post election cabinet shuffle

[Darth Tanner]

Ok people the elections over, our glorious Labour leaders got a good kicking - over 250 council seats lost!, sinking into third place behind the Lib Dems. How embarrassing

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,3 ... 65,00.html

And in the ensuing cabinet reshuffle not only is Clarke gone, something the PM said he wouldn’t be doing but also Prescott has lost his department! (but not his job sadly) which is probably going to severely undermine Blair’s support from the old labour members who Prescott represented.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4976414.stm

The most surprising thing for me was Straw, heaven knows why he’s being demoted, I though he was doing a good job as foreign secretary but oh well! Maybe Blair is concerned about a possible affair with Condoleeza Rice hitting the headlines; he’s already been in her bed, how close can the special relationship get
Oh and Kelly’s gone! (to local government secretary which is worse than being fired really) Guess those paedophiles in schools didn’t just die down after all.

Now does this spell the end of Blair?

No

[Rye]

Labour's results in the local elections were this low like 2 years ago, too, the exact same percentage as I recall. Didn't stop them winning the general, though, I suspect the same will happen this time.

Oh, and to all those naysayers that said it doesn't get more conservative towards London compared to the North should see the graphics Jeremy Vine had up on the Politics Show. London: All blue. Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle, all red. Well, almost all, anyway.

Unfortunately, my town is one of the few that has turned conservative.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Considering what I've been hearing about Lib Dem power rising from the ashes, they did pathetic last night. The Tories have given Labour a much deserved bitchslapping here, though I expect many still want Cameron out given he's just another Etonian wanting to play politician (and the usual political things such as hypocrite, total liar and so on).

I'm glad Clarke is gone, that guy was seriously pissing off the nation. Too bad Prescott is still in power though.

I await the next general election though. It may be high time for Labour to move on out if they don't radically buck-up their ideas after this season of debacles.

[Dartzap]

Argh, after yesterday... Looks like we might get a sodding Tory gorvernment next General, argh argh argh.

Typical, as soon as I am legally obliged to vote at the next one, this kinda thing happens *sigh*

The Lib Dems need to find some trick pretty soon, the state of the politics in this country is getting fucked up further every damn day

[Admiral Valdemar]

All three parties suck arse. I'm going to vote for Xenu.

[Johnny Ipcress]

Local council elections are rarely an indicator of general election results. For example, during the 1980s and early 1990s, Labour maintained almost total control of the local councils while the Conservative government (before 1992) held a sizeable majority in Parliament. Broadly speaking (though this is not always the case), the party in government suffers in local elections but the result is not translated to a national scale. This can also be seen in the European Parliament elections; UKIP and the Conservatives often do well in those elections but do not get the same results in General elections.
If anything, the Council election results represent significant protest voting. While Labour has done remarkably well in the previous local elections, it certainly goes to show that the glossy teflon sheen of New Labour has now become pitted and scored. I am surprised that the Lib Dems didn't do better since local issues tend to be the stomping ground of socialist politicians rather than others (e.g. Conservatives).

It won't be the end for Labour. I would imagine they will comfortably win the next General Election. It certainly does go to show that New Labour is not some amazing Third Way but a traditional party, in that it suffers the same caprices and fortunes as the other parties.

[Ubiquitous]

The election was kind of boring. Everything went pretty much as expected - Tories gain a bit, Labour loses a bit, Libs do nothing. What I am most disgusted about is Prescot remaining as a minister without a role - just so he can keep his ministerial perks like flats and cars.

Labour is such a sleezy party and so incompetant - they make me sick.

[Rye]

Considering what I've been hearing about Lib Dem power rising from the ashes, they did pathetic last night.

Lib Dems have gone to the fucking toilet now because of getting rid of Kennedy. I don't reckon that removing him was the only option, and I think there were too many childish power plays when they should've been thinking about the good of the public.

On the plus side, we now all know they're treacherous little animals whose ideals barely extend beyond their own benefit, which we all knew anyway, since they're politicians.

The Tories have given Labour a much deserved bitchslapping here, though I expect many still want Cameron out given he's just another Etonian wanting to play politician (and the usual political things such as hypocrite, total liar and so on).

Amen, Blair has made the right choice; he's cleaned out a load of visible shit and has the opportunity to rebuild in time for the general election. I think the public don't care about Prescott's fucking around (ugh) so long as he does a decent job, but the public rightfully fucking hated a load of foreign paedophiles and violent criminals being released.

