Governor's Interview

[Chinahand]

But I think a lot of it has to do with the public not seeing a credible alternative. The Liberal Democrats aren't really going to be seen to be viable alternatives, especially to voters who have always been continual Tory or Labour supporters.

Do you think the Liberal Democrats are a credible alternative?

 

What do you mean by changing Britain's international position?

Not really on topic - but anyway.

 

My comment about international position is that the liberal democrat's domestic agenda isn't so different from any of the main political parties', so if they'd been elected, domestically not much would have changed, but in withdrawing from Iraq/not taking part there would have been a major change internationally.

 

And no I don't think they are a credible alternative, but I am not inagreement with their antiwar policies which is sort of the point I'm making!

 

From speaking to people who I have met or getting a general feel for what people think of the war I have the opinion that there is a lot of more opposition to the war than support from it. I can think of few people who support it. You did have Respect party, which didn't do very well but is the problem more with the political system than with strength of the opposition? It is no wonder that there is so much apathy when are no breadth of scope in the political views of the top three political parties, people seem to think that by voting Labour there will some tremendous differences in policy to the Conservatives. Also the system isn't very democratic with simple plurality voting and the fundamental problem that after having voted in a government the public have no say in the policy of their government but leave it to the few to make all the decisions. The war was rammed through by a government that informed the public that there were WMD. Though a different point is that I suppose that voters are given little impression as to how foreign policy is to be carried out, it is mainly only domestic matters that are voting issues.

 

Check out THIS YouGov tracking poll on the Iraq war. I think you've got to be very careful about selection bias when talking about opposition to the war - pollsters aren't imune from it, but they spend many thousands of pounds more trying to get round it than you'd do canvassing opinion in a pub!

 

At the start of the war it was supported: upto 66% of those polled in a representative sample agreed that it was right to take military action. The antiwar movement scored as low as 29% during this time - 1 million of them may have marched, but Blair's finger was, as ever on a broader pulse, [don't assume I'm a supporter of him either I'm not]. The war was controversial, but it was supported in its build up - you may say on a lie, I'll say it was alot more complicated than that.

 

Afterwards support has decreased, and there is definitely a lot of disillusionment, both with the spinning of the prewar intelligence and with the conduct of the occupation, but even so the anti-war movement has never been able to get above 60% support - never enough to get a momentum behind it for change. Partly I think because many of those unhappy with the occupation still partly supported the war, but just wanted it run better!

 

I'm fascinated both ways round - the war hasn't been a huge drain on the country, and though it has increased the threat to us, I think you've got to take these claims with a pinch of salt - bird flu is probably more likely to kill substantial numbers of UK citizens in the next 20 years than Al Qaeda, and normal winter flu will definitely take out more pensioners. And although the Al Qaeda threat may have increased it was there anyway prior to invading.

 

But at the same time public opinion is VERY casualty shy nowadays. In Korea, Mandate Palestine/Suez, the Falklands etc, you name it, people accepted much much higher casualty rates - were these conflicts, in the grand scheme of things, so much more worthwhile, or is Iraq comparatively such a huge misjudgement - Iraq does involve very genuine geopolitical issues? I'm not convinced ignoring them was/is a solution.

 

Personally I'm think we should continue the commitment we are making - the situation is evolving and seems to be slowly improving; abandoning these benighted countries isn't a long term solution.

 

Dragging the subject back to topic - I believe that for the IOM to try to lecture the UK on Iraq would be misguided. There is a democratic process where by change can occur (and a constitutional mechanism for the IOM to raise issues concerning Manx troops); the antiwar movement has failed to motivate change and it is now happening organically as the situation develops. I'm happy with that. UK troops are putting themselves in harms way, I don't think that sacrifice is for nothing, or too great an effort for the country to sustain considering the risks involved.

 

Edited a bit!

[La_Dolce_Vita]

At the start of the war it was supported: upto 66% of those polled in a representative sample agreed that it was right to take military action. The antiwar movement scored as low as 29% during this time - 1 million of them may have marched, but Blair's finger was, as ever on a broader pulse, [don't assume I'm a supporter of him either I'm not]. The war was controversial, but it was supported in its build up - you may say on a lie, I'll say it was alot more complicated than that.

 

I would suppose a good deal of the support was simply down to patriotic fervour under the belief that the government had made the right decision about going to war.

 

I'm fascinated both ways round - the war hasn't been a huge drain on the country, and though it has increased the threat to us, I think you've got to take these claims with a pinch of salt - bird flu is probably more likely to kill substantial numbers of UK citizens in the next 20 years than Al Qaeda, and normal winter flu will definitely take out more pensioners. And although the Al Qaeda threat may have increased it was there anyway prior to invading.

 

But at the same time public opinion is VERY casualty shy nowadays. In Korea, Mandate Palestine/Suez, the Falklands etc, you name it, people accepted much much higher casualty rates - were these conflicts, in the grand scheme of things, so much more worthwhile, or is Iraq comparatively such a huge misjudgement - Iraq does involve very genuine geopolitical issues? I'm not convinced ignoring them was/is a solution.

