|
|
Forum
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
SteveUK2
Joined: 19 Oct 2005
Posts: 280
Location: UK
|
 Post subject: Liberal Democrats - Iraq War Votes |
 |
|
I saw in the message board (which I seem unable to get registered for!) that the editors have posted the following.
| Quote: |
How many times are Liberal Democrats going to recycle the myth that they opposed the Iraq war?
Posted by The Editors on June 28, 2007, 1:01 pm
User logged in as: Editor
28 June 2007
Lib Dem myth
How many times are Liberal Democrats going to recycle the myth that they opposed the Iraq war? (Letters, 11 June).
At the great Hyde Park rally, Charles Kennedy said he was "not yet persuaded" of the case for war. Hardly a ringing and principled opposition. He made clear that, if the UN backed war, he would be persuaded that war was then legal.
The UN did not back war; and yet Kennedy's Lib Dems still backed it the moment the bombs started falling, with Kennedy saying, in parliament, that the prime minister could be confident now of the "genuine support" of the Liberal Democrat Party.
Cllr Rupert Read
Norwich Green Party
|
They may have backed it verbally once it started, but according to the voting record, they really did vote against it.
See here:
http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2003-03-18&number=118&dmp=219
According to those figures, not one single Lib Dem MP voted for the war.
So the issue is really one of whether they should have kept vigorously protesting even once it started. I wish they had, but despite that failing it seems to me that they are still the party to vote for if you were/are opposed to the war. |
|
Fri Jun 29, 2007 4:40 am
 |
|
 |
gcarth
Joined: 10 Nov 2005
Posts: 33
|
| Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | ...they [Lib Dems] are still the party to vote for if you were/are opposed to the war. |
Well yes, if we are to be fixated on the three main party system; but why not vote for the Greens? It seems to me they really do support most of the views that Media Lens followers have.
Garth |
|
|
Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
|
|
|
SteveUK2
Joined: 19 Oct 2005
Posts: 280
Location: UK
|
| Post subject: |
|
|
Well, the problem is that with a ludicrously unfair "First Past the Post" system like we have in the UK, voting for small parties is equivalent to flushing your vote down the loo.
If we had PR, then your vote would actually count for something, even if your whole area unanimously voted a different way. Lets hope Gordeon Brown introduces PR. |
|
|
Sat Jun 30, 2007 1:14 am
|
|
|
gcarth
Joined: 10 Nov 2005
Posts: 33
|
| Post subject: Post subject: Liberal Democrats - Iraq War Votes |
|
|
Yes Steve; I agree. Proportional Representation is what we desperately need.
Being a member of the Green Party, I naturally will always vote for my Party and obviously think everyone else should vote for us too!
However, I'm amazed that more people don't vote for the the Lib Dems if they really feel they must vote for one of the three main parties.
I think the Lib Dems are a poor bunch, an extremely pale imitation of the Greens, but they do make a few of the right noises (but not enough action!) so even they are much preferable to the other two main parties.
Leaving aside Proportional Representation, I think the media and big business are always the real problem aren't they?
The Lib Dems, like the other main parties, are too dependent on big business and too tied to the 'Establishment' to become a long term solution to our social and economic problems.
I think ultimately, only the Greens have the real answers, though no doubt their policies might need a bit of fine tuning. The other parties pinch all our good Green ideas but haven't the conviction to put them into practice.
Sorry if it sounds like a Party Political broadcast but being green is a philosophy - not just a political party.
As a last thought, I think it was Tony Benn who said something to the effect that people have to bring about democracy from the bottom up'.
I think that's right. We all tend to blame governments for everything but surely we all share responsibilty for our standard of living.
Garth |
|
|
Sat Jun 30, 2007 12:54 pm
|
|
|
SteveUK2
Joined: 19 Oct 2005
Posts: 280
Location: UK
|
| Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
As a last thought, I think it was Tony Benn who said something to the effect that people have to bring about democracy from the bottom up'.
I think that's right. We all tend to blame governments for everything but surely we all share responsibilty for our standard of living.
|
In a similar vein I think bitching about how useless the media are is not going to change things, at least not on it's own. We need to actually create new media. Of course, people are doing that with things like Democracy Now.
As for the Greens, I don't know much about them. I think the name is a mistake though. It gives the impression that all they know about is the environment, and not how to run things. |
|
|
Sat Jun 30, 2007 1:30 pm
|
|
|
gcarth
Joined: 10 Nov 2005
Posts: 33
|
| Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | In a similar vein I think bitching about how useless the media are is not going to change things, at least not on it's own. We need to actually create new media. Of course, people are doing that with things like Democracy Now.
|
Yes. Though I largely agree with criticisms of the 'Indy' from people like John Hilley (John writes some powerful stuff, doesn't he!) I think that really we can't expect papers like the Independent to be much more even-handed than they are already: they are after all subject to market forces like the rest of the media.
As you say, creating new media is important and perhaps once the circulation figures reach a certain threshold, big business might give its backing; of course that might in itself send things back to square one!
I sometimes wonder how different things would actually be without all this propaganda that we talk about in the media. In reality, would we really be a better society with the sort of changes that we call for? Or would we end up just the same as before? Maybe the unpalatable truth is that there are a lot of good, sensible people out there but there might also be a similar number of idiots and generally primitive thinkers right across the whole societal spectrum who will always succumb to their prejudices and greed. And of course, I'm in danger of making the (smug?) assumption that people with views like myself are the ones whose views are mainly correct.
Nevertheless, I'd like to see a complete overhaul of education so that pupils at least become taught enough to make unbiased, informed choices about how they think a democracy should be run.
That's my take, as they say (and I seem to be deviating somewhat from the original topic!).
Oh, and again, I agree with you about the need to change the name of the Green Party. The Greens actually have very detailed policies on other issues like social and economic affairs, and are certainly vehemently opposed to the war crimes that are going on 'as we speak'.
If it wasn't so corny I would suggest a name like 'People Power'!
Garth |
|
|
Sat Jun 30, 2007 3:49 pm
|
|
|
SteveUK2
Joined: 19 Oct 2005
Posts: 280
Location: UK
|
| Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Nevertheless, I'd like to see a complete overhaul of education so that pupils at least become taught enough to make unbiased, informed choices about how they think a democracy should be run.
|
I think children should be taught critical reasoning, to question things, to demand proof and not just accept accusations or official statements. We teach these skills in science but they should really be taught across the board. I seem to remember seeing something about a teacher in the US who was teaching a high school course on the media/government's use of propaganda over the years. We could do with something like that in the UK.
It's a funny situation though, because the government actually controls education and I am sure that they would object to teaching children that governments official statements are not to be trusted. |
|
|
Sat Jun 30, 2007 11:51 pm
|
|
|
RobB
Joined: 24 Sep 2005
Posts: 15
|
| Post subject: |
|
|
They don't legally. The government control schools particularly Local Authority schools. Childrens education is legally the responsibility of the parent/guardian something the government is not keen to publicise. We home educate and the legal requirement is to " provide an education suitable for the age ability and aptitude of the child". That's it . There is at the moment a battle going on between home educators and the government with local authority backing as they want to or are considering additional requirements for home educators eg tests, curriculums more interventions and inspections into the family and their home all of which are strongly opposed by most home educators as unnecessary, intrusive, threatening almost certainly judgemental and possibly damaging to the childs emotional and educational wellbeing.
RobB
| Quote: | | It's a funny situation though, because the government actually controls education and I am sure that they would object to teaching children that governments official statements are not to be trusted |
|
|
|
Wed Aug 08, 2007 3:05 pm
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
printer friendly 