Showing he's dealt with that (and I think it was probably quite brutal behind closed doors) I think there's room for him to come back. I hope he does, because I really, really hate the tories, and the lib dems are fucked for a decade or more.

[Ubiquitous]

As a Tory supporter I obviously don't understand how anyone can hate them , but I have to admit to being puzzled as to how anyone, especially Middle Class people, can vote for Labour in their present form. When ever I think of Labour I think of one word: incompetance. Their ministers on the whole seem to be clueless with only a few exceptions. They just seem to be a party that has no substance to it whatsoever. That said, apart from this new Green issue, Cameron doesn't seem to have much substance either other than a nice guy approach to politics. Well, it seems to have worked well according to the results. Shame his politics work so hopelessly in the north though - Labour won something incredible like 40/50 seats in my council, God I need to get out of this shithole as soon as I get a job...

If the Tories hadn't fucked themselves over so badly in the 90's then they would be seriously closing on Labour right now. As it stands it seems like people are still punishing them for the mistakes of yesteryear - which in itself is a reasonable excuse but when one considers just how terrible Labour are one has to question just why people aren't ready to give Cameron and his people a chance. Who actually votes for Labour anyway? Show yourself - I want to know what makes a Labour supporter tick.

And what of the Lib Dems? Where can they go from here, now that the obvious benefits of the Iraq protest vote has worn off? Not much talk about them this election, I noticed...

[Prozac the Robert]

when one considers just how terrible Labour are one has to question just why people aren't ready to give Cameron and his people a chance. Who actually votes for Labour anyway? Show yourself - I want to know what makes a Labour supporter tick.

I suport Labour. I don't like some of what they have done, and some of it is stuff I strongly disagree with. Some of the latest stuff about hospitals has to be the result of incompetance, but I wouldn't say it's necessarily in the government, it could be in the NHS or the trusts. Overall things are good though.

There is enough money to go aound for public services, everything more or less works as designed, the economy is good, some amount of effort is being expended on helping the environment and they have done significantly more than the minimum in ininternational aid which I'm dead proud of. From the cancelling of debts to new monies to pay for the fight against aids to Gordon's attempts to finance more aid through the IMF gold reserves.

I dislike the conservatives almost as much as you dislike labour I think. The philosophy that people should automatically be able to help themselves that so many tories hold is reprehensive. Some people just aren't in situations where that can be done. Their disregard for public services last time they were in power was terrible. NHS dentistry may never recover. And I don't believe things would be much better under Cameron. He claims to be the tory equivilant of Blair, but even if he was that would still leave the tories more to the right then anything I want to see in power.

As for the lib dems, I had a bit of a soft spot for them under Kennedy. They seemed to be moving in the right direction, standing up for honesty and social justice (although it could have been spintastic I supose, it's so hard to tell). But then they ditched him and now I'm not too sure. Locally they are oportunistic bastards, currently being part of a coalition with the tories on the birmingham council.

In the end, the 'give the other lot a chance' way of thinking is stupid. If a party moves away from your way of thinking and you can no longer suport them that's one thing, but to vote for someone diametrically opposed just because you feel like a change is incomprehensible to me.

And the people who vote for the BNP because of that should be shot.

[Ubiquitous]

Thanks for that interesting read.

I have to ask though, are the Tories and Labour really that different, especially under Blair light that is Cameron? I can see how Howard was offensive to Labour supporters, but 'Dave' seems to be right down Middle Class Labour supporters street with his wishy-washy policies which seem to appeal to our Middle Classes.

[Also I don't hate New Labour per se - I like Tony Blair a lot more than Labour supporters it seems! I have great respect for him as a man of strength as a a great politician, if not an overly sucessful one as far as legacy is concerned. I DO, however, hate the current sleezy, arrogant incompetant wankers that parade as Labour Ministers who must have secretly been sent by our enemies to turn this country into an utter shambles! A Tory party led by Tony Blair would be something I'd be interested to see! ]

P.S. - Oh God! That smug looking Margaret Beckett is our new FS! Anyone who speeks with their eyes closed often is too smug for me - and that woman never seems to have her eyes open at all. What do these people actually know about foreign affairs, anyway? How did her previous job in anyway train her for what she is doing now?

[The Guid]

And what of the Lib Dems? Where can they go from here, now that the obvious benefits of the Iraq protest vote has worn off? Not much talk about them this election, I noticed...

