PDA

View Full Version : The people have spoken - ENGLAND wanted a Tory Govt



ShadesWolf
05-07-2005, 12:16
During the election, 60,000 more people voted for the Tory party than Labour in England. But they got 92 less seats.

It is time that Scottish and Welsh MP's have to make a joice, do they want to sit in their own parliament and make no entry into wetminster, or do they sit in westminster only.

How can a country have the same people making two different decissions on the same subject for different parts of the country.

Why should Scottish MP vote on matter that effect England. Why are things not good for Scotland, but the same thing is good for England.

lancelot
05-07-2005, 12:31
During the election, 60,000 more people voted for the Tory party than Labour in England. But they got 92 less seats.

It is time that Scottish and Welsh MP's have to make a joice, do they want to sit in their own parliament and make no entry into wetminster, or do they sit in westminster only.

How can a country have the same people making two different decissions on the same subject for different parts of the country.

Why should Scottish MP vote on matter that effect England. Why are things not good for Scotland, but the same thing is good for England.

Couldnt agree more.

Either remain in the Union or get out, the time to have cake and eat it should have ended a long time ago...

And with regard to your comments on the tories getting 60000 more votes..I havent seen the figures yet but assuming you are correct it seems this could be a no better indication that the 'first past the post' system needs to go. By these figures a 'proportional representation' type ballot would have got the tories victory...

BDC
05-07-2005, 12:41
We need proportional representation. It's daft Labour get 36% of the vote and a large majority, whilst Lib Dems get 22% and next to nothing.

And the whole devolved parliaments thing needs sorting out. Currently Scottish MPs have to sit in Westminster because lots of decisions affect Scotland and England, so they have to be there to vote on them. They really shouldn't vote on things which have no affect on Scotland though.

I think Wales, England and Scotland (and Northern Island if they can sort themselves out) all need proper regional parliaments, whilst for national issues another parliament can sit in Westminster (ie defence and foreign policies).

therother
05-07-2005, 13:04
Ah, the old "West Lothian question" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Lothian_Question).


During the election, 60,000 more people voted for the Tory party than Labour in England. But they got 92 less seats.That's an unfortunate side-effect of the way the first-past-the-post system works. But I don't think, in the longer term, that the Tories would like PR. The Tories have no natural allies: they would need 50% of the vote to get into government, and that's not likely to happen any time soon. A PR system would probably ensure a Lib/Lab coalition for some time to come, freezing out the Tories completely.


It is time that Scottish and Welsh MP's have to make a joice, do they want to sit in their own parliament and make no entry into wetminster, or do they sit in westminster only.I think Scottish MSPs can no longer sit in the House of Commons. That was only allowed for the transitional period. IIRC, MPs/MSPs had to choose which body to sit in 2001.


How can a country have the same people making two different decissions on the same subject for different parts of the country.It is a problem, but not a new one. There have been local and regional variations in legislation for some time, but perhaps not quite as large as now exists between Scotland, Wales, and England.


Why should Scottish MP vote on matter that effect England. Why are things not good for Scotland, but the same thing is good for England.The best solutions would seem to be either a separate English parliament for English issues or only allowing English based MPs to vote on matters that are devolved to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly.

But such inequities have existed long before now. For years, Scotland had a Conservative government that it came nowhere near to electing. To say that many Scots resented this is an understatement. The best recruiting sergeant the SNP and the independence movement ever had was Margaret Thatcher. Perhaps this situation will help motivate the English people to ask for a separate parliament of their own?

Duke of Gloucester
05-07-2005, 13:06
Sounds sensible in theory, but Parliament doesn't have much input into defence and foreign policy. These are decided in cabinet. I can't see how another layer of government will help. It benefits England to be part of the UK. Being part of the UK means that this sort of thing is likely to happen. When the Conservatives were in power, Scotland and Wales suffered similarly, but in reverse.

Leftenant Moley
05-07-2005, 13:09
We need to stay in the union. This Scottish parliament is a farce (and yet we voted for it). Yeah I think we need proportional representation too. It sucks how some peoples vote is more valuable than others. But Labour and Tories would lose seats in that case so I don’t think we’ll be getting that soon.

