicester South, where I might add despite being one of the most cosmopolitan wards in Britain the population is only 30% minorities.

The Lib Dem party strategists aren’t stupid and playing the race card in a nation that’s 92% white would be very stupid. We are a national party that appeals to all sections of the community, which is currently capitalising on being the only party to call Iraq right. Our doing so might piss you off but believe it or not there’s nothing immoral about a party that took a courageous stand (and one which the media battered us for at the time) from pointing out to the electorate just how right we were, we’d be fools not to do so.

[TheDarkling]

The Lib Dems aren’t anti-war we’re anti unnecessary wars and the current slump in Labours electoral fortunes is more “anti-lying to take us into unnecessary wars” than “anti-war”. Following the lies that took us into the war many people simply don’t trust Blair anymore and it is the lies that seem to be lingering in people’s minds.

I meant Anti War as specifically against the Iraq war, that is the common use of the term in the current political landscape.

What’s all this “race baiting” shit you keep on accusing us of? You must have been watching a different election to the one I took part in because we certainly didn’t do any in Leicester South, where I might add despite being one of the most cosmopolitan wards in Britain the population is only 30% minorities.

The Lib Dems have been specifically targeting Muslims for their Anti-War rhetoric, the clear reason is than Muslims should care more about the war than the average Briton, which at best sets them apart from "regular" Britons and at worst propagates the subtle idea that the war was against Islam and that the British state is against Islam (with the obvious implications that carries).

The Lib Dems desperate desire to profit electorially from the Iraq war is down right opportunistic on a scale approaching that of the Tories and it is dangerously racial divisive.

The Lib Dem party strategists aren’t stupid and playing the race card in a nation that’s 92% white would be very stupid.

No but they did play it in the areas where it would work, I have said that it won't work for them in a general election (its right there in my quote)but they will use it to win a few seats and will thus further debase themselves and create further strife.

We are a national party that appeals to all sections of the community, which is currently capitalising on being the only party to call Iraq right.

Except you aren't doing it everywhere, during the European and local elections you campaigned one way in minority areas and another in non-minority areas and according to Newsnight the same thing was happening in the by-elections.

I would also question your calling Iraq "right" but that is a much bigger argument.

Our doing so might piss you off but believe it or not there’s nothing immoral about a party that took a courageous stand (and one which the media battered us for at the time) from pointing out to the electorate just how right we were, we’d be fools not to do so.

I don't particularly mind the pathetic single issue-ness of the election campaign (except that it destroyed the respect I used to have for the Lib Dems for sticking to their principles and not getting involved in political gamesmanship) but the racial divisiveness that the Lib Dems are purveying is out of line.

[Plekhanov]

The Lib Dems aren’t anti-war we’re anti unnecessary wars and the current slump in Labours electoral fortunes is more “anti-lying to take us into unnecessary wars” than “anti-war”. Following the lies that took us into the war many people simply don’t trust Blair anymore and it is the lies that seem to be lingering in people’s minds.

I meant Anti War as specifically against the Iraq war, that is the common use of the term in the current political landscape.

It is a very significant difference though RESPECT is an anti-war party we are not, we support the war in Afghanistan and have in fact consistently called for more attention and troops to be given that particular benighted country instead of rushing off and invading Iraq whilst our job in Afghanistan was only half done.

What’s all this “race baiting” shit you keep on accusing us of? You must have been watching a different election to the one I took part in because we certainly didn’t do any in Leicester South, where I might add despite being one of the most cosmopolitan wards in Britain the population is only 30% minorities.

The Lib Dems have been specifically targeting Muslims for their Anti-War rhetoric, the clear reason is than Muslims should care more about the war than the average Briton, which at best sets them apart from "regular" Britons and at worst propagates the subtle idea that the war was against Islam and that the British state is against Islam (with the obvious implications that carries).

We didn’t arbitrarily decide that muslims “should care more about the war than the average Briton” and in no way have we exacerbated their concern, the fact is that they DO CARE MORE, polls have consistently shown that British Muslims are far more concerned about attacks on other Muslims than the rest of the population. British Muslims were concerned about Kashmir and Palestine well before the Iraq war and they’ll continue to be concerned well after mainstream politics has moved on.

The Lib Dems desperate desire to profit electorially from the Iraq war is down right opportunistic on a scale approaching that of the Tories

We opposed the war on Iraq right down the line even when we were getting the shit kicked out of us in the media for doing so. Now that we have been proved right and that the government has been shown to be either lying or incompetent we are of course trying to “profit electorally” from our being the only party in the right about one of the single biggest issues in British politics for a decade. What the hell else do you expect us to do?

and it is dangerously racial divisive.

Bullshit, stopping and searching young Arabs and Asians at a rate previously reserved for Afro-Caribbean’s is racially divisive, brownnosing a Crusading fundamentalist, Sharon worshipping fuck like Bush is racially divisive, pandering to the gutter press on asylum is racially divisive, Invading Iraq was racially divisive.

A moderate national Party such as mine talking with our constituents about issues that concern them is not divisive but inclusionary, would you prefer that instead of trying to address the concerns of angry muslims and drawing them into the mainstream we left them to Islamic and Socialist radicals?

The Lib Dem party strategists aren’t stupid and playing the race card in a nation that’s 92% white would be very stupid.

No but they did play it in the areas where it would work, I have said that it won't work for them in a general election (its right there in my quote)but they will use it to win a few seats and will thus further debase themselves and create further strife.

Will you please provide some evidence that we have ever played the “race card” anywhere, we talk about Iraq everywhere it’s not a racial issue it’s the single biggest issue in British politics today.

We are a national party that appeals to all sections of the community, which is currently capitalising on being the only party to call Iraq right.

Except you aren't doing it everywhere, during the European and local elections you campaigned one way in minority areas and another in non-minority areas and according to Newsnight the same thing was happening in the by-elections.

