Wednesday, April 25, 2007

Consumer Rights

Apparently John Reid's just found out there is "no guarantee" of a win in the war on terror. So I reckon we should ask for a refund.

When you buy a washing machine or a DVD player, you have these rights, like it's got to do what it said would do, and if it doesn't you can take it back and you'll receive a full refund, and if it happens a few times you can take the store to court and have them closed down. I'd like consumer rights extended to political parties. So when, for instance, you vote for what claims to be a "left wing" party and they claim they're going to fix the health service, then they spend your money killing innocent civilians in the middle east, you can get a refund. And if it happens a few times you can have them closed down...

4 comments:

Iceman said...

"Apparently John Reid's just found out there is "no guarantee" of a win in the war on terror."

He is correct that you can never be assured of 100% security. The Virginia Tech shooting, the Tokyo subway gas attacks and the Oklahoma City bombing, for example, had nothing to do with Muslim militants, and no conceivable
"victory" in any "War on Terror" in the Middle East would have prevented those attacks.

However, they could be a lot smarter both on (1) preventing the public from getting guns, explosives, and other weaponry, (2) protecting vulnerable sites like chemical plants and power plants, and (3) having a foreign policy that won't make millions of enemies all over the world.

"So I reckon we should ask for a refund."

The eventual total cost of the Iraq war is estimated to be $2 trillion, which is $7000 for every American.

$7000 per person, and thousands of Americans, hundreds of Brits and other coalition troops, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis would still be alive.

"I'd like consumer rights extended to political parties."

Well, many of us voted for the Democrats in 2006 with the understanding they would end the war.

"So when, for instance, you vote for what claims to be a "left wing" party and they claim they're going to fix the health service, then they spend your money killing innocent civilians in the middle east, you can get a refund."

Hasn't the left-wing of the Labor party been pretty much marginalized since the 1980's? I thought they are basically a centrist party now, or at least their leadership is.

Cruella said...

The Labour party when they were first voted in were supposed to be left-wing but the idea was that tony Blair and "new labour" were moving towards the centre. By the last election their policies were edging right of centre and now they're just a right-wing party with a left-wing name.

Of course it depends where you define your left-right divide. As Mr Cru likes to point out - I am left wing compared to Martin Luther King. And as I like to point out MLK had the right idea about race relations but did little for the women's movement...

Iceman said...

"The Labour party when they were first voted in were supposed to be left-wing"

I assume at that point the electorate was fed up with Thatcherism.

"but the idea was that tony Blair and "new labour" were moving towards the centre. By the last election their policies were edging right of centre and now they're just a right-wing party with a left-wing name."

The overall policy differences between Labor and the Tories appear to an outsider to be minor, even if there are a few Ken Livingstones left in the Labor party.

"Of course it depends where you define your left-right divide."

In most of Europe, there would be a few parties in varying shades left of the Democrats, while a party like the Republicans which advocates a foreign policy of military interventions and shunning diplomacy, a religious agenda in domestic policy, and an economic policy of no restrictions on corporations, union busting, and ignoring environmental problems would be a complete joke and have almost no support.

"As Mr Cru likes to point out - I am left wing compared to Martin Luther King."

What positions of his do you think didn't go far enough?

I consider myself a progressive, to the left of most Democrats, and you're well to my left.

"And as I like to point out MLK had the right idea about race relations but did little for the women's movement..."

Well, he did have his hands full fighting for black rights and worker's rights and against Vietnam! He wasn't against the women's movement, it just wasn't his major cause. The black rights movement in the 1960's helped to lay the groundwork for the women's movement's successes in the 1970's.

Cruella said...

Mr Cru and I are joking about Martin Luther King!

And yeah it's hard to compare Us and European politics because you're starting from a different state of affairs. The US is a more right wing place than the UK. Advocating the introduction of a full national health service in the US would be a huge step. In the UK we already have that so the debate is should we expand it or shrink it?

Should we measure political parties by what state of affairs they advocate or by which direction they're pulling ina nd how hard?