On a side note don’t you think democracy is nothing but a bunch of bullies telling you how to live your life? :tongue: .

Templar Knight
05-07-2005, 13:13
As a Scotsman I would like to stay in the union. Our parliament at Holyrood could not control a fart in a paper bag, get better people in or dissolve it.

zelda12
05-07-2005, 13:41
There are side effects to have a proportional representation based election system. For one regional issues are very rarely considered and this can at times make people even more disillusioned with Government, thus decreasing the number of votes cast even more and that means that the people who are really motivated to vote will gain more seats, unfortunately the people who have reason to vote more are extremists. And in a PR system extremist parties like the BNP, the Cornwall Independence Party and the Official Monster Raving Looney Party will get more seats. Personally I would much prefer the first past the post system and no fascists within 5 miles of Parliament.

Also you neglect to mention that that 60,000 more votes was certainly caused by several factors, the most obvious being the protest vote that many labour voters gave to Lib Dems to show their disillusion with the Government over the war, then they got Tory MP's, an prime example was in Putney and it will not happen next time round. Another reason is that the Conservatives core vote is concentrated in the south which has one of the highest proportions of elderly people in the country and elderly people are known to vote in large numbers.

ShadesWolf
05-07-2005, 14:03
protest vote I have never understood this idea. I am a Tory and have voted in every election. And will continue to vote. In all teh GE and local I have always voted Tory and have no intension voting any other way.

As for the elderly vote, at least one group of people can be bothered to get off there back sides and put a cross in the box. Its a pity a few more lazy younger people cant be bothered.

As for your comments on it being a southern thing, If you have a look at an Election Results map, after removing all teh larger city type areas ie Merseyside, Manchester, Birmingham, London, north East and West and South yorkshire which are the heavily populated urban areas the map is VERY Blue with a few Yellow areas. This shows a def difference between Urban and rural life.

zelda12
05-07-2005, 14:14
protest vote

I have never understood this idea. I am a Tory and have voted in every election. And will continue to vote. In all teh GE and local I have always voted Tory and have no intension voting any other way.

Its becuase the majority of the Labour Party were opposed to the war in Iraq, and even more opposed to Blair. But becuase of two major landslides they all belived that enough Labour voters would vote Labour still and stop the Tories winning the seat they live in. Unfortunately the people in close marginals believed this as well, hence the huge swing to the Lib Dems whilst Labour Dropped and the Conservatives stayed the same. The staying the same allowed the Tories to win in many marginals.


As for your comments on it being a southern thing, If you have a look at an Election Results map, after removing all teh larger city type areas ie Merseyside, Manchester, Birmingham, London, north East and West and South yorkshire which are the heavily populated urban areas the map is VERY Blue with a few Yellow areas. This shows a def difference between Urban and rural life.

Of course there a definate difference between Urban and rural life, the Urban areas like the Labour party becuase of the stable economy good job security and national minimum wage. The rural areas hate the Labour party not least becuase of deep ingrained loyalty to the conservatives, (An example being Howard flights former constituency which has been Conservative for over 150 years.) and also becuase they are the ones who fear immigration and then there the pro hunt lobby.


Also remember that when Thatcher was winning more people voted Labour but she still won.

JAG
05-07-2005, 15:07
Ah, the bitterness of a third big election defeat is hitting home! ~:cool:

I do not have any problem with the situation as it is, for the reason others have stated.

But Shades, if you want PR, then we could agree, but you do realise that would mean the Tories never getting into power ever again don't you? ~:cheers:

ShadesWolf
05-07-2005, 15:31
But Shades, if you want PR, then we could agree, but you do realise that would mean the Tories never getting into power ever again don't you

I do actually believe in PR. I dont think that first pasted the post works.

I not sure how you would elect somebody and who (persons) would get into parliament.

zelda12
05-07-2005, 15:44
The PR system works so that each party that gets a certain proportion of votes gets a certain number of seats in the parliment. Problems arise because the local people don't have any representatives in the Parliment. That and the fact that in the PR system extremist parties actually get seats. And once they get one seat they get more.