Of course we emphasise particular aspects of our policies in certain areas and to certain populations we are a sophisticated political organisation just as Labour and the Tories are. In poor areas we push our local income tax proposal to the fore as it would mean those voters pay less, in Tory areas of Leicester we emphasised that us and Labour were neck and neck so a vote for the conservatives was a vote for Blair and of course in Muslim areas we put more emphasis upon Iraq than elsewhere. Targeting particular groups of voters with particular messages is a well-established and universal tactic of political campaigning in Britain if you find it so shocking you really ought to get out more.

Your outrage at our “race baiting” is rendered even more ridiculous by the fact that the fact that Blair is an incompetent, lying scumbag was a universal campaign theme of our local, European and by-election campaigns and was emphatically not confined to areas with high concentrations of muslims.

Outrage at the lies that led us into Iraq is widespread in Britain amongst all sections of the population and not just amongst muslims. If you’d actually spent any time canvassing in Leicester last week you’d realise that Iraq is the single biggest issue in British politics today and an issue at the forefront of the minds of all kinds of people from pensioners who take 5 minutes to open the door, to young single mothers, to middle aged professionals, to recent immigrant bus drivers from Trinidad and yes of course of for example the staff in a shop which sold Islamic fashion wear.

Do you really not understand that all kinds of people in Britain are pissed off about Iraq, some of them are muslims most of them are not. We were right about Iraq, lots of people care about it, so we talk about it, just what is so immoral about that?

I would also question your calling Iraq "right" but that is a much bigger argument.

Really please do expand what didn’t we get right, we questioned we accuracy of the intelligence on wmd; WE WERE RIGHT, we questioned the need to rush to war; WE WERE RIGHT, we questioned the wisdom of going to war without the support of the UN; WE WERE RIGHT. In what way did we not call Iraq right?

Our doing so might piss you off but believe it or not there’s nothing immoral about a party that took a courageous stand (and one which the media battered us for at the time) from pointing out to the electorate just how right we were, we’d be fools not to do so.

I don't particularly mind the pathetic single issue-ness of the election campaign

How can we simultaneously mount a national “single issue” campaign whilst “specifically targeting Muslims” in a “racially divisive” manner? How can you accuse us of simultaneously accuse of committing both heinous crimes?

(except that it destroyed the respect I used to have for the Lib Dems for sticking to their principles and not getting involved in political gamesmanship) but the racial divisiveness that the Lib Dems are purveying is out of line.

Our opposing the war was us sticking to our principles you moron, did you miss all the shit we caught for doing so? Our continuing demands that the PM take responsibility for or at the very least acknowledge and apologise for his lies/colossal misjudgements (which need I point out caused the needless deaths of many British service men and women not to mention the uncounted Iraqi dead) are also entirely inkeeping with principled politics it’s Blair’s refusal to take responsibility that’s unprincipled.

If you really doubt our principles I suggest you watch the next debate upon asylum and contrast the Liberals’ brave advocacy of the principles of natural justice and human rights in the face of Blunkett’s and Labours’ crude xenophobic populism (and of course in a climate a media hysteria about asylum), if you really want to see an example of racial divisiveness I suggest you listen to Blunkett’s next speech on the issue.

[TheDarkling]

We didn’t arbitrarily decide that muslims “should care more about the war than the average Briton” and in no way have we exacerbated their concern, the fact is that they DO CARE MORE, polls have consistently shown that British Muslims are far more concerned about attacks on other Muslims than the rest of the population. British Muslims were concerned about Kashmir and Palestine well before the Iraq war and they’ll continue to be concerned well after mainstream politics has moved on.

Which in no way answers my point, the Lib Dems specifically targeted Muslims and the implication is rather clear.

We opposed the war on Iraq right down the line even when we were getting the shit kicked out of us in the media for doing so. Now that we have been proved right and that the government has been shown to be either lying or incompetent we are of course trying to “profit electorally” from our being the only party in the right about one of the single biggest issues in British politics for a decade. What the hell else do you expect us to do?

I expected (perhaps naively) for the Lib Dems to stick to their high standards however since Mr Ashdown departed there has been a noticeable slump in he Lib Dems character (and I am not the only one to notice, my Granddad who has been a Liberal for about 40 years and was chief propagandist for his local council party years ago has told me that he has switched his support to Labour out of a dislike of the direction of the Lib Dems under Kennedy).
And the government has no been proved to have been lying or incompetent, the intelligence service has been proved to have been as wrong as must other intelligence services.

Bullshit, stopping and searching young Arabs and Asians at a rate previously reserved for Afro-Caribbean’s is racially divisive, brownnosing a Crusading fundamentalist, Sharon worshipping fuck like Bush is racially divisive, pandering to the gutter press on asylum is racially divisive, Invading Iraq was racially divisive.

Invading Iraq was only racial divisive because some Muslims had it in their heads that this was an attack on them, the Lib Dems have done all they could t cement this erroneous impression so that they can bank on the Muslim vote and as I have already said it is disgusting.

A moderate national Party such as mine talking with our constituents about issues that concern them is not divisive but inclusionary, would you prefer that instead of trying to address the concerns of angry muslims and drawing them into the mainstream we left them to Islamic and Socialist radicals?

I would prefer that you didn't make the clear implication that you have been making over the war, principled stand I can agree with but with the specific targeting of Muslims for votes in this manner is so low I have trouble imagining the Tories doing it.

Will you please provide some evidence that we have ever played the “race card” anywhere, we talk about Iraq everywhere it’s not a racial issue it’s the single biggest issue in British politics today.

Actually it isn't, the polls make it rather clear that the NHS is the biggest issue about today, it may assuage your conscious to make it out to be the word on every bodies lips but that isn't the case.
Even the Muslim Public Affairs Committee says that more of its members are concerned about Palestine than Iraq (and Lib Dem posters showing Blair shaking hands with Bush no doubt go down a treat in that respect)

Honestly, what message do you think handing out leaflets with the Prisoner Abuse photos sends to the Muslim community? Because that is he message the Liberal Democrats are sending.

