BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election

Subject: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 06:08 PM

The race to the general election started with the TV debate tonight between the three parties' likely chancellors of the exchequer (if the party wins). Indeed Cable (Lib Dem) is hotly tipped for chancellor if there is a hung parliament.

Well, I thought Darling (New Labour) got a couple of good licks in, and Cable got a nice closing barrage in at the conservative party's rich backers.

But they really let Osborne (COnservative) off the hook over his incredible promise to use the very public sector savings that he was denigrating last week as "imaginary" for tax (well, National Savngs) cuts for middle England rather than than the deficit reduction that last week he was saying was the only real issue and so important that it had to take priority over fighting the recession. He even tried to present those earning £20,000pa as the poor.

And no-one called him on the bankers culture of greed being the legacy of Thatcherite-Reaganite "trickle down" Hayek based economics.



Osborne is the eldest son of four children and heir of Sir Peter Osborne, 17th Baronet, co-founder of the fabric and wallpapers designers, Osborne & Little. He is heir to the Osborne baronetcy (of Ballentaylor in the County of Waterford). This makes him a part of what is known in Ireland as the Ascendancy, the old Anglo-Irish aristocracy.

Osborne was educated at the private Norland Place School in Holland Park, St Paul's School independent school and Magdalen College at Oxford University, where he received an upper second-class degree in Modern History.

Whilst at Oxford, Osborne was a member of the Bullingdon Club, a private dining club of Oxford University students; it was "infamous for riotous behaviour" and was open only to sons of aristocratic families and the wealthy. Osborne's friends David Cameron and Nat Rothschild (er, guess what his family does) were also members of the club.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: GUEST,Sapper on MENTOR stood in Glasgow
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 07:17 PM

Well whoopsie do!!!
So Osborne was a member of the Bullington Club!!

How about Patricia Hewitt, Jack Dromey and Harriet Harman all having links to a body that, during the '70s, supported The Paedophile Information Exchange? A rather foul body of perverts that, before being forced underground, openly campaigned for the legalisation of sexual acts between adults and children?

From the mid-70s to early-80s, PIE was accorded associate membership of the National Council for Civil Liberties which, at the time of the invitation to affiliate was given, had Hewitt as chair and Dromey as an exectutive member.

Harman became the NCCL Legal Officer in '79 and, in that capacity, made an official submission to the Government to the effect that explicit pornography concerning children sould not be illegal "unless it could be shown that the subject had suffered, and that prosecutors would have to prove harm rather than defendants having to justify themselves."


Harman the Paedophile supporter

And, if this is right, it is continuing

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Ebbie
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 07:50 PM

Wow. Your elections sound more interesting than ours.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 08:17 PM

I see some pundits are awarding points to Osborne (known to his Bullingdon chums as "Oik" because his folk couldn't afford Eton and he had to make do with St Paul's) on the basis that he was less bad than expected. He did however finish third in a three-horse race.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 10:08 PM

Your point Sapper? Were any of those you name members of PIE? I think not.

The NCCL rightly took (in general) the position that any form of proscription should require proof of harm. It was about civil liberties, see? Following the generation of information, it was decided that PIE's objectives were harmful, and it ceased to be tolerated. It seems a rational process. In the 60s and 70s bodies took pat in a debate about the reshaping of public policy so that it would be based on evidence and principle, not knee-jerk reaction. Another such body was NCROPA.   The law on obscenity has somewhat changed, partly following debate. Other debates have given us the irrational (or irrationally implimented) Video Recordings Act, and the fairly fantastic law relating to psuedo-images of pseudo-children, in which fields our public policy has taken us to places that in the USA would be considered odd.

None of which I think has yet risen to any prominence in relation to the current election campaign.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 02:45 AM

Starting gun fired ?

I thought, by that, you meant the date of the election had actually been announced.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 03:25 AM

Ah, the perils of short titles! The finish line may not be in sight or even identified, but with the three chancellors last night and a Panorama on "How to win an election" studying election strategy over recent decades I think we can say that the race is on.

This is a very important election: it decides whether the UK will again be submitted to government of the rich, by the rich, for the rich and expected gratefully to tug its forelock, or whether we will have any chance of a government that makes at least a pretence of representing the cross-section of society.

There is no good choice in this election, but there are many possible bad choices (the old Etonians, the British Nazi party or either of its two shills (UKIP and English Democrats) at least). There are the wasted votes (Green, Lib-Dem), and there are no socialist candidates (yet, as far as I know - eg Respect, Socialist Worker, Socialist Labour, or anytype of communist).

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Jim McLean
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 05:36 AM

Richard Bridge, this is not an English election as SNP, Plaid Cymru and parties in Northern Ireland also have members in the UK parliament.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 07:16 AM

To say that all votes for minority parties are wasted is rather a facile generalisation, more than ever this time round, when there is a real possibility that neither of the two big parties will achieve a majority.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 07:35 AM

Yes Jim there are - but not available for me to vote for. I think I have been consistent in referring to the UK general election. I have however as yet seen no sign of any platforms for the parties you mention.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 07:38 AM

I suggest, Peter, that votes for the mini-parties are less not more likely to produce a hung parliament because any that do get seats as I see the platforms so far (ie Lib-Dem or Green, I discount the lunatic fringe) are more likely to take votes from New Labour than Conservative.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 07:55 AM

This gun they have just fired, is it the same one as they used to shoot themselves in the foot?

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Lox
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 12:24 PM

The Lib Dems have the best chance to do well that they have ever had.

Cable did well.

Its all down to clegg now.

Ayo Ghurkali?

or just Seeya Layta!

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 01:04 PM

Most of them couldn't run a raffle, what chance do they have of running a country?
I mean, apart from running it into the ground?
Oh sorry; they already did that!

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: GUEST,Allan Connochie
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 02:28 PM

"To say that all votes for minority parties are wasted is rather a facile generalisation, more than ever this time round, when there is a real possibility that neither of the two big parties will achieve a majority."

That is absolutely correct. Opinion polls in Scotland have not shown the SNP doing all that well. However it has probably less to do with people's attitude to them as it has to the idea that some people have that a vote for them is a bit wasted at Westmisnter where they can only ever be a minor force. It is in these times when majorities could be none existent or quite small that the smaller parties (talking about UK wide) could push way above their weight.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: GUEST,Sapper heading South on MENTOR
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 02:40 PM

"Your point Sapper? Were any of those you name members of PIE? I think not."

I did not say that they were PIE members Richard. However, the fact remains that, from '76 to '82(?)when they went underground, PIE was affiliated to and received support from the NCCL.

During the whole of that period Dromey and Hewitt were both holding official posts in NCCL and therefore agreed with that support.

Harman became Legal Officer in '79 and continued thus upto her entry into Parliament. PIEs affiliation continued throughout the period she held her NCCL post.

It seems strange to me that, whilst your main arguement against Osbourne is that, (like a large proportion of the Parliamentary Labour Party,) he went to a private school and also happened mix with people of his own background, you are more than happy to excuse people who supported a bunch of sick peverts wanting to legalise the buggery of children!!

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: GUEST,Sapper nearing Carstairs
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 02:52 PM

"This is a very important election:"

Quite Agree Richard

"it decides whether the UK will again be submitted to government of the rich, by the rich, for the rich and expected gratefully to tug its forelock,"

You mean a Labour Government with us poor bastards who actually work being eternally grateful to the Government and Unions for being allowed to work?


"or whether we will have any chance of a government that makes at least a pretence of representing the cross-section of society."

As does the Conservative Party.
Now, even more than ever before, Labour's place as the so-called party of the working classes is being exposed as the sham it always was.
Labour has long been hijacked as the party of the Socialist Middle Classes and Trade Union barons.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Lox
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 06:28 PM

Sapper,

"you are more than happy to excuse people who supported a bunch of sick peverts wanting to legalise the buggery of children"

Can you indicate where Richard said this?

