In the name of Islam

Methinks that all the bigger parties will come prepared at the next opportunity.

If you missed "The Iraq War" part one on BBC 2 tonight...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b021v4cg/The_Iraq_War_Regime_Change/

You say that but is it, really? You couldn't get a broader based coalition to the one that is currently the government and yet it's not working. The Conservatives can not get their manifesto policies through and neither can the Lib-Dems; it is the worst possible position for both parties to be in. The situation is worse for the Lib-Dems it has to be said because its electors feel very let down that their party has entered an alliance with another party whose politics are diametrically-opposed to their own. They will be punished at the next election and many of its MPs will lose their seats.

The other problem with coalitions is that the electorate don't know what the eventual government plans to do and if they don't know, how on earth can they make an informed choice? The answer is: they can't.

​

Correct me if I'm wrong but I seem to recall that the Lib-Dems spent about 10 days in negotiations with Labour before they went to the Tories with whom they were able to agree quite quickly.

An excellent piece but I doubt it will have much resonnance.

George Bush Junior had two reasons for his so-called war on terror. The first was that the hawks that surrounded him were not at all happy that his father ended Gulf War 1 without properly dealing with Saddam Hussein. The second was Bin Laden and the Taliban in Afghanistan. In both cases, Bush wanted regime changes. Saddam has been dealt with by a war that should never have taken place - Bush relied heavily on phoney evidence mostly cooked-up by Blair and in part by a paper written by a student and posted on the internet. That was also a war designed to benefit Haliburton which profited hugely with US government contracts.

Bin Laden has also been dealt with and whilst there are Taliban fighters in Afghanistan, they pose no real threat to the UK. So why are our brave sons and daughters risking their lives?

There is a real and present threat to Britain's security but it comes from neither Iran, Iraq nor Afghanistan. It comes, I suggest from America or rather its skewed foreign policy. The problem is that Britain lacks politicians and leaders with sufficient backbone to tell the US that and whilst we are - and will remain - an active NATO member, we can not support America in this venture - which she can not possibly win (the Russians spent many years fighting the Taliban and withdrew in defeat).

Too many right wingers. Need a broader representation.

Its good to see the right wingers held in check.

It isnt working? It is. Meaning that the Tories cant do absolutely everything that they want to do. Overall the right wingers are held in check.


With a bit of refinement it will work well for Britain.

"Correct me if I'm wrong but I seem to recall that the Lib-Dems spent about 10 days in negotiations with Labour before they went to the Tories with whom they were able to agree quite quickly."

Mark, with great respect, you are wrong, and I am happy to correct you!

See this wikipedia entry, espescially the second paragraph:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2010

(I am a card carrying Lib Dem and am pretty happy with the Coalition)

It is impossible to choose the exact make-up of elected MPs or are you suggesting some form of party list system whereby coalition partners choose MPs when forming a government. That could result in some constituencies not having an elected MP. I don't think the electorate as a whole would agree with you; I certainly don't.

What is happening right now is that the party with the most MPs is unable to contemplate key legislation to make Britain a safer country. Also please remember that prior to the last General Election, Nick Clegg campaigned for - and included in his party's Manifesto - a referendum on Europe and the Lib-Dems were the only party with that pledge. Now that Cameron has finally woken-up to the threat posed by UKIP and now wants to hold a referendum, not only will Clegg not support him but he will do everything to prevent the enabling Bill obtaining the Royal Assent. If those are examples of a coalition "working" then I rather think the electorate will try to prevent any future such government. Coalitions please no one other than those who want wishy-washy ineffectual governance. And that is not what Britain needs right now.

Many thanks, Andrew, I am happy to be corrected. I will now go and sit in the naughty corner and do my 100 lines!

Perhaps its the wrong key legislation? Perhaps the right key legislation needs to be implemented?

This is the usual stuff trotted out by the two main parties to help perpetuate their archaic system.

But back to square one. A party with a large majority is not a strong party. The only strength it has is to do what it likes. That is not strong. It is abuse of power.

Thatcher was not strong, just pumped up on oil revenues and a sizeable majority. The mandate she got led to misguided and selfserving policies. What the country needed she never implemented. That isn't strong government though it is perceived as such.

If she had been as strong as people claim then she wouldn't have blown all of the oil revenues in her quests eg finance the dole queues instead of investing it in the countries future, she wouldnt have sold off all the council houses without rebuilding any, driven the mining industry into the ground to break the unions and other industries with it - sharp decline in manufacturing and an explosion in the financial services industry. How "strong" is that? That's what happens when a government gets a large majority and drops lucky with a revenue bonanza.

There seems to be confusion here between a mandate for a government to do as it pleases, on the one hand and strong government, on the other. They are not the same.

I am withdrawing from this discussion as it is circular. You and I, John, are unlikely to ever agree about governance for the UK.

I agree.

I have a lot of time for Russel Brand. Russel Brand the West Ham fan, Russel Brand the reformed heroin addict and champion for the cause for the rehabilitation of existing addicts, Russel Brand the comedian - he is a lot funnier and smarter than he at first sounds and he used to be married to a gorgeous gal and singer.

Interestingly written article.