BS: Election Debates UK

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: melodeonboy
Date: 20 Apr 10 - 07:33 PM

I saw the Green Party manifesto launch and found that there wasn't much I could disagree with.

Unfortunately, there's no Green Party candidate in my constituency, so I shall have to vote for one of the other Herberts! (Either that or spoil the ballot paper!)

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: Lox
Date: 20 Apr 10 - 08:53 PM

I have discovered that my constituency in south London, is one of three that have a chance of electing a green MP for once.

It would be interesting indeed.

I will see who polls higher for our seat - the greens or lib dem - and I will support whichever one is most likely to unseat labour.

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 20 Apr 10 - 10:24 PM

RB@DT - Hoofuckingray

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Apr 10 - 02:30 PM

If your priority is to unseat Labour your best chance would probably be to vote Tory. And if you want a chance to be able to elect a Green candidate someday, you need to hold your nose, and vote for whoever has the best chance to beat the Tory.

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: Lox
Date: 21 Apr 10 - 07:00 PM

"If your priority is to unseat Labour your best chance would probably be to vote Tory. And if you want a chance to be able to elect a Green candidate someday, you need to hold your nose, and vote for whoever has the best chance to beat the Tory."

It isn't, but if it were, the Tories 'In my Constituency' would be a bad choice of alternative.

In Lewisham the Greens are Labours biggest challengers.

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 22 Apr 10 - 04:36 AM

If your priority is to unseat Labour you should go and read teh fable of King Log and King Stork. Unless you are stinking rich of course.

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Apr 10 - 05:25 AM

It's round 2 tonight. 8pm on Sky 1. Discussing foreign policy. I would guess questions on Iraq and Afganistan will be to the fore.

I liked Will Carlings ideas this morning. For thos that do not know, Will has been nominated by Chris Evans as the total inappropriate political correspondant. He knows nothing about politics and wishes to know even less:-) His idea was to make the debate mre interesting by having the candidates dress as their favourite super-heroes and enabling the audience to respond in panto style - "Answer the question!", "He's behind you!" and "Oh no he isn't". Sounds good to me.

Cheers

DeG

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 22 Apr 10 - 11:42 AM

BBC comparison of key policies

It leaves out the Lib-Dem plans to close funding gaps by clamping down on tax loopholes, which raises interesting questions of legal methodoligy.

I find there is only one conservative key policy that I think attractive, and only one Labour that I do not. Interesting that only Labour want to stick with the new pass laws. I find that unattractive.

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: GUEST,The Smiler
Date: 22 Apr 10 - 04:42 PM

I have just listened to the latest debate.

I am not happy that a greater % vote does not give a party overall control of the country.

I am appalled that a 30% vote for Lib Dems still makes them a lesser party than the other 2 twatbags.

Conservatives do not fill me with any faith.

I dislike Gordon Brown intensely and wonder why if they have the smallest % vote that they will have the greatest seats. That is just disgusting.

So I am going to vote Lib Dem in the hope that twatbag Brown and his crap party can be held in control over the next few years.

My vote will unfortunatley give twatbag Brown the chance to carry on as PM (god forbid us ) but at least it will give the Lib Dems a chance to stop them (Labour)taking the piss out of the British public.

I am not happy, but I have to make my choice.

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: Lox
Date: 22 Apr 10 - 04:50 PM

Another reason to vote lib dem is to give a strong message to rupert murdoch that he DOES NOT represent us.

The fact that his rags have gone for cleggs throat like rabid dogs shows what a corrupt scoundrel murdoch is.

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: Acorn4
Date: 22 Apr 10 - 05:08 PM

i think it would be just as much use for the three of them to have a darts match!

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 22 Apr 10 - 06:07 PM

Well, I am disappointed that the rest of the viewers did not see what I did, apparently. While Oily Cameron picks his 6th form debating points it seems to me that only Brown combines mastery of the facts and figures with moments of genuine conviction (for example on sexual equality).