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Lox
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 06:29 PM

"a bunch of sick peverts wanting to legalise the buggery of children"


Can you show where Harman wanted to legalize paedophilia?

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 07:39 PM

I'd have thought all you hotshots could have found more important reasons for choosing where to cast your votes than where candidates got their education.

It strikes me that there have been many more top scientists, doctors, lawyers, and just about every other profession, who were educated at Eton and Oxford, or Harrow and Cambridge, than were products of the "Comprehensive system".

New Labour inherited an all-time low inflation rate, and interest rate, along with a huge fiscal surplus which they managed, in just ten years, to fritter away in futile tinkering around the edges of the various institutions, without ever achieving anything more than the alienation of the front line staff, whom a labour government should be looking after.

They have abdicated any pretence of being the party of the working man.

The direct results of Brown's time as Chancellor, and Prime Minister, were:-

1. The wasting of funds which might have seen us through the recession. True it started in the USA, but outside the USA we were the first in, we went deeper in than anyone else (other than Greece and Eire, who had both been heading for a fall anyway), and we haven't yet come out.

2. The raid on pension funds which saw many low paid working people (including myself) forced to retire on less than half what they paid for.

3. A teaching profession turned into government pen pushers who do a week's work and then spend their evenings and weekends on reams of paperwork.

They have the immortal gall to piss and moan about Lord Ashcroft who is a "Resident Non-Dom", and earns money both in and outside of the UK.

He pays UK tax on all his UK income, and presumably pays tax on the rest in the countries in which he earns the money.

Meanwhile New Labour is a wholly owned subsidiary of the UNITE union, which pays for its campaigns (and what else besides?), and chooses its candidates.

Can anybody deny that this puts New Labour in a position of being vulnerable to undue influence?

I can't see Lord Ashcroft influencing Tory policy in quite the same way.

New Labour are one hundred percent discredited. The Tories under Cameron (who is nothing like Thatcher), are much less so.

Cameron reacted to the expenses scandal instantly and made it clear that Tories who did not immediately make restitution would not be allowed to stand as candidates in 2010.

Brown did neither, and took much longer to decide which of his mob would go, and which would just have their wrists slapped.

And just as an aside, the Moat Cleaning and the fancy Duck House expenses were, it is true, presented to the Fees Office, but were not approved, nor paid, unlike the (New Labour) payments on the non-existent mortgages.

All in all, there is a pattern emerging here, and not to New Labour's credit, or credibility.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 07:46 PM

On balance a Tory win would be even more depressing than a New Labour victory. A hung parliament which allows us to have electoral reform is the best to hope for.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Lox
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 11:08 PM

I'm with McGrath.

The question is whether the rest of britains dissatisfied voters will go Lib or Ukip.

The BNP shock in europe should hopefully get voters off their backsides.

God help us if UKIP do well!

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: GUEST,Allan Connochie
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 02:05 AM

"The question is whether the rest of britains dissatisfied voters will go Lib or Ukip."

That is too anglo-centric a take on it though. UKIP are only standing in less than half of the non-English constituencies in the forthcoming elections. They have no presence in Northern Ireland and I'm not sure about Wales but in Scotland they are pretty much an irrelevance to the overall results. The Lib Dems are relevant but I don't think there is any sign of a swing to them and they'll probably end up in 4th place here as far as overall votes go and might even lose seats. The main issue here is more how many people who voted SNP in the Holyrood election will vote SNP in the Westminster vote? The polls so far suggest Labour are doing well.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 04:44 AM

Well Allan, I'm sure that will cheer up those in England who blame the Scottish Labour MP's for a lot of the malaise that now affects Britain due to New Labour's idiotic 'fiddling round the edges'
Even Tony Blair was a Scot, although he went to great lengths to hide it. My guess is, he knows about guilt by association.
Brown, Darling, and Martin, are examples, and it's a pity that they continued, while Cook and Smith were lost. In fact we would never have had Blair were it not for John Smith's early demise.
Then there are the nutters, like Tommy Sheridan and George Galloway, and if you add them all up, it makes Scottish politicians look like a bunch of crooks and charlatans.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Arnie
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 05:19 AM

Well, the unions are doing their bit for Labour. BA cabin crew are planning further strikes and now Bob Crow is taking on Network Rail. There will be rail chaos over Easter with further strikes planned at around the same time that Gordo announces the date of the election. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you!! It does make me wonder though - it is always possible that management at BA and Network Rail have chosen their moment to announce job cuts in order to provoke national strikes and damage Labour's chances of re-election. If so, Unite and the rail unions have risen to the bait magnificently....

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Mavis Enderby
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 06:27 AM

"wated votes" - what absolute and utter bollocks. Vote with your conscience.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 06:36 AM

More to the point, choose who you bvote for. Don't just say, Oh I am working class, therefore I vote Labour. Or I went to Eton, therefore I vote Tory.
Use your vote for the candidate that you think will do the most good for your constituency.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 06:40 AM

Do they still have to count spoiled votes and show then to the candidates, does anyone know?

DeG

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Mavis Enderby
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 07:06 AM

Bloody hell - just re-read - WASTED votes of course!

Found a nice quote (from here):

"They become "viable" one voter at a time, so vote with your conscience, for the right person for the job, instead of the one who offends you the least but can win"

That states my view better than I could and is exactly the situation I face this coming election.

Pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 08:34 AM

Me too Pete.

Thank God I'm not constrained by the "My dad voted (insert appropriate party) so I do too" straitjacket.

I always vote for the best candidate (IMHO of course) for the job, irrespective of party, and it's never been our long-term sitting MP.

I've never understood this idea that it's only worth voting for the most likely winner. Vote for the guy who's the best candidate.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 08:36 AM

And, of course, people only voting Tory or Labour is one reason why shite candidates get to be MPs.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: GUEST,Allan Connochie
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 01:42 PM

"Well Allan, I'm sure that will cheer up those in England who blame the Scottish Labour MP's for a lot of the malaise that now affects Britain due to New Labour's idiotic 'fiddling round the edges'"

Aye politicians in general haven't exactly distinguihsed themselves of late. Scots have been prominent in the Labour Party so it is easy for some to blame the Scots - but of course the vast majority of MPs in both the Labour Party and Parliament as a whole are English. Blair didn't just hide his Scottishness he just about disowned it. Though he is one of these people who could be what he wanted as he was a mix-max. His mother was Irish; his father was raised in Scotland by his adoptive parents but was born English; Blair himself was born in Scotland but only lived there for a few short yers in his childhood. He later went to boarding school in Edinburgh but apart from his short spells in Scotland and Oz during pre-school years and he's lived his entire life in England. Mind you another one who hides the Scottish part of his background even more than Blair is David Cameron!

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 06:20 PM

Watched a press conference convened by the SNP and Plaid Cymru on BBC TV today.

It seems, according to Alex Salmond, that they have made a pact not to form a coalition with either main party, but to vote with New Labour or with Conservatives, according to the individual issue.

I thought "Crikey, they've grown some intelligence, and maybe the LibDems might catch it too".

Then he gave the punch line. They will not be voting according to what is best for the UK.

They will back whichever party offers "the best concessions for the benefit of Scotland and Wales"

That's two minor parties for sale to the highest bidder, and to the detriment of the people of the United Kingdom. And they were among the most vehement castigators of MPs involved in the expenses scandal.

"I am a diplomat, You are a negotiator, He is a crook". It never bloody changes.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 06:29 PM

Tony Blair went to an English Public School, even it is in the middle of Edinburgh.

The SNP and Plaid Cymru are doing what their stated aims are, namely to put the intersests of Scotland and Wales first.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Lox
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 06:36 PM

Reassuring to read that UKIP are apparently so weak, nonetheless, one rep from them is still one rep too many!