Boohugh
05-07-2005, 16:53
Also you neglect to mention that that 60,000 more votes was certainly caused by several factors, the most obvious being the protest vote that many labour voters gave to Lib Dems to show their disillusion with the Government over the war, then they got Tory MP's, an prime example was in Putney and it will not happen next time round.

There is a high chance the elecorate will be even more disillusioned at the next election because they will be so sick of such a long Labour government. People will finally realise Labour isn't fulfilling its promises on health and education.

If the Conservatives get their act together quickly and elect a new younger leader that has the party's support, there is quite a high probability that they could form the next Government in 2009/10.

Duke Malcolm
05-07-2005, 17:27
Yes, If Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland have devolution, England should. A separate parliament should be elected by the English for devolved matters like those that the Welsh assembly has to deal with.

zelda12
05-07-2005, 17:30
There is a high chance the elecorate will be even more disillusioned at the next election because they will be so sick of such a long Labour government. People will finally realise Labour isn't fulfilling its promises on health and education.

If the Conservatives get their act together quickly and elect a new younger leader that has the party's support, there is quite a high probability that they could form the next Government in 2009/10.

You may have neglected to mention that the Labour party has not failed in its promises in keeping the NHS and education system together and improving it. When it comes right down to it the ordinary person on the street trusts Labour more than any other party when it comes down to running the economy and investing in services. They still do not trust the Tories with those responsibilities and frankly I doubt they ever will. The reason and the only reason the Tories made such startling gains in this election was because Labour voters voted Lib Dem as a protest against the war. Now they have Tory MP's and will not make the same mistake.

Remember one thing when the Labour Government inherited the NHS the education system public transport and almost all the other public services they were decrepit and starved of funds and any real hope. Within 8 years the NHS is rapidly rising in efficiency and expertise, schools are getting better, and public transport is finally being drawn inexorably back to Nationalisation. And of course the Economy is in the best of health and with this age of mortgages and credit cards who wants an economy that had so many fluxes it looked like a seismograph, the simple fact is people trust Labour on almost all issues a lot more than they trust the Tories.

As such I can comfortable predict that within 10-20 years the Conservative party will be the Third Party in the country with the Lib Dems in second.

Have a nice day. ~:)

ah_dut
05-07-2005, 18:09
When it comes right down to it the ordinary person on the street trusts Labour more than any other party when it comes down to running the economy and investing in services.
Well the ones that bothered to vote that is... :bow:

But can Labour keep spending like this indefinitely? I think not personally, but then agin, I have few reliable sources other than what I see in my parent's line of work...the NHS, where loads of money seems to go into red tape and dentists (yup my parents are dentists) seem to have a literal tonne of forms to fill in.

zelda12
05-07-2005, 18:18
The answer to if the givernment can keep money going in indefinately is yes. After 2008 the growth in spending will slow down quite a lot but it will still grow and by then that growth will only be needed for new hospitals and new up to date equipment. And the forms are there for a reason. They are there so that patients have accurate records of thier ailment and so that if refered with a different illness other doctors know what happened to them. Thats what red tape is for. The Tory answer was to have a smoother more streamlined Government. If you have seen the Yes Minister/Primeminster episode when Hacker did the same you have the result. All it means is the same amount of paperwork dumped on fewer people. If the Tories had won the Civil Servants would have been on strike by the end of the month.

Boohugh
05-07-2005, 21:44
The answer to if the givernment can keep money going in indefinately is yes.
Without raising taxes extortionately? I don't think so. The government is currently paying £29 billion a year just on the interest payments of national debt. Labour keeps on borrowing, sending the debt up even further, storing up trouble for future governments.

It may be a Labour government in the future, or it may not, but the fact that Labour is so shortsighted is a worrying thing indeed. It just shows a complete lack of interest in the future. Everyone blames Thatcher for the poor performance of public services now, but the fact is she laid the economic framework that Labour is profiting from now (flexible labour market, lack of trade union power, etc) because she had a degree of foresight.