Indeed,for the Lib Dems its an OK scene, no disaster, no major triumph. It seems clear that Tories are picking up Labour seats but Lib Dems, true to style, are picking up a wide base of votes butnot in a concentrated enough form for it to turn into seats.

You are also forgetting that whilst there might be incompetence from this Labour government. At least they have the investment that the Tories so lacked.

[Rye]

As a Tory supporter I obviously don't understand how anyone can hate them ,

1) My parents work in the NHS. That should be case closed.
2) The conservative ethos of "suck the cocks of the rich and business" never ends well.
3) Last election, the tories tried desperately to create the same religious "right" that exists in the US, starting with abortion. I will hate anyone trying to get those assholes into politics.

but I have to admit to being puzzled as to how anyone, especially Middle Class people, can vote for Labour in their present form. When ever I think of Labour I think of one word: incompetance.

Life seems alright to me, better than under the conservatives, anyway, it's not perfect, of course; petrol taxation is becoming retarded, and there's a load of other issues. Still better than the conservatives, though, and in the "less bad = good" world of politics, that's all we can hope for.

Who actually votes for Labour anyway? Show yourself - I want to know what makes a Labour supporter tick.

I didn't vote, I can't bring myself to do it until there's a negative vote system.

And what of the Lib Dems? Where can they go from here, now that the obvious benefits of the Iraq protest vote has worn off? Not much talk about them this election, I noticed...

They're stagnant.

[Plekhanov]

I am surprised that the Lib Dems didn't do better since local issues tend to be the stomping ground of socialist politicians rather than others (e.g. Conservatives).

Erm you do realise that the lib dems aren’t socialists and that historically the Tories have always had a fair sized presence at the local level right?

Considering what I've been hearing about Lib Dem power rising from the ashes, they did pathetic last night.

They got 27% of the vote nationally and pushed Labour into 3rd place how exactly is that pathetic?

As a Tory supporter I obviously don't understand how anyone can hate them , but I have to admit to being puzzled as to how anyone, especially Middle Class people, can vote for Labour in their present form. When ever I think of Labour I think of one word: incompetance. Their ministers on the whole seem to be clueless with only a few exceptions. They just seem to be a party that has no substance to it whatsoever. That said, apart from this new Green issue, Cameron doesn't seem to have much substance either other than a nice guy approach to politics. Well, it seems to have worked well according to the results. Shame his politics work so hopelessly in the north though - Labour won something incredible like 40/50 seats in my council, God I need to get out of this shithole as soon as I get a job...

If the Tories hadn't fucked themselves over so badly in the 90's then they would be seriously closing on Labour right now. As it stands it seems like people are still punishing them for the mistakes of yesteryear - which in itself is a reasonable excuse but when one considers just how terrible Labour are one has to question just why people aren't ready to give Cameron and his people a chance. Who actually votes for Labour anyway? Show yourself - I want to know what makes a Labour supporter tick.

People are wary of voting tory principally because they quite rightly don’t trust them to fund public services adequately.

As for Cameron having ‘substance’ on the ‘green issue’ what substance? All he’s done is talk about being environmental in vague terms, take part in lots of green photo opps (the main one of which is now revealed to be appallingly hypocritical and misleading) but has announced bugger all in terms of substantial policy on the issue.

In contrast Labour are a party absolutely brimming with ‘substance’ unfortunately its centralising, authoritarian, illiberal, statist ‘substance’ but it’s definitely there. The tories on the other hand are currently a policy free zone simply blowing whichever way their focus groups indicate.

And what of the Lib Dems? Where can they go from here, now that the obvious benefits of the Iraq protest vote has worn off?

The lib dems were a major force in local government long before the Iraq war and will continue to be one long after that cease to be an issue.

Not much talk about them this election, I noticed...

The liberals rarely get talked about much as the media find it hard to think and talk about any issue as if it has more than two binary opposed sides to it, there’s nothing particularly unusual about the dearth of coverage on them this time round.

As for the lib dems, I had a bit of a soft spot for them under Kennedy. They seemed to be moving in the right direction, standing up for honesty and social justice (although it could have been spintastic I supose, it's so hard to tell). But then they ditched him and now I'm not too sure. Locally they are oportunistic bastards, currently being part of a coalition with the tories on the birmingham council.