Sorry, I'vebtried really hard to see their good points, but Ozzie Osborne and Daft Cameraman make my skin crawl.

Not that Media Darling or Gorgon Brown-nose inspire me much ... they just fill me with less loathing.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: GUEST,Allan Connochie
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 06:51 PM

"Then he gave the punch line. They will not be voting according to what is best for the UK. They will back whichever party offers "the best concessions for the benefit of Scotland and Wales"

The SNP's raison d'etre is to take Scotland out of the UK. They only stand in seats in Scotland and their constituents (whatever nationality they are) all live in Scotland. It seems pretty obvious that if a cetain issue looks like it is to the detriment of their constituents then they will work towards trying to protect their constituent's interest. The SNP government in Scotland have no majority hence they have policies that they are unable to forward (ie the referendum on independence)and they have other policies which they can only proceed with by taking note of the wishes of other parties and trading off against that. It is obvious that at Westminster they will try to get concessions from whoever is the government.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 07:11 PM

If they only stand in Scotland and Wales, they should not influence UK matters.

Selling their support for the biggest bribe is no less dishonest and corrupt than the things Westminster MPs have been pilloried for.

I'd love to see both of them given independence, and see how long they'd last.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 07:21 PM

Well, the legitimate ambition of the SNP and Plaid Cymru is to bring about a situation in which the United Kingdom would cease to exist. That is more likely to happen within a short time frame if there is a Conservative Government down in London.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 07:26 PM

For a long time the Conservative Party only stood in English seats. In Scotland there was practically no Conservative support, and practically all the seats were held by the Unionist Party, which was effectively the old Liberal Unionist Party that split from the Liberals over Irish Home Rule. When it was incorporated into the Conservative Party, Scottish support evaporated overnight.

The situation at Westminster is a direct result of the negotiations prior to 1707 when the English negotiators refused to accept anything other than an incorporating union.

Scotland and Wales are part of the UK and have every right to influence UK matters. I quite agree that the situation is different with English matters, just as English MPs shouldn't meddle in purely Scottish and WElsh affairs.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 07:29 PM

If it wasn't for Edward I there probably wouldn't be a Scottish nation. If it wasn't for Thatcher there probably wouldn't be a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assemly. Hey folks, A VOTE FOR CAMERON IS A VOTE FOR PLAID CYMRU AND THE SNP!

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 07:36 PM

I blame the Romans.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: GUEST,Allan Connochie
Date: 01 Apr 10 - 02:21 AM

"If they only stand in Scotland and Wales, they should not influence UK matters. I'd love to see both of them given independence, and see how long they'd last."

Scotland and Wales are full integral parts of the UK so of course they have every right to stand in UK elections and influence UK matters. I'm not sure that any of the major parties actually stand througout the entire UK! There are of course different opinions as to whether Scotland would be better or worse off outwith the UK but the idea that it would be incapable of doing so is absurd.

As for the independence question itself. A majority of Scots tend to still favour the union in some form (from the status quo,to more devolved powers, to full fiscal automony within the UK) though there is also a substantial number who favour outright independence. The question has never been fully debated or put to the Scottish people. The SNP manifesto at the last election was to organise an independence referendum and poll after poll has shown that a clear majority of people living in Scotland favour a referendum - but they can't get it through the parliament because they need the support of at least one of the major unionist parties all of whom are opposing any referendum. Hence the Scottish government can't get through one of its main manifesto aims. The wheels haven't come off the bus though and the administration has gone along with other aims hoping they can at sometime persuade perhaps the Lib Dems to give support. People just have to get used to the idea that with no overall majority governemnts can't just do everything they want.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 02 Apr 10 - 11:08 AM

Is fractionation a legitimate aim?

Anyway, I'm glad to see the BNP internal bickering is getting worse.

This might be my first manually created blicky (if it works)

http://www.romfordrecorder.co.uk/content/havering/recorder/news/story.aspx?brand=RECOnline&category=newsRomford&tBrand=northlondon24&tCategory=newsromford&itemid=WeED01%20Apr%202010%2017:25:20:463

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: GUEST,Allan Connochie
Date: 03 Apr 10 - 04:13 AM

"Is fractionation a legitimate aim?"

Of course it is. A majority of Scots may still support the union but that doesn't mean they don't see the SNP's aims as legitimate. And we are talking about the party who are currently the Scottish government here and not some small insignificant fraction of the Scottish electorate. Plus it is an inclusive party (totally unlike the BNP) who's stated stance is that should they achieve independence (among other categories) everyone legally resident in Scotland at that time would be offered citizenship regardless of race, religion, nationality, colour, parentage etc - and to decline citizenship would not be detrimental to their rights of abode etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 03 Apr 10 - 04:38 AM

So would a party seeking independence for the Isle of Sheppey be legitimate? I'd have thought it was constitutionally defective, like in US terms secession by Hawaii.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Dave Roberts
Date: 03 Apr 10 - 05:14 AM

Regarding the actual date: I've been offered employment as a Poll Clerk by my local council for the 'election of a member of Parliament'on May 6th. Odd because I, too, was under the impression that the actual date had not yet been announced (confirmed would, perhaps, be a better term).
But there we are. I have it it writing. You heard it here first.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 03 Apr 10 - 05:35 AM

There are local elections already set for 6th May. I assume that is what you have been offered.

Choosing a common date for the two elections would make sense in logistics terms, so it's probably the reason why the 6th is predicted for the general election.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Dave Roberts
Date: 03 Apr 10 - 06:23 AM

No. There are no local elections in Cheshire East and won't be until 2011.
The wording is specifically 'Election Of A Member Of Parliament - Congleton Parliamentary Constituency'

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: GUEST,Allan Connochie
Date: 03 Apr 10 - 01:24 PM

"So would a party seeking independence for the Isle of Sheppey be legitimate? I'd have thought it was constitutionally defective, like in US terms secession by Hawaii."

Scotland and the Isle of Sheppey are hardly comparable. One is a constituent part of the UKofGB&NI whilst the other is a small part of one of another constituent part of the UKofGB&NI. I know that the American states have no right to secede and was quite surprised when I found that out.

It is generally accepted that should a part of the UK wish to leave the union then it could. Most notably this refers to Northern Ireland. In the UK's unwritten constitution it is not at all clear how exactly it would come about it. The UK government still claims Parliamentary sovereignty but when that was tested in a Scottish Law Court in the 1950s that suggestion was questioned and Parliamentary Sovereignty was described as an English concept which did not automatically transfer to Scotland with the Union of 1707.

The SNP's stance is that should they hold and win an independence referendum then the will of the Scottish people is sovereign in Scotland and they would have the mandate to negotiate an exit from the union. No-one really seriosuly disputes this. Rather the unionist parties have a main first strategy is to not hold the referendum. The SNP need support to get it through the Scottish Parliament and other pro-independence parties don't have enough MSPs to make a difference. The next strategy for the unionist parties would be to win the said referendum. They may be making a mistake by not holding it now. Most polls show a majority of Scots in favour of the union so this may be a good time for a NO campaign to put the question to bed for a while. However if we have a Conservative government at Westminster, especially if it is at loggerheads with the Scottish Executive, and especially is it is seen by Scots as a bit anti-Scottish (as it has been seen in the past) then we may see an upsurge among those in favour of independence.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 03 Apr 10 - 03:51 PM

Surely as of 1603 the crown of Scotland (James 1/6) was sovereign in Scotland and when the Carolinian line became subject to the will of parliament (or, if you prefer, the will of parliament was re-asserted, since the "divine right of kings" was a continental concept) that was as true of Scottish law as of English.

Both Scotland and the Isle of Sheppey are parts of Great Britain.

Any part of the UK could secede if so permitted, and it may be that the present politically correct regime(s) would so permit, but the law should that permission be refused seems to me to be that only by right of eminent domain (translation: = effective revolution and subsequent long term stability) would the constitution be amended.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 03 Apr 10 - 05:10 PM

If you want to go Scotland - please go. We can't understand your damned accent anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 03 Apr 10 - 06:37 PM

"If yopu want to go Scotland "

What's that in English?