Of course we emphasise particular aspects of our policies in certain areas and to certain populations we are a sophisticated political organisation just as Labour and the Tories are. In poor areas we push our local income tax proposal to the fore as it would mean those voters pay less, in Tory areas of Leicester we emphasised that us and Labour were neck and neck so a vote for the conservatives was a vote for Blair and of course in Muslim areas we put more emphasis upon Iraq than elsewhere. Targeting particular groups of voters with particular messages is a well-established and universal tactic of political campaigning in Britain if you find it so shocking you really ought to get out more.

I don't particularly find it shocking I find cheap, tawdry and divisive and it exactly what I said the Liberal democrats were doing.
You aren't running about telling everybody about your principled stand, you are running up to Muslims and telling them you re the party that isn't against them which you subtly imply the government is (as I have already mentioned, handing out prison abuse photos on leaflets during the European and Local elections sends only one message).

Your outrage at our “race baiting” is rendered even more ridiculous by the fact that the fact that Blair is an incompetent, lying scumbag was a universal campaign theme of our local, European and by-election campaigns and was emphatically not confined to areas with high concentrations of muslims.

Attacks on Blair's character being a Lib Dem plank doesn't surprise me (when a candidate wins a seat and doesn't mention his constituency in his acceptance speech it is obvious something is going on) but you admit yourself to targeting Muslims and the impression is clear.
Both BBC and Sky News commented on it during June and July's elections.

Outrage at the lies that led us into Iraq is widespread in Britain amongst all sections of the population and not just amongst muslims. If you’d actually spent any time canvassing in Leicester last week you’d realise that Iraq is the single biggest issue in British politics today and an issue at the forefront of the minds of all kinds of people from pensioners who take 5 minutes to open the door, to young single mothers, to middle aged professionals, to recent immigrant bus drivers from Trinidad and yes of course of for example the staff in a shop which sold Islamic fashion wear.

Four enquiries have said there were no lies, your allegation stands on very flimsy ground and again, both the polls and the BBC reporters working around the area found that Iraq wasn't a big issue with everybody and they also made it clear that the Lib Dems were campaigning one way in Muslim part of the town and another way in the more affluent area.

Do you really not understand that all kinds of people in Britain are pissed off about Iraq, some of them are muslims most of them are not. We were right about Iraq, lots of people care about it, so we talk about it, just what is so immoral about that?

Again, I don't mind a principled stand but targeting the Muslim community so blatantly with material designed to create racial division (I cannot see those leaflets during the European and Local elections I mentioned in a different light) and the subtle undertone of your campaign leaves one with the inescapable conclusion that the Lib Dems are enforcing a view that the British government just attacked Iraq because it was full of Muslims.
Even your own leader won't say that in the commons, he believes Blair was acting for the good of the country as he said yesterday, the reason he won't say it in the commons is because he knows just how bad a thing it is.

Really please do expand what didn’t we get right, we questioned we accuracy of the intelligence on wmd; WE WERE RIGHT, we questioned the need to rush to war; WE WERE RIGHT, we questioned the wisdom of going to war without the support of the UN; WE WERE RIGHT. In what way did we not call Iraq right?

The intelligence available pointed towards Saddam having WMD (as did everybody else’s which is why they signed 1441 to that effect), the reason we rushed to war (as the prime minister explained yesterday) is because France made it clear they would not have a resolution that put pressure on Saddam to comply or else (in other words, Saddam would return to dancing about and getting away with it as he did for over a decade). Everybody realised at the time that Saddam was only cooperating whilst those troops were on his border and once they left he would be back to his old tricks, Blair went to get a resolution which would allow the use of forces if Blix reported non compliance and France turned it down flat.
This left Blair with two options, allow Saddam to get away with it (and probably get the sanctions lifted) or go in and take Saddam out, he chose the latter.

PI personally agree with many backbenches (on both sides) that we should have just cracked his skull because it was there to crack however

The Prime ministers case for war wasn't a lie (it makes no sense for him to lie when it is obvious he will be found out), we didn't go to war based on the intelligence but based upon the UN resolution (the intelligence was to convince people that the resolution was needed and the other nations intelligence services also agreed it was necessary and they signed the resolution which stated Saddam was a WMD danger) and in the end we now have a shot at turning Iraq into something approaching a free nation.

You can criticise Blair for putting his best argument forward (which means like anybody else he will gloss over the downsides) but in the end four reports have held that he did not lie and the failing was a failing in (not just ours but most nations) intelligence gathering.

How can we simultaneously mount a national “single issue” campaign whilst “specifically targeting Muslims” in a “racially divisive” manner? How can you accuse us of simultaneously accuse of committing both heinous crimes?

The big noise nationally has always been about the war but locally you have been picking the exact angel to take based upon the amount of Muslims in an area.

Our opposing the war was us sticking to our principles you moron, did you miss all the shit we caught for doing so? Our continuing demands that the PM take responsibility for or at the very least acknowledge and apologise for his lies/colossal misjudgements (which need I point out caused the needless deaths of many British service men and women not to mention the uncounted Iraqi dead) are also entirely inkeeping with principled politics it’s Blair’s refusal to take responsibility that’s unprincipled.

Blair has taken responsibility, he has said so several times however he has not been found to have been lying by four separate reports now so he has nothing to apologise for on that front. He has taken action (as he outlined yesterday) to make sure the things Lord Butler flagged will be dealt with.

If you really doubt our principles I suggest you watch the next debate upon asylum and contrast the Liberals’ brave advocacy of the principles of natural justice and human rights in the face of Blunkett’s and Labours’ crude xenophobic populism (and of course in a climate a media hysteria about asylum), if you really want to see an example of racial divisiveness I suggest you listen to Blunkett’s next speech on the issue.

I am certainly not of the close the border mindset (The Australian approach as one might call it) but many asylum seekers coming here are here illegally, they often come through other safe countries to get here. Now while I can understand their desire to get to Britain they should be made to obey the law and stop at their first safe country they come too.

There is a genuine problem with asylum seekers (not least with the backlog of processing we have) and something needs to be done for that, Blunkett’s measures have essentially been on the ball and will hopefully reduce false claims and thus decrease the processing time of genuine asylum seekers.

