Impeach Blair now says limp-wristed do-gooder leftie, er, former SAS General

BBKing · 10-01-2006, 10:28

Are the Generals revolting?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...682807,00.html

This follows on from a lot of senior US military types who are rather aghast at what Bush is doing with their armed forces.

andygrif · 10-01-2006, 10:47

Although I might agree with General Sir Michael Rose, I'm not really sure what his qualifications to demand an impeachment are, and nothing he has said is really new.

As long as there is apathy from the voting (or, more to the point, non-voting) public then nothing will happen. We all knew the facts when we went into the last general election - yet we still voted Blair back in. That tells me that either the public supported action in Iraq, they can't be bothered to find out the facts about action in Iraq or they are not bothered full stop.

So whilst ex-SAS commanders might pontificate about their own political views - nothing will happen unless the public sit up and take notice.

**Derek S** · 10-01-2006, 10:49

Also here

Quote:

Originally Posted by Downing Street

"The government is entitled to point out that there have been three democratic elections in Iraq," said the prime minister's official spokesman.

And how many people killed, kidnapped, maimed etc?

Personally I'd love it to happen here and in the US but sadly can't see it ever happening.

10-01-2006, 11:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by andygrif

We all knew the facts when we went into the last general election - yet we still voted Blair back in.

The way the election system works, that can hardly be called an endorsement, but the fact remains that enough of the people who voted were happy to overlook some of the issues, it would seem.

And the ones that didn't vote? Well, if they did have a point of view, then that was the time to be heard.

Quote:

Originally Posted by andygrif

That tells me that either the public supported action in Iraq, they can't be bothered to find out the facts about action in Iraq or they are not bothered full stop.

Let's for a moment assume that every single person against also voted, and then presumably voted against the current government.

That means that those not opposed to the war and/or in support of the government still must have out-numbered them.

And hence we have the government chosen by a majority - as democracy requires. The fact that this 'majority' is not representative of the whole of the population is down to electoral apathy.
If the public can't be bothered to get out there and make their mark, then they should also accept the result.

So I personally think any 'groundswell' of opposition to the government ought to reflect on their inaction at the last election, and maybe resolve to be counted next time. Maybe then I'd be interested in their complaints.

Damien · 10-01-2006, 11:17

He also said that if it has him, he would not have led his troops into a war he disagreed with. Newflash, but generals are not intitled to allow their personal convictions to interfere with there work

When you join the army you and at the disposal of the Goverment. You are not allowed to choose your wars.

Impeachment has already failed once because there has been no proof that the goverment knew that Iraq did not have WMD. It only was discovered that their was not, that is not a lie unless the goverment knew before hand

---------- Post added at 11:17 ---------- Previous post was at 11:12 ----------

Also, Just because he a a formal General does not make his opinion more valuible than anyone else. He was not to do with this war and hence has about as much say as you, me or anyone else

Xaccers · 10-01-2006, 11:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by BBKing

Are the Generals revolting?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...682807,00.html

This follows on from a lot of senior US military types who are rather aghast at what Bush is doing with their armed forces.

You mean his armed forces...

Damien · 10-01-2006, 11:19

Quote:

Let's for a moment assume that every single person against also voted, and then presumably voted against the current government.

No, They voted for the party they voted for. A vote that did not go to labour is not exactly a vote against labour. If it was a two party system then the result may have been different but its not.

It was not Labour vs Not Labour

It was Labour vs Tory, Lib Dem, Greens, ukip, BNP and so on.

danielf · 10-01-2006, 11:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

<snip>

It was Labour vs Tory, Lib Dem, Greens, ukip, BNP and so on.

Yeah right...

It would have been under Proportional Representation, but in practice, this country has a 2.5 party system. If you think otherwise, you are deluding yourself.

**Derek S** · 10-01-2006, 11:25

It also wasn't a referendum. There were several issues and I didn't make my choice based on the war (esp. seeing the two main parties both supported it)

Damien · 10-01-2006, 11:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by danielf

Yeah right...

It would have been under Proportional Representation, but in practice, this country has a 2.5 party system. If you think otherwise, you are deluding yourself.

The voting system may need a change, I was simply pointing out that vote not for labour was not therefor a vote against labour.

Its the same stupid logic in the US where the Democrates think that 3rd party candidates are stealing their votes

danielf · 10-01-2006, 11:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

The voting system may need a change, I was simply pointing out that vote not for labour was not therefor a vote against labour.

Fair enough, and good point

Damien · 10-01-2006, 11:32

Cheers, I would like a Proportional Representation system but I do not think it would work. A small party would hold a balance of powerO

One idea i liked was keep the current system and every general election the Lords seats are decided by Proportional Representation, I.E If labour get 54% of the vote, they choose 54% of the lords and so on.

Under that system the lord would be a lot harder for labour under the current election results as they would have less power in the lords. This way the winning party can have a majority and get policys though but the lords will ensure that if it was a small win it will be harder.

Anyway this is off-topic....

10-01-2006, 11:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

No, They voted for the party they voted for.

I know how the electoral system works.

I was not saying that it was a vote of confidence in Labour, but at the same time, you cannot protest against the party in government AND vote for them, if you actually want to get a message across to them. (Unless the message is "do what you like, I'll vote for you anyway.")

Damien · 10-01-2006, 11:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

I know how the electoral system works.

I was not saying that it was a vote of confidence in Labour, but at the same time, you cannot protest against the party in government AND vote for them, if you actually want to get a message across to them. (Unless the message is "do what you like, I'll vote for you anyway.")

Sorry, I misunderstood your post. I agree with you on that

10-01-2006, 11:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by dezzo

There were several issues and I didn't make my choice based on the war (esp. seeing the two main parties both supported it)

That is how it should be - voting on a single issue is just daft.

I know that often between the parties and the media they try to make it look like a referendum/vote of confidence, but it is up to the electorate to look past the single issue.

---------- Post added at 11:48 ---------- Previous post was at 11:45 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

Cheers, I would like a Proportional Representation system but I do not think it would work. A small party would hold a balance of power.

That is the argument that is often brought forward against a PR system.

It's true that is is possible that a minority party could hold the balance of power, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing, nor is it inevitable.

---------- Post added at 11:52 ---------- Previous post was at 11:48 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

One idea i liked was keep the current system and every general election the Lords seats are decided by Proportional Representation, I.E If labour get 54% of the vote, they choose 54% of the lords and so on.

Sound like a fudge to me. A way to pretend we have PR, without having it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

Under that system the lord would be a lot harder for labour under the current election results as they would have less power in the lords.

If we had PR, we wouldn't need the Lords at all...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

Anyway this is off-topic....

Not at all - the suggestion of impeaching an encumbent PM is about government and democracy.

As is everything we've talked about so far.