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: GUEST,Allan Connochie
Date: 03 Apr 10 - 06:56 PM

"Surely as of 1603 the crown of Scotland (James 1/6) was sovereign in Scotland and when the Carolinian line became subject to the will of parliament (or, if you prefer, the will of parliament was re-asserted, since the "divine right of kings" was a continental concept) that was as true of Scottish law as of English.

Both Scotland and the Isle of Sheppey are parts of Great Britain."

Of course Scotland and the Isle of Sheppey are both parts of Great Britain but Scotland is a constituent part whereas the Isle of Sheppey is part of England which is the comaparable constituent part.

The idea of the Divine Right of Kings in Scotland ended when James VII was thrown off his throne and branded a traitor. The Scottish Estates then offered the throne to Mary Stuart and her husband William of Orange but they made it clear that it was to be offered on a limitd constitutional monarchy basis. All this happened when Scotland and England were two seperate kingdoms. 17thC parliamentary sovereignty in England has no relevance to Scotland which had a completely seperate parliament. The Union of Parliaments did not happen until 1707 when the kingdoms of Soctland and England were united into the single kingdom of Great Britain.

The Court Case in question was over the numeral used by the newly crowned Elizabeth II. The governement was taken to court as there had never been an Elizabeth I in Scotland. The government used the argument that they (ie Parliament) was sovereign and could call the monarch what they liked. The Scottish law Court rejected this argument because Parliamentary Sovereignty did not apply in Scotland but decreed that the monarch's numeral was a personal choice and that the monarch could call themselves what they liked. The palace has since confirmed that the monarchs would be named by the highest available numeral. Hence we can be pretty certain that no prince will ever be called Robert or Alexander :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: GUEST,Allan Connochie
Date: 03 Apr 10 - 06:57 PM

"If yopu want to go Scotland "

What's that in English? "

Obviously an accent we can't understand :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Lox
Date: 03 Apr 10 - 06:59 PM

Now this is getting interesting!

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 03 Apr 10 - 07:13 PM

I did once waste my vote. I voted Labour and Tony Blair (Margaret Thatcher II) got in.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 04 Apr 10 - 04:15 AM

Reflecting, the question of whether Parliament is sovereign is not the whole issue. Something must be sovereign, and plainly it cannot be part only of the populace. A secession would only be legitimate if with the consent of the holder of sovereignty.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: GUEST,Allan Connochie
Date: 04 Apr 10 - 04:27 AM

Richard but no-one among the important players actually holds that line. There is no message from a UK government saying that Scotland or any other part of the UK would be forced to stay in the United Kingdom. The big story in the Scotland On Sunday today is the suggestion (which is churned out at every election) from the UK government that they would need to raise border controls. There have been many stories from unionists saying this or that would happen but no-one has even suggested that Scotland would not be allowed to leave the union. Constitutionally it is not questioned. The mechanics of how it would happen and Scotland's relationship with the EU etc are debated but those are different matters.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 04 Apr 10 - 04:42 AM

Drat. I have now wasted time that I did not have! I have refreshed my memory of both MacCormick's case and the later Gibson's case (the case about "evident utility") and it seems to me that although a theoretical (but in my view incorrect) case might be made on the basis of them for denying the power of the Westminster parliament to repeal the entrenched provisions of the 1707 Act of Union, the idea of Scotland being lawfully entitled unilaterally to secede from the United Kingdom is contrary to the basic precept of the permanent union reflected in Article I of the Act.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 04 Apr 10 - 01:42 PM

Drat. I have now wasted time that I did not have! I have refreshed my memory of both MacCormick's case and the later Gibson's case (the case about "evident utility") and it seems to me that although a theoretical (but in my view incorrect) case might be made on the basis of them for denying the power of the Westminster parliament to repeal the entrenched provisions of the 1707 Act of Union, the idea of Scotland being lawfully entitled unilaterally to secede from the United Kingdom is contrary to the basic precept of the permanent union reflected in Article I of the Act.
Whether secession would be legal or not, would probably not bother the House of Commons. I seem to recall that the House has no right to bind future Parliaments, nor to give away British sovereignty. The current Labour Party seem unaware of this though!

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: GUEST,Allan Connochie
Date: 05 Apr 10 - 04:41 AM

"the idea of Scotland being lawfully entitled unilaterally to secede from the United Kingdom is contrary to the basic precept of the permanent union reflected in Article I of the Act."

Withdrawing from the UK would of course have to be ratified by the Westminster parliament and no doubt there would be some debate and negotiations over the details. However I again repeat that none of the major players suggest that in principle if Scotland decides it wishes to leave that it would be forced to remain within the UK. It is roundly conceded that any part of the UK (which of course would also include England)could leave the said union. We are talking about modern Britain and not the Britain of 300 years ago. You seem to be suggseting that democracy would be swept aside and under the guise of the upholding the constitution some kind of British imperialism could try and force the various nations to remain within the UK against their will. That notion simply doesn't exist and actually there were polls that showed the idea of Scottish independence was more popular in England than it is in Scotland itself.

The Articles of union have been broken and ignored and changed many times already. Articles One and Two do say that the union should remain in force for ever and that the monarch should always be Protestant - but the idea that 300 years later articles like that can't be amended or ended is nonsense. The UK has a fluid constitution which changes all the time. Constitutionally no-one of any signigicance is denying the Scottish people, or anyone else within the union, their right to self-determination. ,

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 05 Apr 10 - 05:51 AM

When the majority in Ireland voted overwhelmingly for a nationalist party in 1918. Britain's response, in the face of threats from the strong Unionist pocket in Ulster, was to partition Ireland in 1921, and in so doing, sow the seeds of their own destruction.
Let us hope that it doesn't come to that in Scotland, otherwise we might see the north west highlands become an English enclave :)

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 05 Apr 10 - 07:13 AM

Allan, as I said on the 3rd April "Any part of the UK could secede if so permitted, and it may be that the present politically correct regime(s) would so permit".

But now you seem to be going round in circles and saying that Parliamentary sovereignty would apply so that the Westminster Parliament could unmake part of Scottish Law that was expressed to be unalterable.

I'm not sure that I greatly care although I have long thought that there are many parts of English law that would improve the law of Scotland - for example in the UK a public right of way may not be lost by disuse, whereas in Scotland it can.

I was only interested in the idea that something unconstitutional could be a legitimate aim.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: GUEST,Allan Connochie
Date: 05 Apr 10 - 10:34 AM

What I am saying is that I am surprised that you would class accepting the democratic choices of whatever part of the UK as being politically correct and again I would argue that it is not unconstitutional! The UK constitution is not a single thing set in stone and is evolving all the time. Nothing can be more constitutional than democracy and of course the said articles of union were drafted prior to Britain even being a democratic state. I am not going round in circles as legally the actual termination of the union would come around at Westminster and not at Holyrood. The Scottish government if they can get it through the Holyrood parliament can hold a referendum but the result if it were a YES is theoretically not binding for the UK govt. It would simply be an expression of the will of the Scottish people. The constitution itslef is not a devolved matter. The unionist parties though seem to concede that they would bow to the democratic wishes of the people not because they are politically correct but because they know full well that any union is only worth saving (or in practise could be saved) if it has the support of the people involved.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 05 Apr 10 - 11:41 AM

Forget about the constitutional and legal arguments. Just face facts. Given the geographical position of the North Sea oil fields, does anyone think, for one moment, that the Westminster is going to let Scotland go solo in the forseeable future?

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: GUEST,Allan Connochie
Date: 05 Apr 10 - 12:46 PM

"Forget about the constitutional and legal arguments. Just face facts. Given the geographical position of the North Sea oil fields, does anyone think, for one moment, that the Westminster is going to let Scotland go solo in the forseeable future?"