[Plekhanov]

Which in no way answers my point, the Lib Dems specifically targeted Muslims and the implication is rather clear.

What implication? The average British Muslim cares more about Iraq than the average British non-Muslim so we talk with them about the issue, what exactly is it about this that you find so sinister?

I’ll let you in on a little secret about electioneering shall I Darkling it generally helps if you talk with people about the issues which concern them most and when doing so its not uncommon to emphasise the positive aspects of your parties policies and history in relation to those issues. You do this automatically when canvassing and effective parties do it in a sophisticated and highly organised way when leafleting, letter writing and advertising.

We specifically targeted muslims so what? We specifically targeted homosexuals, we specifically target pensioners, students, the unemployed, middle class professionals don’t you get it WE SPECIFFICALLY TARGET PRETTY MUCH EVERYBODY as do Labour and the Conservatives that’s how politics works today get used to it.

We opposed the war on Iraq right down the line even when we were getting the shit kicked out of us in the media for doing so. Now that we have been proved right and that the government has been shown to be either lying or incompetent we are of course trying to “profit electorally” from our being the only party in the right about one of the single biggest issues in British politics for a decade. What the hell else do you expect us to do?

I expected (perhaps naively) for the Lib Dems to stick to their high standards however since Mr Ashdown departed there has been a noticeable slump in he Lib Dems character

This election was held in the aftermath of Blair’s unnecessary war of choice which he conned the nation into, if you seriously expect the election to be fought without the opposition parties mentioning the war then you are being staggeringly naive.

Just out of interest how do you think the great Mr Ashdown would have fought the election? Do you really think he wouldn’t have mentioned Iraq?

(and I am not the only one to notice, my Granddad who has been a Liberal for about 40 years and was chief propagandist for his local council party years ago has told me that he has switched his support to Labour out of a dislike of the direction of the Lib Dems under Kennedy).

Well if you want to swap anecdotes my father (who was an officer in the Royal Engineers) voted Conservative till 1997 when he switched to Labour, he believed Blair’s claims about WMD and supported the war. He is now so disgusted with the lies Blair used to drag us into the war that he thinks Blair should resign and will not be voting Labour again as long as he is leader.

And the government has no been proved to have been lying or incompetent, the intelligence service has been proved to have been as wrong as must other intelligence services.

Oh please do you really believe that?

Invading Iraq was only racial divisive because some Muslims had it in their heads that this was an attack on them, the Lib Dems have done all they could t cement this erroneous impression so that they can bank on the Muslim vote

Bullshit, will you please provide some evidence for this ridiculous assertion.

and as I have already said it is disgusting.

I know you keep on saying that it is disgusting, I know you think it is how about you actually proof that it is rather than just repeatedly asserting that it is.

A moderate national Party such as mine talking with our constituents about issues that concern them is not divisive but inclusionary, would you prefer that instead of trying to address the concerns of angry muslims and drawing them into the mainstream we left them to Islamic and Socialist radicals?

I would prefer that you didn't make the clear implication that you have been making over the war, principled stand I can agree with but with the specific targeting of Muslims for votes in this manner is so low I have trouble imagining the Tories doing it.

What implication, will you please actually provide some evidence? As I’m tiring of saying elections are all about targeting groups of voters we do it, the Tories do it even Labour do it and yes that includes targeting Muslims.

Will you please provide some evidence that we have ever played the “race card” anywhere, we talk about Iraq everywhere it’s not a racial issue it’s the single biggest issue in British politics today.

Actually it isn't, the polls make it rather clear that the NHS is the biggest issue about today, it may assuage your conscious to make it out to be the word on every bodies lips but that isn't the case.
Even the Muslim Public Affairs Committee says that more of its members are concerned about Palestine than Iraq (and Lib Dem posters showing Blair shaking hands with Bush no doubt go down a treat in that respect)

So you have absolutely no evidence that we have ever played the race card then.

Your poll says it’s the NHS my poll says that its Iraq, whichever way you slice it Iraq is a massive issue and one that we worked everywhere not just in Muslim areas my point still stands.

Unlike the NHS Iraq is also an issue with “clear blue water” between the parties on it and it is the issue that in my limited but still fairly extensive experience of canvassing came up far more than any other with asylum as a distant 2nd.

Honestly, what message do you think handing out leaflets with the Prisoner Abuse photos sends to the Muslim community? Because that is he message the Liberal Democrats are sending.

Evidence that we did this please, and that if we did we only did so in Muslim areas.

I don't particularly find it shocking I find cheap, tawdry and divisive and it exactly what I said the Liberal democrats were doing.
You aren't running about telling everybody about your principled stand, you are running up to Muslims and telling them you re the party that isn't against them which you subtly imply the government is (as I have already mentioned, handing out prison abuse photos on leaflets during the European and Local elections sends only one message).

Bullshit we are telling everybody about our principled and CORRECT stand upon Iraq it has been a major national theme of our recent campaigns. Just out of interest what am I “subtly implying” to non-Muslim voters when I deliver them a leaflet with Bush and Blair on it?

Your outrage at our “race baiting” is rendered even more ridiculous by the fact that the fact that Blair is an incompetent, lying scumbag was a universal campaign theme of our local, European and by-election campaigns and was emphatically not confined to areas with high concentrations of muslims.

Attacks on Blair's character being a Lib Dem plank doesn't surprise me (when a candidate wins a seat and doesn't mention his constituency in his acceptance speech it is obvious something is going on) but you admit yourself to targeting Muslims and the impression is clear.
Both BBC and Sky News commented on it during June and July's elections.

Would that be the acceptance speech with the words “the people of Leicester South” in it’s first sentence? Yup no mention of his constituency there.

Four enquiries have said there were no lies, your allegation stands on very flimsy ground and again,

4 whitewashes set up by Blair and dominated by his stooges prove nothing my allegation that he a lying and/or incompetent scumbag is on extremely firm ground and will be until they actually find some WMD in Iraq.

both the polls and the BBC reporters working around the area found that Iraq wasn't a big issue with everybody

When did I ever say that it was a big issue with everybody? Never that’s when, just that it was the single biggest issue which it was, our incredible electoral success in Leicester and Birmingham last week is something of a clue in this respect.

and they also made it clear that the Lib Dems were campaigning one way in Muslim part of the town and another way in the more affluent area.