After 2008 the growth in spending will slow down quite a lot
Nobody can accurately predict that far into the future, because nobody knows what will be contained in future budgets. It is possible to model what will happen if nothing changes, but unfortunately the economy just doesn't work like that.

zelda12
05-07-2005, 21:53
~D Yet the country keeps on going, the truth of the matter is that we the British pay some of the Cheapest Taxes in Europe and to be frank the British public know this now and are willing to pay more.

And on the Subject of the framework you laid is it me or does it seem to you that the Tories didn't so much leave a good framework as a field of personal battles and Tory egotism at its best. Remember that in their first year in office the Labour Party rose the minimum wage and scrapped a vast swathe of Tory policies. And remember we've had 8 years to destroy the country with our Quasi Socialist ideas and it still seems to be doing better than when the Tories had it. ~;)

71-hour Ahmed
05-07-2005, 22:44
Tsk tsk... quasi-socialists...

Current labour economic policy is mostly an extension of later period Major government policy, with some less careful management of debt and these many tax credit/ bonus/thingy deals. Independence for the Bank of England is Gordon Browns sole identifiable Labour introduction in the first few years.

Labour education policy....ditto - minus the grant maintenance idea. NHS policy.....largely similar, but a lot more gimmicky/management crap focussed recently (possibly a result of existing strategy's flaws such as target setting steadily pulling the system out of shape and distorting its values and success perception, so part conservative and part labour to blame). Theres surprisingly little between the two parties in those areas. You have to look to specific areas like European integration and Iraq (and only now) to be able to tell them apart.

Also personal debt is now ridiculously high, and the longer term picture for house price rises is tempered by the danger of the many whose pensions have lost most or all of their value selling their houses in a few years time to fund their retirement. The NHS has the highest rate in Europe of deaths due to MRSA, a disease best prevented by...wait for it... cleaning the sodding rooms. I have a friend who got messed up by that disease, so I'm really not impressed by the governments record on that area. Oh and one thing: top up fees for Universities, which specifically were not going to be introduced, are now coming in.... Labour, the party that puts the "ass" into "middle class" and ensures that people from poorer backgrounds are put off getting a good education and better prospects in life.

So the answer is... it is you. This government sucks as much as the poorer conservative governments did in those areas.

The suggestion (getting back on topic) that England wanted Tories is BS. Only 20% of England (total voting pop) wanted labour, to say that the difference in votes under those circumstance had any relevance is garbage. Also refer to the previous comments regarding internal vote distribution in England - theres more difference between the english in different areas than between scotland and england, or wales. I have no doubt that many of the English would have voted Blair if needed to keep him in power if it wasn't for the fact he would win without them.

Shambles
05-07-2005, 23:40
well if the english went and found their own island,
Wed be fine,
take ya tory labour and lib dems with you Please.
We dont want any of em thanx

torys want to re introduce poll tax and so do the lib dems,

Its not much better with labour,
they want higher council tax, But not for england only for wales,

then u have them freezing house prices here in wales at Extortionate prices,
a house that would have costed you £85k 10 years ago is now more like 500k now.

but this area is adopting a welsh only policy,
Gone are the days of burning down english peoples homes,
now its Dont sell the english a house,
But becous of the house prices Youd need to go work in england to make enough money to buy 1.
so no welsh people can buy them, But then again nor can the english.


then you take all our tax money And flood it in to english hospitols and slash english wating lists,
Yet welsh wating lists stay Just the same,
Basically
We dont want your rules becous thats the way you want to Have it,
we dont want to give the english our money Becous they spend it on the english.


all We want is our country back,
And 1 day it will come.

and any way torys dint loose or gain any seats.
and plaid cymru lost 1 seat.

Its the lib dems who gained the most.
And that would have been becous of the war,

bmolsson
05-08-2005, 05:53
Losing really sux..... ~;)

thrashaholic
05-08-2005, 08:49
Shambles,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but England (South East England to be precise) IIRC are net contributors money-wise to Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, so in fact it's English money going into those countries' schools and hospitals. Also IIRC the Welsh Assembly has control of Welsh hospitals, so high waiting lists in Wales are a purely Welsh affair and have nothing to do with the English.