They would certainly try and win the propaganda argument within Scotland and the usual scare stories have already started in the run up to the election but again as stated before the majority of Scots at the moment still favour the union anyway. Do I think that Westminster would try and hold on to Scotland by actual force? No I don't think so though there would be some serious negotiating going on over both natural resources and issues like the submarine bases etc. An SNP government in Scotland would want to work with whatever the remaining UK was called but one of its main planks is a nuclear free Scotland so that would be a sticky issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Dave Roberts
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 04:36 AM

6th April: Gordon Brown has announced that the election will be held on May 6th.

Remember, you read it here first. On 3rd April, actually.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 04:45 AM

Well done, Dave, you're ahead of the BBC news service which still says he is about to confirm it.
I would generally trust the BBC though. Brown can't announce an election date until he has requested The Queen to dissolve Parliament. Or is that another Royal Perogative he's usurping?

I'll await the official announcement.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 05:28 AM

Indeedy.

And so back to the principal issue.

Do you want the country run by old Etonians for the benefit of their city financier mates, or do you think the ordinary man or woman should get a look in? It's really as simple as that.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Lox
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 05:43 AM

I'll be voting lib-Dem this time.

Don't want the dinosaurs in, but still want to vote for someone with a chance, even if its a small one.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Dave Roberts
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 05:48 AM

NOW it's official. OK, carry on folks...

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 05:57 AM

Okay, now the starting gun has been fired!

1049 The prime minister, flanked by the cabinet, appears in Downing Street. He says the Queen has agreed to the dissolution of Parliament and the election will take place on 6 May.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: The Barden of England
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 07:39 AM

The Tory Government we've had since 1997 have really p**sed me off, what with the music part of the Licensing Act 2003, the Tories under Cameron frighten the HELL out of me, so I will vote with my conscience as I always have done and vote for a hung parliament. It's about time we had concensus in parliament rather than 'I have more MP's than you so I can do what the hell I want'.
John Barden

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Mavis Enderby
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 09:15 AM

Just beware of what they are trying to force through in the "wash-up":

Mandelson-sponsored Digital Economy Bill

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 10:41 AM

""It's really as simple as that.""

Says the man who wishes a frail old woman "a long and painful death".

Simple is the word.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 11:14 AM

The problem with UK government, and the choosing thereof, is that so many voters decide based on the wrong premises.

"I'm a working man, so I vote Labour"......No, you don't! You vote for the name on the tin, without reference to the nature, or the quality, of the contents. There is no labour Party. If there were, I might well vote for it.

"I won't vote for a bunch of Thatcherites".....In this you are correct, since there are no real Thatcherites standing for positions of power in the Tory Party.

"I don't want to be ruled by "Old Etonian Aristocrats""....Shades of the French Revolution. How many Etonians are from Aristocracy, and how many are sons of Builders, Taxi Drivers, School Heads, etc. etc. Eton places are decided these days by ability to pay, not by accident of birth.
Somebody else can do the research, but I'm confident it will surprise the blinkered DesFarges.

Really watch and listen when Cameron is interviewed. It will educate you.

When asked a question, he will either answer that question, or state that he does not have an answer.

Contrast that with what you have seen and heard from Blair/Brown and their minions. Invariably they slide by the question and make whatever point it is they wish to emphasise. It happens again and again.

You may say that Cameron is giving the answer the interviewer wants to hear, and you would be wrong. Interviewers thrive on forcing admissions from politicians.

A direct answer to the question takes the wind right out of their sails. Watch and listen to how often Cameron leaves a journalist (who has all his clever techniques short circuited) floundering for something to ask.

Bottom line. However much you may want David Cameron to be an old style Tory (and every left winger wants exactly that), he just is not.

This country faces ruin from another five years of Gordon Brown, and half the population will not even rationally consider the only realistic alternative.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Lox
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 11:33 AM

Don,

You are generally a sharp critic.

I'd love to have your blue specs so I could appreciate Cameron the way you do, but being in possesion of nothing more than a pair of sharp eyes, I am unable to ignore Camerons smarm, insincerity and utter lack of substance.

As for Osborne ... if howard had something of the night about him, Osborne inhabits a place where things writhe and slither and leaves only to feed.

Neither Cameron nor Osborne is remotely as direct or honest as you like to give them credit for, and whats more, their answers to questions are generally empty of any content, being mere sweet smelling puffs of media charm.

I won't be voting Labour, but I would rather them to the crowd you are advocating.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Lox
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 11:34 AM

I would like to retract my comments concerning media charm.

Osborne has none.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 12:17 PM

Don: it's less than she caused a lot of other people. She made war on the workers of this country. Watch out, they will do it again. They promise us greater and faster cuts - result, greater and faster double-dip. And where they can save money from economies (economies already built into New Labour plans) they plan to use it to fund tax cuts for industry (well NI cuts for those earning over £20,000 and upwards, to benefit the rich owners of industry).

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Stu
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 01:02 PM

"Bottom line. However much you may want David Cameron to be an old style Tory (and every left winger wants exactly that), he just is not."

For argument's sake let's say Don is correct in his assessment of Cameron. The problem is the tory party at grass roots level is not made up of David Cameron's, it's made up of the same people who selected the previous MP's and are old style true blues.

Cameron's ability to fool people is impressive, although in reality an over-compliant media is also partly responsible for encouraging this cult of personality. Don't be fooled - it's Cameron's only chance of winning and even in his speech this morning to the party faithful he couldn't resist "another five years of Gordon Brown" as if he was the only person in government (I also especially enjoyed the old tory clarion call to "the great ignored", whom you can guarantee will still be greatly ignored post election, more so by Cameron et al than anyone because if you don't have cash, you will not matter).

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 01:12 PM

Don't listen to those who say that a vote for one of the smaller parties is a wasted vote.
This is crap, and apart from the pleasure of voting for what you believe in, your vote, cancels out one for those you don't want to get in.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 01:52 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLIcC6wzyns

It's a great pity that poor old Sutch is not around anymore to add a bit of humour to the election proceedings - great record this from 49 years ago!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 02:45 PM

A pox on the lot of them!

I am truly amazed that we can get so wound up over electing such a parcel of rogues.

How much does it take to make the UK electorate say ...enough!

I know the total number of votes keeps falling, but the ability of the "chattering classes" to suspend reality dumbfounds me.

Is Cameron a posh, Eton educated mummy's boy?
Is Brown a psychologically defective Maciavellian snake?
Is there a case to be made for the castration of all politicians?
Yes Yes Yes.

In my whole lifetime, I have never seen our politicians and our political system so exposed for what they really are......a fucking sick joke!

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan...The effects of global Capitalism
on workers and manufacturing industry...The collapse of the capitalist banking system(shamefully being bailed out by our taxes, simply to "reset" the failed system)...The ever increasing gap between rich and poor....The expenses scandal, which strikes right at the roots of how all the rest of us contribute to society.... need I go on? Why do we allow the establishment to piss all over us!

Yet we witter on about who's worse the Tories or the Tories.
You know who's really the worst....we are!

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 03:38 PM

Some primitive societies, used to sacrifice their leaders to the gods if they failed to deliver!

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 03:58 PM

Yes.....We have much to learn from primitive societies.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 04:58 PM

Don't care who wins (well mybe :))

I've tickets for Show of Hands in York that night! Could be a classic.

Steve

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 06:44 PM

""And where they can save money from economies (economies already built into New Labour plans) they plan to use it to fund tax cuts for industry (well NI cuts for those earning over £20,000 and upwards, to benefit the rich owners of industry).""

Richard, I know you have a sharper mind than that.

1. £20000 is barely into the middle class salary range, and people living on that money are stretched to cope.