As did everybody else INCLUDING LABOUR how many times targeted campaigning is used by all major parties

Do you really not understand that all kinds of people in Britain are pissed off about Iraq, some of them are muslims most of them are not. We were right about Iraq, lots of people care about it, so we talk about it, just what is so immoral about that?

Again, I don't mind a principled stand but targeting the Muslim community so blatantly with material designed to create racial division (I cannot see those leaflets during the European and Local elections I mentioned in a different light)

Are you fucking insane? You are now actually arguing that the Liberal Democrats by far the most “right on”, multi cultural, progressive mainstream party in British politics, the only party to stand up for asylum seekers, the only party to fight the abuse of “stop and search” powers against minorities are actually deliberately setting out “to create racial division” you truly are delusional.

and the subtle undertone of your campaign leaves one with the inescapable conclusion that the Lib Dems are enforcing a view that the British government just attacked Iraq because it was full of Muslims.

Actually I think you’ll find that the not so subtle implication in our campaign is that we attacked Iraq because it was FULL OF OIL and because Blair’s best mate Bush wanted us to.

Even your own leader won't say that in the commons, he believes Blair was acting for the good of the country as he said yesterday, the reason he won't say it in the commons is because he knows just how bad a thing it is.

Of course Kennedy didn’t say that we attacked Iraq because Blair has some kind of irrational dislike of Muslims because THAT HAS NEVER BEEN OUR POSITION.

I would also question your calling Iraq "right" but that is a much bigger argument.”

Really please do expand what didn’t we get right, we questioned we accuracy of the intelligence on wmd; WE WERE RIGHT, we questioned the need to rush to war; WE WERE RIGHT, we questioned the wisdom of going to war without the support of the UN; WE WERE RIGHT. In what way did we not call Iraq right?

The intelligence available pointed towards Saddam having WMD (as did everybody else’s which is why they signed 1441 to that effect), the reason we rushed to war (as the prime minister explained yesterday) is because France made it clear they would not have a resolution that put pressure on Saddam to comply or else (in other words, Saddam would return to dancing about and getting away with it as he did for over a decade). Everybody realised at the time that Saddam was only cooperating whilst those troops were on his border and once they left he would be back to his old tricks, Blair went to get a resolution which would allow the use of forces if Blix reported non compliance and France turned it down flat.
This left Blair with two options, allow Saddam to get away with it (and probably get the sanctions lifted) or go in and take Saddam out, he chose the latter.

This half baked, one sided, potted history justifying Blair’s decision to go to war demonstrates that the Lib Dems called Iraq wrong how exactly?

PI personally agree with many backbenches (on both sides) that we should have just cracked his skull because it was there to crack however

Yeah because as we are currently learning toppling Saddam then occupying and rebuilding Iraq is a piece of piss and something that we should “just” do

Wheres next on your list then? Syria, Iran, Burma do tell I’d just dieing to know the which other sovereign nations we should “just” invade because we can.

The Prime ministers case for war wasn't a lie (it makes no sense for him to lie when it is obvious he will be found out), we didn't go to war based on the intelligence but based upon the UN resolution (the intelligence was to convince people that the resolution was needed and the other nations intelligence services also agreed it was necessary and they signed the resolution which stated Saddam was a WMD danger) and in the end we now have a shot at turning Iraq into something approaching a free nation.

I’m not an idiot you can’t bullshit me about the built up to the war so please stop trying, the justification for the war has been the subject of many threads in N&P if you actually believe that shit I refer you to them as your bullshit claims have been rebutted in them by others far more eloquent than I on numerous occasions.

You can criticise Blair for putting his best argument forward (which means like anybody else he will gloss over the downsides) but in the end four reports have held that he did not lie and the failing was a failing in (not just ours but most nations) intelligence gathering.

Don’t you get it this wasn’t just another bit of politics in this case Blair’s “glossing over the downsides” in order to present “his best argument” sent British soldiers TO THEIR DEATHS. Do you really not understand why I and many other Britons are outraged at the misrepresentations, omissions, exaggerations or in other words the lies used to rush us into this unnecessary war?

He can fudge the crime figures, hospital waiting lists, exam results what ever that’s just politics everybody expects that but the Blair’s dossiers and his statements to the commons to the Commons which were instrumental in persuading many MPs to vote for war weren’t just about politics. The omission of the crucial “caveats, qualifications and cautions.” which littered the intelligence documents judiciously edited together to justify Blair’s war on a matter as serious as this goes way beyond “putting his best argument forward” and is downright dishonest it is lying.

Blair can set up all the bullshit no remit, whitewash reports he likes it doesn’t change anything.

How can we simultaneously mount a national “single issue” campaign whilst “specifically targeting Muslims” in a “racially divisive” manner? How can you accuse us of simultaneously accuse of committing both heinous crimes?

The big noise nationally has always been about the war but locally you have been picking the exact angel to take based upon the amount of Muslims in an area.

So you are now reduced to arguing that we change the “exact angle” of our message upon Iraq when dealing in areas with a high Muslim population and that for some reason this “angle” is one that Blair attacked Iraq because it was “full of Muslims” yet of course you provide absolutely no evidence to back up this bizarre allegation, you argument is so weak it’s laughable.

Our opposing the war was us sticking to our principles you moron, did you miss all the shit we caught for doing so? Our continuing demands that the PM take responsibility for or at the very least acknowledge and apologise for his lies/colossal misjudgements (which need I point out caused the needless deaths of many British service men and women not to mention the uncounted Iraqi dead) are also entirely inkeeping with principled politics it’s Blair’s refusal to take responsibility that’s unprincipled.