Amusing to see Cameron so skewered on bus passes and winter fuel - it's a fact that until tonight there was no official conservative promise on bus passes, nor winter fuel.

Who was that presenter? I did not like him.

Two fingers to Rupert Murdoch is a good plan. He remains a menace to democracy - as rabid as the Spectator, but alas covering much more ground.

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: Mavis Enderby
Date: 23 Apr 10 - 01:51 AM

"Brown combines mastery of the facts and figures with moments of genuine conviction" - if only.....

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: GUEST,Allan
Date: 23 Apr 10 - 02:25 AM

"I dislike Gordon Brown intensely and wonder why if they have the smallest % vote that they will have the greatest seats. That is just disgusting."

Because it doesn't depend on how many votes you have as much as how these votes are spread through the country. The Lib Dems vote is far more evenly spread hence they struggle to gain seats. The only major party to still openly oppose reform is the Conservative Party though. Labour may indeed become the largest party with a smaller vote - and actually that happened in English constituencies at the last election. Labour may be unenthusiastically (for obvious reasons) moving towards reform
but it looks like the only thing that would stop it now is a clear Tory majority or them being near enough to a majority so that they don't need Lib Dem support. For instance if they could work a deal with the unionist MPs from Northern Ireland or something.

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: Lox
Date: 23 Apr 10 - 06:14 AM

Where can I see the video?

I've tried Sky 1 online but to no avail ...

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 23 Apr 10 - 06:25 AM

It was on BBC news (Freeview 80) and that may lead you to a replay link.

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 23 Apr 10 - 07:43 AM

Incidentally the flyer that arrived today for the Lib-Dems in the new Rochester and Strood constituency, which even if the admirable Bob Marshall-Andrwes had not retired would on the last election's stats have been slightly conservative (it's the nice country hice new rural bits wot causes that) asserts that the LDs are statistically (on current swings) likely to take the seat. Regrettably it's a set of poor candidates.

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Apr 10 - 08:45 AM

What was the story beheind Camerons accusation of a leaaflet telling lies and Brown saying he had sanctioned no such leaflet?

The stories I have seen are not clear about what the leaflets were and where they came from. It's probably there but I have mental block when it comes to politics and newspapers. Stops my brain leaking out of my ears...

DeG

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 23 Apr 10 - 10:20 AM

""What was the story beheind Camerons accusation of a leaaflet telling lies and Brown saying he had sanctioned no such leaflet?""

All over the country pensioners have received leaflets from New Labour, claiming that, if David Cameron gets in, they will lose winter fuel payments, free bus passes, free eye tests, and a lot besides.

Typical scaremongering by a desperate politician trying to hang on to power! What else is new?

Well, what is new is that Gordon Brown, when asked about this during the debate, at first denied the exixtence of the leaflets, and then, under pressure, stated that he didn't sanction them.

On "The Daily Politics" BBC 2 TV, a screenshot from New Labour's official website was displayed, showing the same lies (which may well by now have been swiftly removed).

One wonders how anyone who is either a scaremongering liar, or a puppet frontman, ignorant of what is being done in his name, can be trusted to run a country.

There are a lot of people here calling David Cameron a liar, based on their expectations (unsupported by evidence) that he will not keep his word.

But Gordon Brown is proven to be either a liar or a fool, on current, incontrovertible, evidence.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 23 Apr 10 - 02:15 PM

Actually, Don, the quotes that I have seen from the accused pamphlets say "could lose". Since, until Cameron rapidly made policy on the hoof, conservative policy was not to say what if anything would be ringfenced in that area, the statement "could lose" was absolutely correct, and indeed the possibility of those losses was a distinct risk. Thus there were no lies such as you attribute.

Thus Brown's denials that there were such lies or that he had authorised them were wholly true.

Your accusation is as ill founded as (it seems) your assertion (of which another person recently reminded me) that the Brown government had reduced your income by £80 per week. You might have intended to say "month" but you definitely said "week". Even if you meant "month" is seems improbable since you were going off about the 10p tax rate and the best information I have been able to find without wasting too much time is that the theoretical maximum loss from that change was £223 per year and that once pensioners reached 65 other effects turned them into net gainers.