2. The reversal does not apply to the rich, who will still have to pay the increase.

3. If Brown can find 11 Billion in "efficiency" savings, why is it unlikely that Cameron can find 6 Billion.

As for your wish for Thatcher, nobody deserves that, and the fact that you insist on it says more about you than about her.

If what you say about her were totally true (which it isn't), what makes you any better, if you don't have any more human feeling than you attribute to her.

When I listen to you, a lawyer, spouting that kind of bile, I am forced to the conclusion that were you ever in a position of power, you would be worse than Danton and Robespierre.

Worse because anybody earning more than fifteen thousand a year seems to fit your peculiar concept of an Old Etonian Aristo.

For those who want to pigeon hole me as a true blue, can't see past the veneer, Cameron enthusiast, I refer you to my earlier post.

I said clearly, and I meant it, that if there ever actually were a socialist Labour Party, I would consider voting for it.

There being no such choice, I prefer the real Conservatives to Mr Bean and his "Smoke and Mirrors Theatre of the Absurd".

I judge Cameron, at least in part, by the number of old school Tories and ex Thatcherites who are pissed of with him.

Don T.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 07:02 PM

Don: -

1. But Osborne will give less than the full benefit to those earning less than £20,000, and none to the unwaged.

2. See 1.

3. Because they cover the same ground as the £11 billion. There is no extra 6 billion.

Never mind me, the fact that Thatcher got old did not make her any better nor did it absolve her. She chose who to oppress and deserves retribution.

Let rat-face Cameron and his cronies in and as Brown warns you will be throwing it all away. Don T - Don't.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 07:24 PM

""Yet we witter on about who's worse the Tories or the Tories.
You know who's really the worst....we are!""

Fine Ake. A truly masterly display of fuile bile. You should maybe consider starting your own party, and running for PM yourself.

"The Throwing Our Toys Out of the Pram, and Screaming Party".

Sounds good, doesn't it. But when you've achieved the state of anarchy required for the destruction of Capitalism, the first to go against the wall will be us old buggers who are no longer productive.

You see, the kind of folks who rule after a revolution don't help any but themselves, so if you can't grab, and hold, a piece of land, you'll starve. How many of us can milk a cow, or plough a patch of soil?

I doubt your convictions are strong enough to make that sacrifice for the strongest thug in the area.

NO MATEY!

The ones we have, are all we have , and we'd better start making sensible choices.

You told us in no uncertain terms that New Labour were a complete failure:-

""The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan...The effects of global Capitalism
on workers and manufacturing industry...The collapse of the capitalist banking system(shamefully being bailed out by our taxes, simply to "reset" the failed system)...The ever increasing gap between rich and poor"".

1. The wars?.....Not a Tory Decision
2. Global Capitalism (though, as I've said before, that is more properly called Corporatism)?..... Encouraged by New Labour in every way, up to, and including selling off Britain's gold reserves when gold was at its alltime lowest price.
3. Bailing out the banks..... Now that must surely have been the Tories pandering to big business?....Well, NO, it was Brown and New Labour.
4. The gap between Rich and Poor?.....That must be down to Cameron and the old Etonians.....Well, NO again! It's widening faster under New Labour than ever before.

Do you know what. When you see what they've done with the fiscal conditions they inherited from the Conservatives, you realise that New Labour have come closer to bankrupting this country than six years of fighting the Nazis.

"Stick with me. I know exactly how I got us into this mess, so I'm the best man to get us out of it".....Gordon Brown

The lunatics want another go at running the asylum, and there are people out there gullible enough to believe it would be a good idea.

"Hey Mr Fox, can you look after the henhouse till I get back".

And you lot think I'm Naive.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 07:39 PM

""1. But Osborne will give less than the full benefit to those earning less than £20,000, and none to the unwaged.""

Please explain this gibberish Richard. Osborne is not giving anything to anyone.

He is simply not going to take anything away from anyone except the rich by following Brown's job destroying extra tax.

Now I thought that you wanted the less well off to benefit at the expense of the wealthy (something I too strongly support). Now Osborne does it and suddenly the tune changes.

As to those earning under £20,000, and the unwaged, the changes in taxation won't affect them whoever wins the election.

Brown says "I want more of your money, and your employer's too".
Osborne says "I don't want any more from you or your employer, unless you are wealthy, in which case you must pay extra".

So what exactly is your beef?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 07:55 PM

The wars?.....Not a Tory Decision Of coursec it was.   They backed them to the hilt.

Tony Blair depended on their support to get the UK to join the Iraq War he had promised Bush. 139 Labour MPs voted against the war in the crucial debate on March 18th, along with the LibDems and others, including a handful of maverick Tories.
................................

I see they've now dropped the attempt to put a referendum on electoral reform in place for after the elction. Without that there's no realistic prospect of getting rid of the incompetent bastards who make up all the main parties.

Vote for a hung parliamet, which in practice is likely to mean vote Labour in most places in England.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 07:57 PM

""Never mind me, the fact that Thatcher got old did not make her any better nor did it absolve her. She chose who to oppress and deserves retribution.""

Funny that. I was probably among the lowest earners in the country, and I didn't feel oppressed.

I suspect you refer to the miners, those deluded men who thought Arthur Scargill was the Messiah.

As far as I could see, the miner's strike was about Arthur making a name for himself, at the expense of his members and the country at large.

1. No company can afford to keep mines running when the cost of mining the coal is as much as, or more than, its sale value.
2. We were just starting to recover from the fiscal quagmire bequeathed by Wilson/Callaghan.
3. The pay rises Scargill was demanding would have jeopardised the viable pits, as well as the uneconomical.
4. An offer was made at the outset of the action, which was rejected, with derision, by Scargill.
5. The number of miners who did not join the strike, was an indication that Scargill got it wrong, an indication which he arrogantly chose to ignore.
6. At the end of a year he took his men back to work for exactly what they had been offered at the outset, but so much damage had been done that the mining industry never recovered.

Men died, some at the hands of police, some murdered by militant miners, and Scargill was every bit as much to blame as Thatcher.

I don't see anyone making the same kind of remarks about him.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 08:00 PM

""Tony Blair depended on their support to get the UK to join the Iraq War he had promised Bush.""

Tony Blair's decision, backed by the Tories on the basis of the lies Blair told to Parliament and the people of this Nation
Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Lox
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 08:26 PM

"Osborne says "I don't want any more from you or your employer, unless you are wealthy, in which case you must pay extra"."

He can also play 3D chinese chess and skateboard at the same time, whilst simultaneously gently hatching out a sparrows egg with the gentle warmth of his hand.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 08:40 PM

""He can also play 3D chinese chess and skateboard at the same time, whilst simultaneously gently hatching out a sparrows egg with the gentle warmth of his hand.""

That is unworthy of you Lox. Whether you agree with me or not.

We are discussing a specific issue.

Osborne is not imposing the increase in National Insurance which Brown has announced, except on employees earning in excess of (as far as I recall) £150,000.

That is undisputed fact, which even Gordon Brown is not denying.

How he is going to pay for it is another matter, though I don't quite see the argument of how you pay for something you don't do.

The fact is that Brown has based his intended program (if he wins), at least partially on his much mentioned efficiency savings of 11 Billion.

Supposing he loses, Tory priorities may be different, and they will be in a position to use that 11 Billion as they wish.

It won't vanish if Brown loses, unless of course he has found some obliging Nigerian to help him transfer it to an untraceable account.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Lox
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 09:21 PM

I think the Tories unworthy of you Don,

And I have a problem with this idea that "if the party who are supposed to be socialist aren't socialist enough then I'm going to vote conservative".

I've seen a few Americans on here saying the same thing.

It doesn't make sense.

Surely the point is to find a party that is closer to your ideals.

I like the Clegg/Cable Ticket, not because they are great statesmen, but because they are the least far away from where I stand.