You are also mistaken about Tory, Lib Dem and Labour tax policy, in that the Tories don't want to reintroduce the poll tax, their policy is in fact aimed at lowering council tax, the Lib Dems want to replace council tax with a local income tax, and the Labour party are in favour of raising council taxes across the country, not just in Wales (in fact the South East of England has seen the greatest council tax rises in the country).

Admittedly Wales, especially the old industrial areas, has been somewhat neglected, and not enough has been done to encourage prosperity in it, but I hardly think it's fair to blame all of the problems Wales is facing on the English. As a Welshman living in England, I find your portrayal of the English as money-grabbing sadists quite offensive, especially considering how much money in the Welsh economy is from English tourism. Wales needs to encourage service sector industries, like Northern Ireland has, to put it back on the road to wealth.

Shambles
05-08-2005, 09:34
Shambles,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but England (South East England to be precise) IIRC are net contributors money-wise to Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, so in fact it's English money going into those countries' schools and hospitals. Also IIRC the Welsh Assembly has control of Welsh hospitals, so high waiting lists in Wales are a purely Welsh affair and have nothing to do with the English.

You are also mistaken about Tory, Lib Dem and Labour tax policy, in that the Tories don't want to reintroduce the poll tax, their policy is in fact aimed at lowering council tax, the Lib Dems want to replace council tax with a local income tax, and the Labour party are in favour of raising council taxes across the country, not just in Wales (in fact the South East of England has seen the greatest council tax rises in the country).

Admittedly Wales, especially the old industrial areas, has been somewhat neglected, and not enough has been done to encourage prosperity in it, but I hardly think it's fair to blame all of the problems Wales is facing on the English. As a Welshman living in England, I find your portrayal of the English as money-grabbing sadists quite offensive, especially considering how much money in the Welsh economy is from English tourism. Wales needs to encourage service sector industries, like Northern Ireland has, to put it back on the road to wealth.

Is that what blair tells you is it?

Look out hel tell u we have wapons of mass destruction next

But sorry if i offended you,
I get quite agrivated when it comes to leting english people tell me what to do

Snowhobbit
05-08-2005, 09:51
You do know that Britain has nuke right?
Pretty sure they qualify as WMD :book:

Shambles
05-08-2005, 09:57
Wales m8 Wales :)

The welsh dont get much back for what they put in,

thrashaholic
05-08-2005, 11:27
Wales m8 Wales :)

The welsh dont get much back for what they put in,


Is that what Plaid Cymru tells you? because I'm afraid it's simply not true. I don't have any statistics to hand, but it's the South East of England, as the main economic powerhouse, that generates most of the UK's wealth.

I don't know where you got the idea that the English live in the lap of luxury, taxing the Welsh to death to pay for English public services, because wherever it's from it's a lie. It is English money that pay for most things in Great Britain. Wales would be in a lot worse state if it was independant and didn't have English tax money to support it.

ShadesPanther
05-08-2005, 11:31
well if you dont put in much to start with....

Duke Malcolm
05-08-2005, 12:25
I don't know where you got the idea that the English live in the lap of luxury, taxing the Welsh to death to pay for English public services, because wherever it's from it's a lie. It is English money that pay for most things in Great Britain. Wales would be in a lot worse state if it was independant and didn't have English tax money to support it.

The oil, tobacco and alcohol duties pays for most things in Great Britain, The taxes in the South-East pay for things in the South-East.
The only reason so much money is produced in the South-East, is because a lot of the people live there. The money is then spent on the people in the South-East. together with the oil and alcohol money that Scotland produces, it could get more money than it does now, but not quite as much as the SNP say. I can't say much for Wales, because I don't live there.

71-hour Ahmed
05-08-2005, 18:37
If you are going to make the old South East England argument, then I suggest you look at the situation in much of England. How much of it is net recievers/donators? Why not split England if that is your attitude? Theres more than what money goes in and out of regions that matters.

