Stable economy v. reversing the ban

[loony_anti]

Or, put more simply, a Labour victory at the next election or PR boy Cameron in charge. YOU decide!

 

[Ereiam_jh]

Um, I've tended to vote liberal since New Labour got in although I've flirted with Galloway's lot.

 

[loony_anti]

Galloway, who expressed him admiration for Sadam's "indefatiguability" to the man himself. Yes, well worthy of a vote! Not.

 

[Nigel]

Hi,

Personally I do not believe the economy will destabilize if the Tories get back in power. So I will pick reversing the ban.

Cheers


Nigel

 

[loony_anti]

I sincerely hope you're right.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

mmm how about

"invading foreign countries all the time Vs a regulation system for hunting that works"

If you really thiunk the British Public is choosing between an ineffective wildlife regulation and the economy then you really are nuts.

 

[loony_anti]

I'm going to surprise you now and agree with you. It was madness to invade Iraq and madness to devote so much time to hunting in Parliament only to end up with a shoddy piece of legislation. The point is: what do we do now? I just don't think hunting is a major issue for the great majority of people when they vote: they care about defence, the economy, public services etc... If I voted in the UK (which I don't) I'd be prepared to vote Tory despite their stance on hunting IF I liked their main policies. But Labour are doing a reasonably good job with the economy so I'd probably vote for them.

 

[AlanE]

Loony: Labour have got away with their policies only because the world economy has been growing. Hard times may be coming and they will collapse. Historically, tories have always been trusted more than Labour on the economy.

 

[loony_anti]

That may or may not be true, Al. The point is that most people aren't going to vote at the next election on the basis of what the parties say about hunting. It simply doesn't feature on the radar as a key issue. The next point is that Labour have had three terms in office to mess up the economy and they haven't. As a person presumably aching for the Tories to get back in, this is a big problem for you.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

I don't think any one has claimed the election will be decided on the basis of the Hunting Act.

I voted Labour until Foot and Mouth.

I'm sure 50,000 - 650,000 dead Iraqis have made more difference to the voting than hunting.

I could never vote for a party whose leader lied to take us into war.

A vote for Labour is a vote for the Iraq War.

 

[loony_anti]

Did the Tories support the Iraq War? I've got a feeling they did...

 

[Ereiam_jh]

I'm not Tory.

However they were at least clear that the purpose of the war should be to topple Saddam.

They didn't lie about WMD.

 

[loony_anti]

Did they support the Iraq War or not? It's a simple question.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

You don't progress the debate very well do you. Could you re read the previous post it reads:

"However they were at least clear that the purpose of the war should be to topple Saddam. "

I've never voted Tory. My MP stands for a sensible law on hunting. I voted for him.

 

[loony_anti]

If you can't answer my simple question, just say so, then we can move on.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

I've answered your question. They justified the war on the basis of toppling Saddam. If you can read the previous sentence then you'll see that it means they were pro the iraq war.

If you want to move on, fine.

Why do you think the HA requires flushed out animals to be shot?

 

[loony_anti]

Why can't you answer this simple question? Did the Tories support the Iraq War or not? Clue: the answer is "yes" or "no".

 

[Ereiam_jh]

A clue to my answer.

It says they said the war was justified. That means they supported it. What more do you want, it spelt out in pre school language.

 

[loony_anti]

Excellent! Got there in the end, sunny Jim!

 

[Ereiam_jh]

Was there at the start LA. You need to learn to listen a little more.