 

Yes it is the same with Vietnam wasn't it. Would it also be the case that people trusted their governments far more in the 50s or maybe was the media far less critical of government policy (though I doubt this). No I don't think the conflicts were much more worthwhile but they were very different as well. No the conflicts were not anymore worthwhile. Certainly not Suez, that was a big mistake and though we had responsibilities in Palestine the outcome wasn't good.

I don't know what geopolitical issues you refer to but neither Britain nor America should be allowed to be the cowboys of the world and do as they please.

 

I don't see what good continuing the commitment would do. In the long run I doubt it will bring stability to Iraq, it may do but I would be very surprised.

 

Dragging the subject back to topic - I believe that for the IOM to try to lecture the UK on Iraq would be misguided. There is a democratic process where by change can occur (and a constitutional mechanism for the IOM to raise issues concerning Manx troops); the antiwar movement has failed to motivate change and it is now happening organically as the situation develops. I'm happy with that. UK troops are putting themselves in harms way, I don't think that sacrifice is for nothing, or too great an effort for the country to sustain considering the risks involved.

 

Yeah I agree, very misguided, it almost sounds amusing. But was I was saying is that I think people have such little faith in the political parties and political system to think they can make big changes.

[Tonto]

Here's something you can do, even if you are against troops being anywhere.... send a fiver via paypal to help buy and send a serviceman/woman a Christmas parcel this year:

 

http://www.supportoursoldiers.co.uk/yellowrib.html Hope I've done the link correctly.

 

I defy anyone to remain unaffected after reading the thankyou letters from last year's efforts.

[Max Power]

Here's a few verses.

 

 

I went into a public-'ouse to get a pint o' beer,

The publican 'e up an' sez, "We serve no red-coats here."

The girls be'ind the bar they laughed an' giggled fit to die,

I outs into the street again an' to myself sez I:

O it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, go away";

But it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins", when the band begins to play,

The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play,

O it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins", when the band begins to play.

 

I went into a theatre as sober as could be,

They gave a drunk civilian room, but 'adn't none for me;

They sent me to the gallery or round the music-'alls,

But when it comes to fightin', Lord! they'll shove me in the stalls!

For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, wait outside";

But it's "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper's on the tide,

The troopship's on the tide, my boys, the troopship's on the tide,

O it's "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper's on the tide.

 

Yes, makin' mock o' uniforms that guard you while you sleep

Is cheaper than them uniforms, an' they're starvation cheap;

An' hustlin' drunken soldiers when they're goin' large a bit

Is five times better business than paradin' in full kit.

Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, 'ow's yer soul?"

But it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll,

The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll,

O it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll.

 

We aren't no thin red 'eroes, nor we aren't no blackguards too,

But single men in barricks, most remarkable like you;

An' if sometimes our conduck isn't all your fancy paints,

Why, single men in barricks don't grow into plaster saints;

While it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, fall be'ind",

But it's "Please to walk in front, sir", when there's trouble in the wind,

There's trouble in the wind, my boys, there's trouble in the wind,

O it's "Please to walk in front, sir", when there's trouble in the wind.

 

You talk o' better food for us, an' schools, an' fires, an' all:

We'll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational.

Don't mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face

The Widow's Uniform is not the soldier-man's disgrace.

For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"

But it's "Saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot;

An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;

An' Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool -- you bet that Tommy sees!

[Albert Tatlock]

Here's something you can do, even if you are against troops being anywhere.... send a fiver via paypal to help buy and send a serviceman/woman a Christmas parcel this year:

 

http://www.supportoursoldiers.co.uk/yellowrib.html Hope I've done the link correctly.

 

I defy anyone to remain unaffected after reading the thankyou letters from last year's efforts.

That's a good idea - and handy that you can just do £5 by paypal. I shall be putting in the effort to send a couple of parcels.

 

Though it is important to note closing dates:

 

The last date on which we can post parcels out is Friday 7th December 2007. To meet this deadline the Appeal closing dates will be as follows:

 

Donations made by cheque or postal order – To be received by Friday 30th November latest

 

Donations made by cash or online – To be received by Sunday 2nd December latest. Online facilities will be closed at Midnight on this date

 

Made up parcels or parcel fillers – To be received by Wednesday 5th December latest

 

We cannot guarantee that any donations, parcels or parcel fillers received after these dates will be sent out for Christmas. They will however be put towards general parcels in 2008.

[Moghrey Mie]

"Well, hang on Sir, we cannot vote in UK elections"

 

There was I think an election in Poland recently, whatever country it was there were loads of polling booths set up across the UK for voters to take part in the country they left behind. can the English here still vote for MPs? Maybe the Governer can and thinks we share his burden?

 

 

Yes, a certain Margaret Thatcher changed the rules so that anybody who moves from the UK can still vote for 10 years after their move.

 

I still vote in the constituency where I used to live in England. That's because it has a good Labour MP and I want to give him some support.

 

It's difficult to find a Labour MHK.