Yes and in Scotland they're in a coalition with Labour, what's wrong with that? In any given local situation you have to sit down and see who you can work with best and for all the those involved in a coalition be they liberal, green, torie, labour, independent… you have to hold your nose and work with people you may not like and even fundamentally disagree with on some issues because otherwise nothing will get done.

[Lost Soal]

P.S. - Oh God! That smug looking Margaret Beckett is our new FS! Anyone who speeks with their eyes closed often is too smug for me - and that woman never seems to have her eyes open at all. What do these people actually know about foreign affairs, anyway? How did her previous job in anyway train her for what she is doing now?

You can say that about virtually all the ministers. The entire reshuffling proces revolves around Blair going "who's backed me up in the press and with votes? I'll promote them." The fact that their is no pre-requisite skils required to become transport sectretary, enviroment sectretary or any other sectretary is rediculous.

[Ubiquitous]

Totally agreed with that about politicians. I had this discussion with my dad last night [who absolutely hates politicians] - how the fuck can a person with no real experience be in charge of the whole countrys economy, or foreign policy, or transport etc? Obviously they have hordes of minions to advise them, but they are under no obligation to listen - no wonder there is so much waste in our country.

1) My parents work in the NHS. That should be case closed.
2) The conservative ethos of "suck the cocks of the rich and business" never ends well.
3) Last election, the tories tried desperately to create the same religious "right" that exists in the US, starting with abortion. I will hate anyone trying to get those assholes into politics.

1) Interestingly, the majority of people now believe that the Tories would run the NHS better than Labour according to a poll revealed by the BBC on election night. This is the first time that this has EVER happened, and in my opinion is just as important a result for the Tories as their good election results. I don't think that this policy of throwing money at the NHS in vast amounts has worked at all, but instead has cost the common taxpayer a horrible amount of money with comparatively little to show in return.

2) To be honest I don't see anything wrong with cosying up with big business as they are what makes the economy tick and the country strong - but surely Labour are just as guilty of this as the Tories are?

3) There will never be a religious right of any importance in this country so don't panic. This is especially true as long as Cameron remains in power. Of course, you forget that Tony Blair is quite religious and even stated in a recent interview that religion played a part in his decision to go to war in Iraq. I would point out the Lib Dems as a truely secular party - but they been sucking the cocks of the Muslim anti-war movement in the recent election in Birmingham according to the BBC, so I wouldn't trust them on the religious problem.

[Plekhanov]

Totally agreed with that about politicians. I had this discussion with my dad last night [who absolutely hates politicians] - how the fuck can a person with no real experience be in charge of the whole countrys economy, or foreign policy, or transport etc? Obviously they have hordes of minions to advise them, but they are under no obligation to listen - no wonder there is so much waste in our country.

What’s the alternative? Our government is made up of departments full of technocrats drawing up policy & making recommendations with elected politicians at the very top making the final big decisions, so long as we live in a parliamentary democracy I don’t see any other way to do things.

1) My parents work in the NHS. That should be case closed.
2) The conservative ethos of "suck the cocks of the rich and business" never ends well.
3) Last election, the tories tried desperately to create the same religious "right" that exists in the US, starting with abortion. I will hate anyone trying to get those assholes into politics.

1) Interestingly, the majority of people now believe that the Tories would run the NHS better than Labour according to a poll revealed by the BBC on election night. This is the first time that this has EVER happened, and in my opinion is just as important a result for the Tories as their good election results.

Link to this story please.

I don't think that this policy of throwing money at the NHS in vast amounts has worked at all, but instead has cost the common taxpayer a horrible amount of money with comparatively little to show in return.

Evidence to back up this position please.

2) To be honest I don't see anything wrong with cosying up with big business as they are what makes the economy tick and the country strong - but surely Labour are just as guilty of this as the Tories are?

If by ‘cosying up with big business’ you mean drawing up policies to encourage economic growth I’d agree, if on the other hand you mean accepting undisclosed loans and then proposing the creditors for the Lords (you know like the Tories do) I definitely don’t.

Also I think you’ll find small and medium sized businesses are also really rather important to the economy infact iirc they make up a greater proportion of our GNP than big business.

3) There will never be a religious right of any importance in this country so don't panic.

Not for the tories want of trying, who do you think it was who passed section 28 and the law mandating that there be a daily act of collective worship "wholly, or mainly, of a broadly Christian character"?