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: MikeL2
Date: 24 Apr 10 - 05:24 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T - PM
Date: 23 Apr 10 - 10:20 AM

Hi don

Do I see a case of pot calling kettle black here ??

Scaremongering (if it happened - which is doubtful ) is not only used bt the Labour Party.

I refer to Kenneth Clarke's outburst this week saying that if the Conservatives didn't win the election the country would be plunged into much deeper debt. There is no basis for this statement and indeed many financial "experts" are rubbishing this.

Clark is a seasoned politition who knows exactly what he is saying and what impact his claims will have - or at least he should do !!

He has had to try to back out of a statement he made about the Goverment's financing of Vauxhall in Ellesmere Port.

So scaremongering with untruths is not confined to the Labour party.

Cheers

MikeL2

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 24 Apr 10 - 06:25 AM

MikeL2 - I don't think that this was an occasion of a Labour Party untruth, even if the truth was told in a way calculated to cause alarm.

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: s&r
Date: 24 Apr 10 - 09:57 AM

What is Cameron bleating on about with 'unelected PMs'?

We don't elect PMs in the UK. You'd have thought a public school education would have taught him the difference between a PM and a president...


Stu

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: MikeL2
Date: 24 Apr 10 - 10:05 AM

Richard

I don't think it was an untruth either.....

I have the leaflet and it clearly does not contain any untruths.

cheers

MikeL2

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Apr 10 - 06:54 PM

Where can I see the video?

BBC iPlayer have it. Put "Sky News" in its Search.
...........................

If the Tories didn't say in their manifesto they are going to continue to provide benefits that were introduced by Labour, and which they opposed in some cases, it seems reasonable enough to warn people that they are at risk if there is a Tory win.

For that matter even when they do promise to keep them in their manifesto, that's no guarantee they'll keep that promise. It never is with any party - after all, Labour promised a referendum on Electoral Reform back in 1997, and ratted on that.

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Apr 10 - 07:11 PM

As for the unfair results which the existing electoral system can have, if it ends up with a perverse result in which the loser gets most seats, it'll be pretty rich if the Tories complain about that, since they are the people who are committed to keeping that system - and the same goes for the people who vote for them.

After all, they've benefited in the past from this - back in 1951 the Attlee government lost power to the Conservatives after getting more popular votes in the General Election.

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 25 Apr 10 - 04:29 PM

""I don't think that this was an occasion of a Labour Party untruth, even if the truth was told in a way calculated to cause alarm.""

Now even you are doing it.

Without a shred of evidence, you put on your prediction persona, and make a statement designed to alarm and mislead by intimating that Cameron may do this, that, and the other.

Twist it how you like, such a statement is a lie, and were you selling a product, you would be liable, under current legislation, to legal sanction. Or did you perhaps learn the technique while selling fire alarms to pensioners?

A party Manifesto is not intended to be a complete and definitive description of the whole of the next five years' actions, but a general outline of the salient features of proposed policy.

What you are selling is a lame duck, and if you can point to things Cameron did not include in his party's Manifesto, and claim that to be indicative of intent, then you are not a very good lawyer.

I would suggest that I could find at least as many items not included in New Labour's Manifesto, and make the same dumb claims, but I've got more sense.

In any case, I don't need to predict some nebulous future possibilities. I can point to thirteen years of his abysmal record, his dishonesty, and his ineptitude, and judging by the polls, I'm not the only one that sees it.

I'm not interested in any more of your inane attempts to make everyone conform to your opinion.

I ask nobody to vote for any particular party. You please yourselves.

I vote as I wish and I simply don't give a toss whether anyone likes it or not.

I choose my path, not you....LIVE WITH IT!

It's called freedom of choice, and I'm surprised at the number on this forum who only believe in it when it applies to themselves.