Blair has taken responsibility, he has said so several times

Saying “I accept responsibility” is not the same as taking responsibility you muppet, his belief that saying something a enough times will change reality (a belief you seem to share) he’s wrong though as subtly changing the wording of intelligence reports didn’t make Saddam have WMD and repeatedly saying “I accept responsibility” doesn’t mean that he has.

Blair’s errors/lies led us into an entirely unnecessary war in which many of our troops and thousands of Iraqis died. Blair’s errors/lies have further alienated much of the Islamic world from the West, made the UK a prime target for terrorism and lowered our international standing to it’s worst point since Suez. Saying “I accept responsibility” whilst refusing to apologise just doesn’t cut it.

however he has not been found to have been lying by four separate reports

4 bullshit whitewash reports with deliberately restricted remits, headed by tractable establishment figures

now so he has nothing to apologise for on that front. He has taken action (as he outlined yesterday) to make sure the things Lord Butler flagged will be dealt with.

So he has nothing to apologise for? Tell that to the grieving families of the young British men and women he sent out to die to save the world from WMD which simply did not exist.

If you really doubt our principles I suggest you watch the next debate upon asylum and contrast the Liberals’ brave advocacy of the principles of natural justice and human rights in the face of Blunkett’s and Labours’ crude xenophobic populism (and of course in a climate a media hysteria about asylum), if you really want to see an example of racial divisiveness I suggest you listen to Blunkett’s next speech on the issue.

I am certainly not of the close the border mindset (The Australian approach as one might call it) but many asylum seekers coming here are here illegally, they often come through other safe countries to get here. Now while I can understand their desire to get to Britain they should be made to obey the law and stop at their first safe country they come too.

There is a genuine problem with asylum seekers (not least with the backlog of processing we have) and something needs to be done for that, Blunkett’s measures have essentially been on the ball and will hopefully reduce false claims and thus decrease the processing time of genuine asylum seekers.

Ok let me get this straight for the Lib Dem’s to address the concerns of our constituents some of whom happen to be Muslims about Blair’s leading us into an uncalled for war based upon false evidence is “creating racial division”. Whereas Labour’s pandering to the gutter presses hysterical, xenophobic, barely suppressed racist rantings upon asylum is addressing “a genuine problem” and is in no way racially divisive

How about you actually address my point that the allegedly “disgusting”, “opportunistic” and “racially divisive” Lib Dems have consistently taken a brave principled, reasoned stand upon asylum in the current hysterical political climate if we are no longer a party of principle how do you explain this?

[Dartzap]

If the Liberals want to get somewhere, they have to improve how their local ran councils work, if they were to try a campaign here, they would not get much more than the conservatives, but they would still have a marginal lead over them

[Plekhanov]

If the Liberals want to get somewhere, they have to improve how their local ran councils work, if they were to try a campaign here, they would not get much more than the conservatives, but they would still have a marginal lead over them

I’m afraid I must confess almost total ignorance to the way Lib Dems run councils down your way though I suppose out of general partisanship I’ll just claim that they are all doing a superb job in very trying circumstances and that all their problems are hangovers from the previous Labour/Tory administrations and/or caused by Central government

[Dartzap]

You would be correct on the tory bit, the had this coucnil for over 10 years, however, the Liberals, while in power have had thier Taxes Capped by Prescott, and have started a cycle that could destroy the one thing the local enconomy has, Tourism.

They wont be in power next year, here at least

i admit that they might be able to do something , if they were inn Downing street, but it will be many moons passing, before that tales place

just think though, at least your party had better HQ than the Conservativs, they are now above a StarBucks!!

[TheDarkling]

What implication? The average British Muslim cares more about Iraq than the average British non-Muslim so we talk with them about the issue, what exactly is it about this that you find so sinister?

I’ll let you in on a little secret about electioneering shall I Darkling it generally helps if you talk with people about the issues which concern them most and when doing so its not uncommon to emphasise the positive aspects of your parties policies and history in relation to those issues. You do this automatically when canvassing and effective parties do it in a sophisticated and highly organised way when leafleting, letter writing and advertising.

We specifically targeted muslims so what? We specifically targeted homosexuals, we specifically target pensioners, students, the unemployed, middle class professionals don’t you get it WE SPECIFFICALLY TARGET PRETTY MUCH EVERYBODY as do Labour and the Conservatives that’s how politics works today get used to it.

Yes but you target pensioners on Pensioner issues, you target Homosexuals on homosexual issues and you target the Muslims on Iraq but Iraq is not an issue about Islam and by reinforcing the erroneous view that it is you are painting the government as anti Muslim and subtly implying we went to war against Islam (and with the abuse photos) that we have no respect for Muslims, can you not see who dangerous that is?

It is n the level of the Daily Mail/Sun spreading fears and lies about immigration in middle England and look what that has resulted in.

This election was held in the aftermath of Blair’s unnecessary war of choice which he conned the nation into, if you seriously expect the election to be fought without the opposition parties mentioning the war then you are being staggeringly naive.

Just out of interest how do you think the great Mr Ashdown would have fought the election? Do you really think he wouldn’t have mentioned Iraq?

I think he would have made it clear it wasn't about Islam unlike what the current Lib Dems have done and instead would have championed the cause for international law and I don't see him handing out abuse photos or pictures of Blair shaking hands with Bush.

Well if you want to swap anecdotes my father (who was an officer in the Royal Engineers) voted Conservative till 1997 when he switched to Labour, he believed Blair’s claims about WMD and supported the war. He is now so disgusted with the lies Blair used to drag us into the war that he thinks Blair should resign and will not be voting Labour again as long as he is leader.

Gee, you mean people in the current have a false impression about Blair and are angry abut the war? Somebody should inform the media.

Oh please do you really believe that?

It makes no sense for Blair to have pushed the case on WMD if he didn't expect to find any, I have no doubt he put his best foot forward when it came to arguing the case (dropping the caveats) but that is usual politicking.
I can also believe that he didn't consider Iraq a threat to the UK but it makes no sense to believe he committed us to an unpopular war based on an easily provable lie which could have cost him his leadership.

Just think about it logically and you can see that the rabid Anti-Blair reasoning makes little sense.