This is especially true as long as Cameron remains in power. Of course, you forget that Tony Blair is quite religious and even stated in a recent interview that religion played a part in his decision to go to war in Iraq.

Blair is personally highly religious he is however socially relatively liberal far more so than the Tories who have consistently opposed those measures. Maybe because until recently they were led by Ian Duncan Smith a member of a Tory subgroup which last year called for a "struggle against liberal values". Incidentally IDS was appointed by Cameron to lead the Tories social justice policy review group & guess what there preliminary recommendation to increase social inclusion was… Marriage.

I would point out the Lib Dems as a truely secular party –

We’ve got our fair share of religious members it’s just that they tend to be the relatively rare variety who keep their personal morality personal (actually believing that people should be free to exercise the free will they believe God gave us) and are as/more concerned with the bits of the bible which deal with your duty to others than with Leviticus.

but they been sucking the cocks of the Muslim anti-war movement in the recent election in Birmingham according to the BBC, so I wouldn't trust them on the religious problem.

Evidence to back up these allegations please.

[Tatterdemalion]

Shame his politics work so hopelessly in the north though - Labour won something incredible like 40/50 seats in my council, God I need to get out of this shithole as soon as I get a job...

Hmm? I hope I don't end up highjacking this thread for more than a post or two on local politics, but you're talking about Sheffield right? If so, well let's just say if you know anything about the local history of the area you really should understand why outside of Hallam it's pretty laughable to think that the Tories would ever even be considered an option.

The Lib Dems have gained seats there occasionally (the council actually went Lib Dem for a brief period, during the Major government I think, after the debacle with the Supertram's funding) but for the most part the Tories have been unable to fully divorce themselves from the spectre of Thatcherism, and considering how much of the city is invested in the council and the universities, all fairly left-leaning institutions by default, it kind of makes sense that people would tend to vote for social democratic options over what the Tories offer.

If you think Sheffield's a shithole now then you evidently haven't seen it in the aftermath of Thatcher.

As I said, sorry for not being strictly on topic but I thought I may as well elaborate on why the results went the way they went up there.

[Tatterdemalion]

sort-of-edit: The Lib Dem council in Sheffield was during the first labour gov. My bad, the reasoning still holds though.

[Plekhanov]

Shame his politics work so hopelessly in the north though - Labour won something incredible like 40/50 seats in my council, God I need to get out of this shithole as soon as I get a job...

Hmm? I hope I don't end up highjacking this thread for more than a post or two on local politics, but you're talking about Sheffield right?

If so, well let's just say if you know anything about the local history of the area you really should understand why outside of Hallam it's pretty laughable to think that the Tories would ever even be considered an option.

For the last decade it’s been laughable that they’d be considered an option outside of Dore never mind Hallam.

The Lib Dems have gained seats there occasionally (the council actually went Lib Dem for a brief period, during the Major government I think, after the debacle with the Supertram's funding) but for the most part the Tories have been unable to fully divorce themselves from the spectre of Thatcherism, and considering how much of the city is invested in the council and the universities, all fairly left-leaning institutions by default, it kind of makes sense that people would tend to vote for social democratic options over what the Tories offer.

Indeed it’s still gonna be a fair while before a place that built it’s identity around mining and industry will forgive the Tories, whom the Lib Dems supplanted as major opposition in 94 (they then further declined to 1 seat in 96) and briefly led the council from 99-02, things currently stand at:
Lab 44
Lib 35
Con 2
Grn 2
Ind 1
The Lib Dems also took the Hallam Parliamentary seat from the Tories in 97 and it is now considered a safe Liberal seat.

If you think Sheffield's a shithole now then you evidently haven't seen it in the aftermath of Thatcher.

Agreed I have family up here and visited back then and it was pretty damn grim, Shef is so nice now that my girlfriend and I don’t want to leave ,the residual effects of that tragically brief Liberal council I expect

[Rye]

Totally agreed with that about politicians. I had this discussion with my dad last night [who absolutely hates politicians] - how the fuck can a person with no real experience be in charge of the whole countrys economy, or foreign policy, or transport etc? Obviously they have hordes of minions to advise them, but they are under no obligation to listen - no wonder there is so much waste in our country.

I don't just agree w ith that, but I think it goes further and worse; I think only a few are idealists in the first place, the rest are trying to set themselves up for life, and I think due to the nature of government, people just end up being corrupted anyway.

1) Interestingly, the majority of people now believe that the Tories would run the NHS better than Labour according to a poll revealed by the BBC on election night.