Besides, I am allegedly a "liberal" after all.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 10:14 PM

Don, if you believe that about the miners' strike, you'll believe anything, but that evil woman attacked every ordinary working (and unwaged) person in the country. Elsewhere on here the evils of king coal are vividly exposed. Just part of her legacy was the destruction of actual manufacturing in this country and the handing of control and power to city spivs - and thus the recent economic problems. Another was to jettison those needing mental health care onto the streets. Another was a set of anti-union laws that allow employers to cartelise at the expense of the workers but deny workers the liberty to organise in their own defence. I cannot understand why you don't understand that she was all about taking money from your pocket and giving it to her chums.

Osborne has consistently said that the answer to the recession is to cut deeper and sooner - yet his only specific is a giveaway, an old fashioned election bribe on a doctrinaire anti-tax basis. Surely to God the previous two great recessions taught us that cuts make recessions worse but that tax and spend can at least alleviate them and at best cure them.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: The Barden of England
Date: 07 Apr 10 - 03:30 AM

Now where have I heard it before 'The extra penny on National Insurance will cost jobs - it's a Job Tax? Oh yes, that's the same as 'A national minimum wage will cost jobs! I just wonder how many jobs that's ACTUALLY cost?
I'll say it again - vote for concencus politics rather than the 2 party dictatorship we have at the moment. On saying that, I hope that the Scots and the Welsh help to put their spokes into the melting pot too.
John Barden

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Apr 10 - 03:49 AM

Has nobody worked out, that the real problem is that our sector of the world is in decline?

Has nobody realised what "Global Capitalism" really meant?

The money and the Capitalists have moved East, where there are new people and resources to exploit.

That is always how Capitalism has worked. Our lifestyle has become too expensive to be profitable.

Do you think it was simply greed which caused the financial crash? If you do, you are very naive, All the deregulation was encouraged by government to provide a perception of growth in the economy.

Politicians are not your friends, no matter how media friendly they may be.

Regarding the Iraq War.....of course it was Blair's War, he was a charismatic madman surrounded by sycophantic "jobsworths"....and with an electorate who longed to be proved right in choosing him.

As I've said before, if the Conservatives had been in power we would never have been in Iraq at all. Labour would have opposed it tooth and nail.
If we have to have these charades every four years, Labour should be the Party of opposition ....in power they are a worse danger to society than the Tories.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Stu
Date: 07 Apr 10 - 04:01 AM

"1. The wars?.....Not a Tory Decision"

But wholeheartedly supported by the tories, who weren't adverse to starting their own when in power.

"2. Global Capitalism (though, as I've said before, that is more properly called Corporatism)?..... Encouraged by New Labour in every way, up to, and including selling off Britain's gold reserves when gold was at its alltime lowest price."

Globalisation has largely taken root as the major economic force since Blair came to power in 1997. The tories played their part in this; Thatcher's monetarist policies and commitment to laissez-faire economics destroyed manufacturing industry in this country and paved the way for globalisation. I agree New Labour have carried the torch for Thatcher with aplomb, and I wouldn't vote for them anyway.


"3. Bailing out the banks..... Now that must surely have been the Tories pandering to big business?....Well, NO, it was Brown and New Labour."

This won't change under the tories and we al know it.


"4. The gap between Rich and Poor?.....That must be down to Cameron and the old Etonians.....Well, NO again! It's widening faster under New Labour than ever before."

Cameron's true constituency is the moneyed classes, old and new and that will not change post election. The tories were a nightmare in the eighties, they will be again if elected now. The do not care about working people.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 07 Apr 10 - 04:57 AM

Talking of politics, has anybody else noticed the similarity between
Nigel Farage

and

Archie Andrews ?

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Apr 10 - 05:27 AM

For as long this debate focuses on the past and reruns the miner's strike, maggie, wilson/callaghan then it's going nowhere. WE need to look forward not backwards, looking back tells us very lttle about what we need to do now.

It's thirteen years since a Tory government, nearly twenty since Maggie (this years first time voters won't even remember her) even further for the miner's strike, the winter of discontent et al. Todays world is very different as are the parties, I no longer recognise this Labour Party as the one I was once a member of, the Colonel Blimps in the Conservatives say the same thing (the true heir to Thatcher is probably UKIP).

I am still waiting for one of the parties to tell the truth about how much pain is going to be required to sort out the current mess and how they're going to stop the banks holding us to ransom again. That party will probably get my vote.

Steve

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 07 Apr 10 - 05:48 AM

""Surely the point is to find a party that is closer to your ideals.""

No, sorry mate, but insisting on only voting for a party which shares your ideals is a bit like complaining that there's no work, after going to the job centre and finding they have no openings for neurosurgeons.

We have what we have. At the moment that is two Tory parties, one of which has proved itself the most inept and corrupt in our history, and before anybody gets the wrong idea, that party is New Labour.

Just look at its record.

1. An end to boom and bust?.......The biggest Boom ever, and all on tick, followed by the biggest Bust ever, still ongoing.
2. Interest and inflation rates?.......Inherited the lowest since the sixties, along with scads of dosh in the bank, and frittered the bloody lot away on tinkering with the margins of various problems, without solving any.
3. Gold Reserves?.......Sold off to bolster the excesses of the above, sold off moreover with gold at rock bottom prices.
4. Two Wars?.......Funny how they can always find the money for these, while soldiers die for lack of efficient body armour, helicopters, and vehicles which can protect against IEDs.

Now if all that is close to your ideals, go ahead and vote for them, or vote LibDem, and make certain that any hung parliament will be run by New Labour.

As for me, I'll recognise the possibly that the Conservatives are not the party of the eighties any more, and may do a much better job.

After all, on the evidence, they could hardly do any worse.

Get the mess sorted out and change the way New Labour operates toward the socialist party it pretends to be, then I'll vote according to my ideals, which are socialist in nature.

But I'm not dumb enough to want another five years of misery as a reward for sticking to my ideals.

I have voted Tory purely because there has never been a truly socialist Labour Party in my voting lifetime, and those genuine socialists who have tried to change that have always been pushed aside.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 07 Apr 10 - 06:15 AM

""Just part of her legacy was the destruction of actual manufacturing in this country and the handing of control and power to city spivs - and thus the recent economic problems.""

Well I suppose if you are going to tell a lie you might as well tell a big one.

UK manufacturing had been on the skids for donkeys years before Maggie came to Downing Street.

Ruined by the real spivs, the union shop stewards and conveners, with their insatiable demands for more and more unsustainable wage increases.

You can't be competitive with overseas manufacturing if you lose millions of man/hours every year to wildcat strikes, and unjustified walkouts.

After a while, the genuine grievances, which should have and would have been dealt with, were buried in a morass of Union generated confusion.

Wilson and Callaghan pandered to their masters, who supplied most of their funding. Heath had no chance with his lame duck government, and the unions ran riot through British manufacturing.

Business dwindled through the seventies, as sensible buyers went elsewhere.

That is when Maggie became PM, and if she hadn't Callaghan would certainly not have reversed the trend. It would simply have spiralled to destruction even faster. It had already gone far beyond the possibility of recovery.

My previous post and this one are both based on what I saw with my own eyes, and what I experienced in the workplace.

I once sat in a laboratory, in pitch darkness, with a bulb on the bench in front of me, and waited four unproductive hours for an electrician to come and replace the blown one in the light fitting.

I was not alled either to fit it, or to bring a desk lamp through from the next door office. "Union rules son! You'll 'ave 'em all out the gate".

Don T

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 07 Apr 10 - 08:36 AM

You forgot double manning, and restrictive practices Don.
Firemen on the railway, long after the end of steam trains, electricians walking out, because a carpenter rewired his own power tool plug, etc etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 07 Apr 10 - 09:49 AM

John:
Firemen on the railway, long after the end of steam trains, electricians walking out, because a carpenter rewired his own power tool plug, etc etc.
Most of us are aware of the problems, some just choose to ignore them! (and try to turn this into a class war based on where someone got his education)

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 07 Apr 10 - 10:03 AM

I'm not fanatically devoted to any party to the exclusion of rational thought, but I am fanatical about the rebuttal of lies and half truths used to support the arguments of those who are.