You and I, Richard, will always be poles apart politically and I see no way to remedy that. It has never made any difference to the fact that we are good friends, and I want that situation to continue.

I shall take no further part in any political thread in which you are involved.

We agree to disagree, and leave it at that, Yes?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 25 Apr 10 - 04:56 PM

I will not be gagged by agreement or otherwise Don. I am shocked by the harm that you intend to do to the nation and in particular those less privileged in it - all seemingly in service to a system that has done great dis-service to you.

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 25 Apr 10 - 05:20 PM

For a lawyer, you are really inept at twisting others' words.

I have made no attempt to gag you,

Which part of "I ask nobody to vote for any particular party. You please yourselves" was beyond your power to comprehend?

I shall simply refuse to respond to your increasingly intemperate, not to say desperate language. I can't see why it is so essential to your psychological well being to win me over.

From my point of view, it is you who inhabit the dark side. The difference between us is that I am quite content for you to remain there.

You have your opinion, I have mine.

Rant away, I'll not be here.

Otherwise one of us will step over the line, and I don't intend to be that one.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Apr 10 - 05:57 PM

A warning that someone may do something in the future cannot be a lie, strictly speaking, unless there something has already occurred which means that it is impossible for them to do that. That's not a matter of political opinion, it's a matter of elementary logic.

Speculations about the possible actions of a future government, or about the consequences of those actions, are a normal part of the political process. So are complaints about such speculations. All parties go in for both.

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 25 Apr 10 - 06:30 PM

I had to be amused at Ken Clarke being quizzed by Andrew Neil tonight. The only remaining great beaast in the conservative jungle was tapdancing around questions about where the conservative axe would fall, and Neil let him squirm, without ever quite going to the "lies in Labour pamplets" point. All the more effective a demolition for that, I thought.

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Apr 10 - 06:45 PM

The axe will fall everywhere irrespective of which party actually wins. The pledge "no cuts in frontline staff" is meaningless. The consultant you see may be frontline and still there but if (as is already happening) there is no-one to type his letter in a timely manner then the fact that you've been seen in two weeks or whatever is irrelevant.

The figures are so bad that no-one is daring to tell the truth.

Steve

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: Lox
Date: 26 Apr 10 - 02:23 PM

Andrew Neil?

Don't tell me you pay hin any attention ...

... The man is insufferable!

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Apr 10 - 02:43 PM

How is it in any way relevant whether Andrew Neil is "insufferable" or not? He's not trying to get elected.

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: Lox
Date: 26 Apr 10 - 05:13 PM

Because he was mentioned above, therefore a part of the conversation, and therefore subject to an opinion/reaction, as is anything else that has been said in this thread, if anyone chooses to opine on it or react to it.

In this case the opinion (mine) is that he is not a journalist of any merit/substance, and that any comment, line of questioning or other involvement he has in any part of the political process is not of any substantive interest.

In short, he is a preposterous, jumped up, populist, sensationalist.

I think he and people like him damage politics and the political process and besides, he makes my skin crawl.

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 26 Apr 10 - 06:31 PM

He may not be nice but he does seem pretty on the ball.

I am getting very worried about the way Clegg is cosying up to Cameron and vice versa. I have recently discovered that my local Lib-Dem candidate, Geoff Juby, has been supportive of some conservative moves on teh local council. That is making me think very hard about whether I would vote for him in a two-horse conservative/Lib-Dem race, if that was what we were going to get after the recent boundary changes here.

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 May 10 - 04:36 PM

There was a sort of unofficial fourth debate on May 3rd yesterday, at a rally of Citizens UK - a pity Gordon Brown couldn't have let rip like this when millions were watching the TV Debates - here is his speech at Citizens UK

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 05 May 10 - 12:10 PM

I fear I must echo the last heartfelt words of Neil Kinnock as potential PM.

"Under the conservatives, do not be sick, do not be poor, do not be ordinary".

Maybe not an exact quote.