Moreover, agricultural and rural areas tend to be negatives net due to the smaller populations, lower wages, circumstances and higher provision cost for services. And guess what much of Scotland and Wales is?

lancelot
05-08-2005, 22:23
.And in a PR system extremist parties like the BNP, the Cornwall Independence Party and the Official Monster Raving Looney Party will get more seats. Personally I would much prefer the first past the post system and no fascists within 5 miles of Parliament.


Isnt that the price of democracy?


Or is it the 'democracy of the few'? Which to me, doesnt sound like democracy at all...

And regardless of preference, it seems that in this election, a majority of the people wanted option A, yet are now being governed by option B on little more than a technicality...

Its actually more disturbing the more I think about it....we have a party in power who a minority voted for....

Democracy anyone??? Hello...?

zelda12
05-09-2005, 11:31
Well if you take it even further you realize that the Tories only won vote wise by 60,000 people, thats about 0.6% of 1 seat. So in actual fact we would have a Hung Parliment, which would cause the Labour and Lib Dems to form a Coalition against the Tories. Never forget that the Lib Dems and Labour may dislike each other but they both hate the Tories with a passion.

And I sometimes do think that Democracy in its current form is a bit unwieldy, but then again the other options are a lot worse. So I suppose what we have to do is make sure the people understand what it is the BNP really stand for. Unfortunately none of the major parties have stood up and smelled the shit heap piling up under their feet. Even if Jack Straw did have a go at the BNP candidate in his seat when he made his acceptance speech.

LittleGrizzly
05-09-2005, 11:47
Even if Jack Straw did have a go at the BNP candidate in his seat when he made his acceptance speech.

I think there were 1 or 2 putdowns from winning mp's such as thanking everyone bar the BNP

zelda12
05-09-2005, 11:52
Aye, pity the main party policy's don't involve telling the truth about the BNP. Its a shame really, they've gotten so good at slinging mud at each other you'd think they'd have the skill to bury the BNP by now. :rolleyes:

English assassin
05-09-2005, 12:15
The Tories have no natural allies: they would need 50% of the vote to get into government, and that's not likely to happen any time soon. A PR system would probably ensure a Lib/Lab coalition for some time to come, freezing out the Tories completely.

Not at all true. One thing Blair has shown is the majority in this country is centre right. Not only are their allies in the right wing of the labour paty but there is a huge tranche of votes to be had. of course the party would have to adapt and its probably too stupid to do so but in principle PR would be fine for the tories.

I object to PR because of the power it gives to the party machines, but the Billy Bragg solution seems very sensible to me (HoC on first past the post, second chamber proportional to the national totals of votes cast in the first past the post election)

Shambles no disrespect mate but you are talking out of your leak pie if you think the Welsh are subsidising English hospitals. I give you the Public Expenditure Statistical Analysis 2005. http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/172/83/pesa2005_chapter8.pdf

You will note that per capita spending for 04-05 is £6391 in England, and £7312 in Wales. (£7786 in Scotland and £8566 in NI) (indexed, that's 97 for England and 111 for wales). Also that the South east is the region that loses out almost the most. I can't be bothered to look out the tax figures but I think we can safely assume the tax take in Wales is a leetle bit less than in London and the South east, giving Wales a douible benefit.

None of which I object to until I hear some bloody Plaid Cymru type spouting lies in the hope of a vote.

Oh, and could you explain for me the difference between the two statements "I won't sell him a house he's English" and "I won't sell him a house he's black"? Just curious to know when racism was cool in Wales.

zelda12
05-09-2005, 12:24
~D Its not racism its nationalism. The Welsh hate the English the Scottish hate the English and the Irish hate the English. And the English hate the French. Its been going on so long now that its become part of each nations psyche. ~;) This is coming from a man whos ancestors moved to scotland from Ireland then my mum married a Londoner...sometimes I don't know what to do, one minute I'm hating the French and the Tories the next I'm hating myself. :dizzy2: ~;)

LittleGrizzly
05-09-2005, 12:34
None of which I object to until I hear some bloody Plaid Cymru type spouting lies in the hope of a vote.