Are these people in the NHS, or are these people complaining about the reforms and associated waiting times the NHS has to go through to unfuck what the tories did?

Chances are they're Londoners who have to deal with inner city hospitals and don't like having to wait, and have watched some Panorama documentaries about shitty wards and think it's a sizable representation.

This is the first time that this has EVER happened, and in my opinion is just as important a result for the Tories as their good election results.

The North West has some of the worst hospital stats in the country, but still better than when the the government was run by tories, and the North was almost all red the other night, while -surprise surprise- London was all blue.

I don't think that this policy of throwing money at the NHS in vast amounts has worked at all, but instead has cost the common taxpayer a horrible amount of money with comparatively little to show in return.

It takes a lot of investment in a nationwide institution delapidated by decades of conservative wankery to make it anywhere near viable. And yes, there are problems with the Labour system and the tories are not responsible for everything, but the worst idea is to go the tory route of shutting down hospitals and shuffling the money they should've given to other public services and hospitals (which they could spin as giving money to working hospitals), and then just leaving it to some managers.

2) To be honest I don't see anything wrong with cosying up with big business as they are what makes the economy tick and the country strong - but surely Labour are just as guilty of this as the Tories are?

I think Labour are guilty of it, but it's not as bad as the tories. You can't point to economic growth and use that to conclude it's down to big business. Labour also did multiple things other than that, which has resulted in better governance, in my experience anyway. Plekhanov has covered the other stuff.

3) There will never be a religious right of any importance in this country so don't panic.

Whether there will be one or not is irrelevent, the fact they tried to create one makes them worthy of my contempt.

This is especially true as long as Cameron remains in power. Of course, you forget that Tony Blair is quite religious and even stated in a recent interview that religion played a part in his decision to go to war in Iraq.

I'm sure that's carefully crafted bullshit, but even if true, I don't see him going around complaining about abortion, section 28 and gay marriage to get the morons on board.

I would point out the Lib Dems as a truely secular party - but they been sucking the cocks of the Muslim anti-war movement in the recent election in Birmingham according to the BBC, so I wouldn't trust them on the religious problem.

They'd be too PC, my view.

[The Guid]

They'd be too PC, my view.

Define please, and could you also back it up?

[Rye]

They'd be too PC, my view.

Define please, and could you also back it up?

Have you ever even heard a Lib Dem complain about theocracies or the crappiness of religion in general? Check out this guy's standard religious apologism:

http://www.ethnic-minority.libdems.org/

"Osama Bin Laden has consistently brought up issues on Chechnya, Palestine and Iraq as issues of contention with the West and once again, these show political and not religious motives. Religion may be laced onto the crimes though we must not fall into the trap of believing that they are because of Islam or Muslims. To do that, we will further alienate a community that has been in the UK for hundreds of years and many of whose ancestors fought in the First and Second World Wars for Queen and Country."

Riiiiiight, because there are so many Amnesty International or even IRA suicide bombers on the London underground. Notice how he leaves out the chechens OBL supports are the assholes that want religious law, and how "humiliation of islam" is considered a justifiable reason for terrorism amongst the terrorists themselves. How many Lib Dems chastised the religious zeal and idiocy over the mohammed cartoons? That was a prime time if any to point at the failures of religion and the need to move on from violent archaic superstition and reverence for a dead paedophile.

The Lib Dems do have some good policies [link] when it comes to religious diversity, church and state, and the civil rights of people that would be persecuted by religious assholes, but is there evidence to support the idea they'd break formation with the other political parties and say "hmmm, yeah, religion is partly culpable."? If there is any, I've not seen it.

[The Guid]

Have you ever even heard a Lib Dem complain about theocracies or the crappiness of religion in general?

Do you really think that would a. Do any good or B. Actually be a good idea? Apart from the fact that complaining about "the crappiness of religion in general" is a really stupid thing to do it is also political suicide and for no gain. And the Liberal Democrats are a political party wanting to be in power, you can't laden yourself with potential foreign diplomats by calling their country a pile of crap because its a theocracy. Apart from anything else it might piss the Americans off. Sometimes it is best to keep silent on issues and then take practical measures as best you can.

"Osama Bin Laden has consistently brought up issues on Chechnya, Palestine and Iraq as issues of contention with the West and once again, these show political and not religious motives. Religion may be laced onto the crimes though we must not fall into the trap of believing that they are because of Islam or Muslims. To do that, we will further alienate a community that has been in the UK for hundreds of years and many of whose ancestors fought in the First and Second World Wars for Queen and Country."