If we get the conservatives and their fellow-travellers, god help us.

In the new Rochester and Strood the "banker" "Reckless" (a real Alan B'stard clone) is not only praising the Lib dems for their "constructive" support for the conservatives on the local council but trying to steal the credit due to Labour with support from the Lib Dems in opposing school closures proposed by his own party. And UKIP had bottled, to support him.    Do we really want a "banker" called "Reckless"?

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: Stu
Date: 05 May 10 - 12:41 PM

Malcolm Tucker sum's up the Tory manifesto:

". . . the one their design agency pitched as the Dangerous Book for Boys crossed with the Bible. And we need to be savage but creative about the contents. The Stasi on acid. Maybe they have a secret plan for a supertax on cats? Monday after the election, aren't they going to ask for winter fuel payments back? The angle is, if it isn't explicitly ruled out, the toffee-nosed bastards are thinking about doing it."

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 05 May 10 - 01:12 PM

And all you inverted snobs will have to live with it!

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: Gervase
Date: 05 May 10 - 04:33 PM

Kinnock's words today seem prescient, even if they might make uncomfortable reading for his succesors. Nevertheless, substitue 'Cameron' for 'Thatcher' and it still sends a chill down the spine.

If Margaret Thatcher is re-elected as prime minister on Thursday, I warn you.
I warn you that you will have pain – when healing and relief depend upon payment.
I warn you that you will have ignorance – when talents are untended and wits are wasted, when learning is a privilege and not a right.
I warn you that you will have poverty – when pensions slip and benefits are whittled away by a government that won't pay in an economy that can't pay.
I warn you that you will be cold – when fuel charges are used as a tax system that the rich don't notice and the poor can't afford.
I warn you that you must not expect work – when many cannot spend, more will not be able to earn. When they don't earn, they don't spend. When they don't spend, work dies.
I warn you not to go into the streets alone after dark or into the streets in large crowds of protest in the light.
I warn you that you will be quiet – when the curfew of fear and the gibbet of unemployment make you obedient.
I warn you that you will have defence of a sort – with a risk and at a price that passes all understanding. I warn you that you will be home-bound – when fares and transport bills kill leisure and lock you up.
I warn you that you will borrow less – when credit, loans, mortgages and easy payments are refused to people on your melting income.
If Margaret Thatcher wins on Thursday, I warn you not to be ordinary. I warn you not to be young. I warn you not to fall ill. I warn you not to get old.

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 05 May 10 - 05:40 PM

It is proposed that The European Union end its discrimination by creating a "Court of Human Lefts" because their present policy is one_sided.

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: Gervase
Date: 05 May 10 - 05:45 PM

It is proposed that fatuous jokes like that, along with 'ZaNuLabour', and 'Liebore', have officially jumped the shark. Grow up and get over it. Or do you really want to go back to a world where you can call someone a nigger or insist that a woman does the same job for less pay?
Actually, you probably do, don't you?

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: The Sandman
Date: 05 May 10 - 05:51 PM

Mcgrath,I agree it is a good speech.
I hope Gordon Brown wins the election.

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 05 May 10 - 06:09 PM

It is proposed that fatuous jokes like that, along with 'ZaNuLabour', and 'Liebore', have officially jumped the shark. Grow up and get over it. Or do you really want to go back to a world where you can call someone a nigger or insist that a woman does the same job for less pay?
Actually, you probably do, don't you?

It's part of the Monster Raving Looney Party policies, and I think it's very funny. Another one - a solution for shortening the dole queues - make them stand closer together!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: Lox
Date: 05 May 10 - 06:35 PM

The Main argument against the tories is that they claim to be the anti tax party, yet they will up VAT.

VAT is the poor mans tax.

So they will punish the poor for the mistakes of the bankers, while giving tax breaks to the rich.

That isn't unfair, its cruel.

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 05 May 10 - 07:05 PM

Gervase, thank you, but I am sure he said "Do not be ordinary". It was the dead rat smack - and we have seen it all come true.