As for why I think he took us to war, I think it was to remain a good ally of the US and to free the people of Iraq (my genuine impression of Blair is that he is a guy who really goes care) but no doubt you find it silly to cast politicians as anything other than heartless monsters.

Bullshit, will you please provide some evidence for this ridiculous assertion.

It is rather self evident, what does handing out Prisoner abuse photos have to do with the alleged illegality of the war which is what you should have been campaigning on.

You were being cheap and manipulative and it reminds me of Nick griffin campaigning against immigration by bringing up rapes Asians may have been involved in, completely beside the point but designed to get people angry.

I know that is going to cause you to blow up given your (correct) dislike for the BNP but that is the terms in which I see those leaflets and that is why I very disappointed in the Lib Dems and I know it isn't the entire party many Lib Dems still stick by their principles (as I see in parliament) but some have begun to switch from their correct standpoint (Labour did this good and this bad) to a more opportunistic position (just picking fault with Labour at any opportunity).
I can see the difference quite clear in the commons when the difference between the attitude of various Lib Dem MP's is rather striking.

I know you keep on saying that it is disgusting, I know you think it is how about you actually proof that it is rather than just repeatedly asserting that it is.

The proof is the leaflets containing the abuse photos (which annoyed me the most) and the general Lib Dems targeting of Muslims with arguments other than about the legality of the war.

So you have absolutely no evidence that we have ever played the race card then.

Your poll says it’s the NHS my poll says that its Iraq, whichever way you slice it Iraq is a massive issue and one that we worked everywhere not just in Muslim areas my point still stands.

But the Lib Dems specifically targeted Muslims with prisoner abuse photos in Birmingham during the local elections, they didn't hand out these leaflets in non Muslims areas just the Muslims areas and the implications is damn clear although I understand your desire to try and avoid it.

Evidence that we did this please, and that if we did we only did so in Muslim areas.

It was reported on both skynews and the BBC on election night, they even showed the leaflets to the camera and specifically said they were handing out a different leaflet in non Muslim areas.

Bullshit we are telling everybody about our principled and CORRECT stand upon Iraq it has been a major national theme of our recent campaigns. Just out of interest what am I “subtly implying” to non-Muslim voters when I deliver them a leaflet with Bush and Blair on it?

You are implying (along with everything else) that Blair took us to war as part of Bush's crusade against Islam, that is the obvious implication in light of the general campaign to target Muslims and especially the Abuse photos.

Would that be the acceptance speech with the words “the people of Leicester South” in it’s first sentence? Yup no mention of his constituency there.

*Yawn* you know exactly what I meant and since that is the best you could come up with I assume you see my point as well.

4 whitewashes set up by Blair and dominated by his stooges prove nothing my allegation that he a lying and/or incompetent scumbag is on extremely firm ground and will be until they actually find some WMD in Iraq.

No it won't, it doesn't make any sense and is just anti-war hysteria, Blair hatred and Liberal partisan ship.

When did I ever say that it was a big issue with everybody? Never that’s when, just that it was the single biggest issue which it was, our incredible electoral success in Leicester and Birmingham last week is something of a clue in this respect.

Indeed and your loosing of seats in my council in the local election (a Lab gain from NOC) should show that a campaign on the Iraqi war won't play everywhere and come May is unlikely to play anywhere, I used to hope that the Lib Dems would overtake the Tories but I have to say that I feel somewhat disillusioned with what I always thought to be a party of principle above the sort of tactics the other parties stooped to.

As did everybody else INCLUDING LABOUR how many times targeted campaigning is used by all major parties

This is not a revelation to me, it is who your were targeting, what with and what it was saying.

Are you fucking insane? You are now actually arguing that the Liberal Democrats by far the most “right on”, multi cultural, progressive mainstream party in British politics, the only party to stand up for asylum seekers, the only party to fight the abuse of “stop and search” powers against minorities are actually deliberately setting out “to create racial division” you truly are delusional.

The explain those abuse photo leaflets.

My point is very clear, the Lib Dems have compromised the ideals they hold for electoral success and I always liked them because they were loath to do so.

Actually I think you’ll find that the not so subtle implication in our campaign is that we attacked Iraq because it was FULL OF OIL and because Blair’s best mate Bush wanted us to.

And the Prisoner Abuse photographs tell us what about the oil in Iraq?

Those photographs tell a tale of British disregard for Islam and Muslims in order to garner those votes.

Of course Kennedy didn’t say that we attacked Iraq because Blair has some kind of irrational dislike of Muslims because THAT HAS NEVER BEEN OUR POSITION.

This half baked, one sided, potted history justifying Blair’s decision to go to war demonstrates that the Lib Dems called Iraq wrong how exactly?

Because the Lib Dems argued it was illegal when there is a legal justification or show it seemed according to the evidence.
The Lib Dems also thought that the inspections could continue when it is obvious Saddam would start playing with them again.

Would you like me to get a red crayon to explain it to you in big letters?

Yeah because as we are currently learning toppling Saddam then occupying and rebuilding Iraq is a piece of piss and something that we should “just” do

No, only idiots though it would be easy (just as only idiots are running around claiming the sky is falling because it isn't easy) however just because it isn't easy doesn't mean we shouldn’t try to help others.

Can't you see past your opposition towards the war and see the fact that the people of Iraq are now far closer to being on track than they were under Saddam.
I won't believe a Lib Dem doesn't want to help people because that is what the Lib Dems are all about so I think you are letting you opposition to the war cloud you to the real benefits this could bring to the people of Iraq.

Wheres next on your list then? Syria, Iran, Burma do tell I’d just dieing to know the which other sovereign nations we should “just” invade because we can.

I don't want to see other human beings suffer and thus I am inclined towards any course of action that will lessen that, Iraq has a good shot at becoming a stable democracy instead of continuing to be a nation full of starving people ruled by a madman.
I don't care about international law and I don’t care about PC hand wringing, I will freely admit to thinking Africa was better off under our rule and that it shouldn’t have been let go so soon but my motivation is that I want to see the maximum amount of benefit brought to the maximum amount of people.
Nation building isn't easy and it will cost lives but if it brings freedom and democracy to millions isn't it worth the lives of a few?