Riiiiiight, because there are so many Amnesty International or even IRA suicide bombers on the London underground. Notice how he leaves out the chechens OBL supports are the assholes that want religious law, and how "humiliation of islam" is considered a justifiable reason for terrorism amongst the terrorists themselves. How many Lib Dems chastised the religious zeal and idiocy over the mohammed cartoons? That was a prime time if any to point at the failures of religion and the need to move on from violent archaic superstition and reverence for a dead paedophile.

Hang on wait minute. They say that Islam is laced onto it and your taking that as religous apoligism? And besides, look at every conflict and though religion can inflame and make things much worse you still have to admit that there are political motives.

And I really don't see how bringing up the IRA helps you even remotely. They blew people up and killed people, quite frankly the fact that they didn't take themselves with them doesn't really make me think "Oh well that's alright then.". And I think you'll find they were islamic.

The Lib Dems do have some good policies [link] when it comes to religious diversity, church and state, and the civil rights of people that would be persecuted by religious assholes

So they practise as you would wish them to practise but don't start a big argument for the sake of it? I have to admit I think that this is not their problem.

but is there evidence to support the idea they'd break formation with the other political parties and say "hmmm, yeah, religion is partly culpable."?

What would be the point? Who is going to help and what will it prove? Do you seriously think it would be a good idea for someone like Sir Menzies Campbell to make a speech attacking Islam? And what about our Prime Minister? I mean, please, do you not see how bad that could get on the richta scale of dumbass backlashes?

[Rye]

Have you ever even heard a Lib Dem complain about theocracies or the crappiness of religion in general?

Do you really think that would a. Do any good or B. Actually be a good idea? Apart from the fact that complaining about "the crappiness of religion in general" is a really stupid thing to do it is also political suicide and for no gain. And the Liberal Democrats are a political party wanting to be in power, you can't laden yourself with potential foreign diplomats by calling their country a pile of crap because its a theocracy. Apart from anything else it might piss the Americans off. Sometimes it is best to keep silent on issues and then take practical measures as best you can.

I'm not disputing any of that, but there are legitimate times to call it like it is rather than playing it safe.

Hang on wait minute. They say that Islam is laced onto it and your taking that as religous apoligism?

Yes, it is textbook "they happen to have religion but it is in no way responsible," line of argument.

And besides, look at every conflict and though religion can inflame and make things much worse you still have to admit that there are political motives.

So? What are OBL's political motives? If he were a politician that happened to be bending religion to his profit, he wouldn't be throwing his millions at his terrorist groups. He obviously wants to affect political change which rejects the poisons of the west and exalts islam.

And I really don't see how bringing up the IRA helps you even remotely. They blew people up and killed people, quite frankly the fact that they didn't take themselves with them doesn't really make me think "Oh well that's alright then.".

The IRA are a textbook politics/crime based organisation. Their terrorism doesn't involve promises of an afterlife and killing over insulting their favourite invisible man of choice. Compare this to the "political movements" that blew up hundreds of their own people in egypt and throughout the arab world for not rising up against their rulers and installing a fundamentalist shithole, before turning on each other for not being ideologically pure enough, and the great satan.

Notice the difference?

And I think you'll find they were islamic.

Eh?

So they practise as you would wish them to practise but don't start a big argument for the sake of it? I have to admit I think that this is not their problem.

I've seen nothing from them to imply they wouldn't cave to religious bullshit given the backbiting and power plays we saw with reference to Kennedy's stepdown. That was your average "we are in it for ourselves" politician behaviour, which leads me to think their principles are just as bound by political correctness and religious pressure as anyone else. I don't think their principles would necessarily win out if it means them looking mean, is what I'm saying.

What would be the point? Who is going to help and what will it prove? Do you seriously think it would be a good idea for someone like Sir Menzies Campbell to make a speech attacking Islam? And what about our Prime Minister? I mean, please, do you not see how bad that could get on the richta scale of dumbass backlashes?

They don't even need to say it, if they more zealously pursued the seperation of church and state (an issue i've not heard about in years), and sidestepped the bullshit about religion only being a tool, at the same time not caving to PC religious pressure (the examples I gave just being super obvious, off the top of my head examples of this), I would easily vote for them.