Don't worry PC lost a seat this year and missed out on thier biggest target seat, only 3 PC MP's, the tide of nationalism seems to be turning in wales.

English assassin
05-09-2005, 13:55
~D Its not racism its nationalism. The Welsh hate the English the Scottish hate the English and the Irish hate the English. And the English hate the French. Its been going on so long now that its become part of each nations psyche. ~;) This is coming from a man whos ancestors moved to scotland from Ireland then my mum married a Londoner...sometimes I don't know what to do, one minute I'm hating the French and the Tories the next I'm hating myself. :dizzy2: ~;)

Well its bloody childish. I don't mind a bit of leg pulling over rugby or football when the home nations play each other, but all this "It only rains so much in Wales because of the bastard English" gets my goat.

I remember once staying in a bothy under Ben Alder (Ben Alder is a mountain not a rugby player and a bothy is a mountain shelter, before anyone gets any funny ideas), and the entry in the log for a few weeks previously when England had been playing some random team in, I think, a European championship qualifier, was "Come on [Austria/Slovenia/whoever], beat those bloody English."

I mean, its nice to think England is so important to these people, but honestly, get the chip off your shoulder and get a life.

The only people who have the right to hate the English would be the Irish, although even there I would hope they would realise the people resoponsuible for selling the grain in the potato famine, or the black and tans, are not around any more and let it go a bit.

Al Khalifah
05-09-2005, 14:12
The only people who have the right to hate the English would be the Irish, although even there I would hope they would realise the people resoponsuible for selling the grain in the potato famine, or the black and tans, are not around any more and let it go a bit.
No national/racial/ethnic/relgious group has the right to hate any other national/racial/ethnic/relgious group, without excuses. It's all OK saying the Irish have the right to hate the English, but then the English could argue they have the right to hate Ireland because of the IRA's activities in the late 20th Century, but then Ireland could argue Bloody Sunday, but England could argue....

It just goes on and never stops. No one is above blame at some point. The English have been subject to just as many injustices and attrocities (both attempted and actual) as any other people if you look at the whole picture of history. Get over it. Personally I don't see why people get so worked up over this obselete idea of a nation anymore anyway. The days of the nation state are dying in Europe and like it or not thats the way its going/got to be in the age of multinationalism.

zelda12
05-09-2005, 14:20
I was joking, hence the number if smilies I put into my post. But I agree with Al Khalifah, nationalism is dieing in Europe and a lot of the more conservative people are scared shitless of this hence nationalist parties are popping up everywhere. Hopfully they'll fail.

English assassin
05-09-2005, 15:14
Well I hope you are right, personally I don't see people adopting a biog cuddly inclusive identity I see them adopting smaller and smaller identities, driven along by people who peddle division in the name of empowerment so that they, the peddlars, have a power base (eg the racial politics in Bethnal Green and Bow). I blame the left I am afraid, for years its been very handy for them to have communities of people feeling hard done by, well now it may bite us all in the bum.

The Ottomans and the Austro-Hungarians tried these pan-national structures and in the end nationalism took its chance and blew them each apart.

I did realise you weren't supporting those views yourself though.

zelda12
05-09-2005, 15:20
Aye, sooner or later though the nationalist parties in the Uk are going to destroy themselves, Britain has gotten to cosmopolitan for them to succeed. There's too much racial and eithnic diversity in the country and for that I am very, very happy.

Adrian II
05-09-2005, 15:20
Well I hope you are right, personally I don't see people adopting a biog cuddly inclusive identity I see them adopting smaller and smaller identities, driven along by people who peddle division in the name of empowerment so that they, the peddlars, have a power base (eg the racial politics in Bethnal Green and Bow).Well said!
I blame the left I am afraid (..)Go right ahead, but I blame German Romanticism, and Herder most of all. The idiots had to go and spoil a perfect victory of Reason over Obscurantism throughout Europe. Napoleon should have had them all shot when he had the chance. Hegel, Schlegel, the whole bloody lot of them.