There's a complete lack of respect for others' beliefs, compounded with a lack of respect for facts, in the image some people present, not just of the Conservative Party, but of Conservative voters too.

We, not the Party Apparat, are the grass roots Tories whose honesty and integrity Richard Bridge denies, and most of us have never been within twenty miles of Eton.

In point of fact, Tony Blair's offspring went to private school. Will Richard want them debarred from standing as MPs I wonder?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 07 Apr 10 - 10:08 AM

Admit it. We're all turkeys voting on what time to have Christmas dinner.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Big Phil
Date: 07 Apr 10 - 12:11 PM

I would rather pluck my eyes out with a blunt twig than vote for a Party with Baron Peter Benjamin Mandelson of Foy in the County of Herefordshire and Hartlepool in the County of Durham, First Secretary of State, Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, Lord President of the Council in it.

BP. [img]http://www.pic4ever.com/images/SEVeyesC08_th.gif[/img]

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 07 Apr 10 - 12:25 PM

By their friends shall ye know them. Have you noticed that Don?

The only real choice is the lesser of two weevils, and the Etonian party are the nastiest maggots.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 07 Apr 10 - 12:37 PM

I don't know Richard,
I found the fact that the opening post did little to praise the Labour party, but railed against the education of a Conservative member, seemed quite in keeping with how the Labour party are running their campaign.
If you've got no new policies, just slag-off the opposition, it's probably easier than confronting the issues!

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Mavis Enderby
Date: 07 Apr 10 - 02:31 PM

Quite agree BP. What a way to p*ss all over democracy. He'll probably get his vile Digital Economy Bill forced through parliament tonight.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 07 Apr 10 - 03:33 PM

"Conservative member". Yes, I like that. How true.

When will you learn? The public school system is about networking with like-born chaps. Been there, done that.

The record of the (alas non-socialist) "New Labour" party in breaking free from the Thatcherite agenda bequeathed to it by press stupidity adn of course another public schoolboy and palliating and maybe rectifying the problems caused by that agenda is quite remarkable.

Brown's upbringing in the manse emphasised responsibility: Cameron's and Osborne's privilege. Whose side so you think they are on?

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Lox
Date: 07 Apr 10 - 04:43 PM

Don - I accept what you say about the two tory parties, and how the one which has been tested has been shown to be pretty rubbish, but I don't accept your response to my comment about ideals.

My conscience and honesty compel me to choose the party that best represents my point of view, and to avoid ALL the tories on parade, be they red or blue.

The libs were the only parliamentary party against the iraq war, they were the party responsible for getting the Ghurkas what they deserved, they have the best envirnmental policies.

Reading your views on here and comparing them to the views of the three main parties, you would be best represented by them too.

I also feel pretty strongly that my opposition to Boris was vindicated, and I will be voting for Ken again when he reapplies for the job of mayor of London.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 07 Apr 10 - 06:20 PM

""The libs were the only parliamentary party against the iraq war, they were the party responsible for getting the Ghurkas what they deserved, they have the best envirnmental policies.

Reading your views on here and comparing them to the views of the three main parties, you would be best represented by them too.""

O.K. Lox, since you are one of the few who are prepared to discuss the issues, rather than the educational status of candidates, let's just apply a little analysis to your statement.

Yes, on the face of it, you would appear to be right, but experience tells a slightly different story.

Firstly, let's agree that the chances of the LibDems achieving an overall majority are effectively zilch, partly because nobody knows what they would do in government.

Given that they have, on the whole, with a couple of notable exceptions, no experience whatever, it seems very likely that they would fall prey to the manipulations of the Sir Humphreys (and if Richard is looking for public schoolboys to despise, he'd be spoilt for choice there).

I hardly think that would redound to the benefit of the poorest in society.

So the best they could reasonably be expected to achieve would be to hold the balance of power in a hung Parliament.

This leads to a second, and much more cogent reason not to vote for them if, as seems to be the case, you have lost faith in Brown.

Since I reached the age at which I could vote, in 1959, There have been three occasions when the Liberals (later the LibDems) held the balance of power,

They could have done so much good by using their common sense and cherrypicking the most sensible policies of both sides, and supprting them issue by issue,

What did they actually do?......On each occasion they refused to consider any policy from the Tories, whom they loathe and detest, and contented themselves with rubber stamping Labour's decisions, right or wrong. And Labour each time made promises about electoral reform, which evaporated like Scotch Mist once they had the Liberals (LibDems) in their pocket.

So go ahead, vote LibDem, and if the Tories do not get an overall majority, you will have bought yourself five more years of Gordon Brown incompetence.

Who knows, he might even manage to get government debt up to Two Trillion?

He can do that, he's done it before.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 07 Apr 10 - 06:25 PM

BTW, while I don't feel that Boris has done a particularly bad job, I have no problem with Ken, and agree that he would do better.

If I lived in London he would get my vote too, because he is above all a honestly committed socialist. New Labour are glad to see him in the Mayoral post, it keeps him out of their hair.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 07 Apr 10 - 07:11 PM

Well, Don, make up your mind: is the problem national debt, or is it more important to cut national insurance to benefit big industry?

Your Etonians have for months been saying that the primary need is to repay the debt obligations necessarily incurred to combat the recession (and incidentally the OECD is now saying that the UK economy is expected to grow faster than any other economy in Europe in the coming 14 months which is of course thanks to Brown and Darling).

Now their pals are scared of paying their share of the burden of meeting that obligation, and just before an election, the Etonians propose a giveaway. They propose to fund it out of efficiency savings that (a) have already been figured in to debt repayment capability and (b) they themselves were rubbishing as impossible only two weeks ago.

Jesus wept, bring back Pinnochio.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 07 Apr 10 - 07:12 PM

PS - which of us do you think actually knows more Etonians, you or me?

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Apr 10 - 07:21 PM

Remember Richard, were all equal now, even Etonians!
Whether they like it or not....eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 07 Apr 10 - 08:16 PM

""Well, Don, make up your mind: is the problem national debt, or is it more important to cut national insurance to benefit big industry?""

For the umpteenth, and hopefully last, time, He is not cutting National Insurance.

He is simply refusing to increase it for those earning less than £150,000 which is what Brown intends.

If you see that as favouring the rich, it's as well you studied Law, and not Maths.

I'm wasting my time here. No open mind in sight.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Apr 10 - 08:23 PM

How do you reconcile Tory ideology with Socialism?

Or do you just go which ever way the Mudcat wind is blowing?

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 08 Apr 10 - 03:24 AM

Don, semantic quibbling does nothing to help your masters out of a cleft stick. They spent weeks maybe months saying that immediate austerity was essential to cut national debt. Now they say it isn't. Oh boy I can see them managing the economy.

Your masters spent months and months saying that the Brown/Darling measures to palliate the recession were wrong - now the OECD says that the UK economy is set to grow the fastest of all in Europe. Oh boy can I see them managing the economy.

Watch it all go to pot if the rich kids get in and as always take the lion's share for themselves and sod the rest of us.

Don't even get me started on that American rentagob woman on Question Time last night.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: GUEST,Allan Connochie
Date: 08 Apr 10 - 04:29 AM

"Richard Bridge
Date: 07 Apr 10 - 07:12 PM

PS - which of us do you think actually knows more Etonians, you or me? "

That has to be the most smug comment I have ever read on mudcat Richard.
The phrase "A snob without substance" comes to mind.

It would appear most here tend to agree with Don.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Rusty Dobro
Date: 08 Apr 10 - 05:05 AM

Just to remind us:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cU2tH1wCAFw