I’m not an idiot you can’t bullshit me about the built up to the war so please stop trying, the justification for the war has been the subject of many threads in N&P if you actually believe that shit I refer you to them as your bullshit claims have been rebutted in them by others far more eloquent than I on numerous occasions.

That is what the PM went to war on, I don't necessarily think that was his reasoning but it is his justification both before and after the fact and he is backed up all the way.

Don’t you get it this wasn’t just another bit of politics in this case Blair’s “glossing over the downsides” in order to present “his best argument” sent British soldiers TO THEIR DEATHS. Do you really not understand why I and many other Britons are outraged at the misrepresentations, omissions, exaggerations or in other words the lies used to rush us into this unnecessary war?

I don't see it as unnecessary, those soldiers died in the service of bringing freedom to millions (whether or not that was the government primary intention it is what will hopefully be the result) and I think the government is right to bring about freedom to others, it is why we didn't deal with Hitler, it is why we didn't deal with the Kaiser and it is right.

He can fudge the crime figures, hospital waiting lists, exam results what ever that’s just politics everybody expects that but the Blair’s dossiers and his statements to the commons to the Commons which were instrumental in persuading many MPs to vote for war weren’t just about politics. The omission of the crucial “caveats, qualifications and cautions.” which littered the intelligence documents judiciously edited together to justify Blair’s war on a matter as serious as this goes way beyond “putting his best argument forward” and is downright dishonest it is lying.

No it isn't, the intelligence said " We have no doubt that Saddam has Biological and chemical weapons" but also says that intelligence is incomplete.
Intelligence is always going to be incomplete but the best judgement of our (and everybody else’s) intelligence was that he had those weapons and the government acted on that, Blair simply made the best case to convince the public of what he was told was the truth just like he is paid to do.

Blair can set up all the bullshit no remit, whitewash reports he likes it doesn’t change anything.

No it won't, because there are none so blind as those who will not see.

Blair’s errors/lies led us into an entirely unnecessary war in which many of our troops and thousands of Iraqis died. Blair’s errors/lies have further alienated much of the Islamic world from the West, made the UK a prime target for terrorism and lowered our international standing to it’s worst point since Suez. Saying “I accept responsibility” whilst refusing to apologise just doesn’t cut it.

The diplomatic fallout from Iraq is already past, out European allies have better things to interest themselves in and most other nations couldn't have cared less.

So he has nothing to apologise for? Tell that to the grieving families of the young British men and women he sent out to die to save the world from WMD which simply did not exist.

Which he didn't know, he was told incorrect information but that information told him Saddam had WMD however those troops are there to be used for more than saving the world, they have been used numerous times to bring freedom and that is what will happen in Iraq.

If they weren't willing to die doing that then they shouldn't have joined the military.

Ok let me get this straight for the Lib Dem’s to address the concerns of our constituents some of whom happen to be Muslims about Blair’s leading us into an uncalled for war based upon false evidence is “creating racial division”. Whereas Labour’s pandering to the gutter presses hysterical, xenophobic, barely suppressed racist rantings upon asylum is addressing “a genuine problem” and is in no way racially divisive

That was spin worthy of Campbell.

I have made it abundantly clear that you can run around campaigning about Labours illegal war until the cows come home, it would be the same as the Tories claiming Labour are wasteful etc, what I object to is..... well just read above repeating myself one more time is unlikely to get through when the dozens of previous attempts have failed.

As for Labours asylum policy, we should not be taking asylum seekers from safe countries (we were still taking asylum applications from the ten new EU members until a couple of years ago for petes sake) and we should not be taking ones who have already travelled through safe countries beyond that I have no problem taking in legitimate asylum seekers but we did have a lot of people who were coming to Britain for reasons other than proper asylum.

How about you actually address my point that the allegedly “disgusting”, “opportunistic” and “racially divisive” Lib Dems have consistently taken a brave principled, reasoned stand upon asylum in the current hysterical political climate if we are no longer a party of principle how do you explain this?

Changing your asylum policy wouldn't win you the votes your campaigning over Iraq has because nobody will trust the Lib Dems more than the Tories (and t a lesser extent) on the issue anyway.

[Stuart Mackey]

Yo! Plekhanov!
Wouldnt happen to know a family of Welsh Wizards would you?




Sorry..couldnt resist...

[Plekhanov]

Yo! Plekhanov!
Wouldnt happen to know a family of Welsh Wizards would you?




Sorry..couldnt resist...

I'm afraid I have absolutely no idea of what you're talking about could you please explain the reference

[Dartzap]

Perhaps its a reference to sheep, you know New Zealeand and Wales.. they both share something in a specific area...
Or something to do with Harry Potter... who knows

[Stuart Mackey]

Yo! Plekhanov!
Wouldnt happen to know a family of Welsh Wizards would you?




Sorry..couldnt resist...

I'm afraid I have absolutely no idea of what you're talking about could you please explain the reference

You dont know the Welsh Wizard? Nemisis of Chambelain Usurper of Asquith..the seller of Kighthoods for favours *shakes head* politicians these days..no sense of history...

[Stuart Mackey]

Perhaps its a reference to sheep, you know New Zealeand and Wales.. they both share something in a specific area...
Or something to do with Harry Potter... who knows

Oi..watch it..its the Scots who have that thing for sheep..

[Dartzap]

Yes, Haggis

So whats your excuse?

[TheDarkling]

Oi..watch it..its the Scots who have that thing for sheep..

No it is the Welsh who get overly amorous with the woolly creatures.

[Stuart Mackey]

Yes, Haggis

So whats your excuse?

Selling sex toys to the English

[Stuart Mackey]

Oi..watch it..its the Scots who have that thing for sheep..

No it is the Welsh who get overly amorous with the woolly creatures.

oh yeah..ever meet the Baron from ASVS?

[Dartzap]

Although in New Zealand they call them wooly jumpers....



i know thats austraila, but it still counts