Originally Posted by foreverwar (Post 35005125)

The "sleeper agent" was a joke, hence the :D He wasn't a Tory Party member, just a member of the CUCA.

How can it be a smear, when there is documented evidence? Anyhoo, what is wrong with changing views over time - it's called being open-minded, I believe.

A smear is when a Baron calls someone else "toffee-nosed", imho...;)

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35005132)

The Tories don't need to fight dirty to smear anyway, they have The Sun and the Daily Mail doing that for them.

Originally Posted by Osem (Post 35005133)

Why did New Labour need McBride and Draper when they had the Daily Mirror?

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35005136)

Because who on earth reads the Daily Mirror? :D

Originally Posted by Osem (Post 35005138)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8631532.stm


and there was I thinking that the B of E needed to use interest rates to curb inflation. Not much sign of that right now.... :confused:

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35005158)

The economy is too weak so they need to balance inflation with the need to keep interest rates low to encourage growth.

They believe this inflation spike is only transient anyway.

Originally Posted by The Guardian - Comment is free

Sunny Hundal
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 20 April 2010 10.00 BST

Labour must prepare to boot Brown

If voters return a hung parliament, Labour must bite the bullet and get rid of Gordon Brown or face staying out of power



The Labour party should prepare to get rid of Gordon Brown. Not before the election, obviously – that would be ludicrous – but afterwards. Let me explain why.

The Lib Dem resurgence has made it much more likely that neither Labour nor the Conservatives will get a majority in parliament. A hung parliament is not only more likely to happen than not, but polls show that more people want one than not. Attempts by Brown or David Cameron to scare them away from the notion are futile since there is too much ingrained anger at a political system crying out for an overhaul.

Providing that Nick Clegg does not seriously smack-down both his opponents at subsequent debates, the most likely scenario is that the Conservatives end up with the most amount of seats, Labour second and the Lib Dems third.

But if neither party has a majority, it is perfectly legitimate for Labour to go into a coalition with the Lib Dems in order to form a government. The question is: can they? And more importantly: who would be the prime minister?

It is unlikely Gordon Brown could be if he comes second. Besides, his personal ratings are so low that it would be easy for the Lib Dems to refuse. It is also said frequently that Clegg cannot stand Brown and the two would find it very difficult to work together.

The Labour party then has a choice: it can either bite the bullet and get rid of an unpopular leader who just lost them the election, or it can hang on to him and stay out of power.

Nevertheless, there are problems for Labour.

(snip)

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35005137)

This is amusing. If for no other reason than watching a man trying to defend the indefensible.

Originally Posted by Open Letter to The Times from a group of former senior military commanders

Money spent on Trident can’t go on troops

Four former senior military commanders ask if our nuclear deterrent is value for money


Edwin Bramall, David Ramsbotham, Hugh Beach, Patrick Cordingley


It is to be welcomed that all the leading political parties are committed to conducting a comprehensive strategic defence review after the election. This clearly must follow a detailed evaluation of the threats that this country faces today and in the future.

However, it is of deep concern that the question of the Trident replacement programme is at present excluded from this process. With an estimated lifetime cost of more than £80 billion, replacing Trident will be one of the most expensive weapons programmes this country has seen. Going ahead will clearly have long-term consequences for the military and the defence equipment budget that need to be carefully examined.

Given the present economic climate, in which the defence budget faces the prospect of worrying cuts, and that we have already an estimated hole in the defence equipment budget of some £35 billion, it is crucial that a review is fully costed and looks critically at all significant planned defence spending.

The debate has shifted significantly since the 2007 decision to proceed with replacing Trident. Internationally there is a growing consensus that rapid cuts in nuclear forces, starting with the US and Russia, but with the smaller nuclear states following, is the way to achieve international security.

(snip)

Should the review determine that there is still a need for a nuclear deterrent, a number of options may be more affordable than a like-for-like replacement of the Trident system, which has been described as a “Rolls-Royce” solution. The state of the public finances requires each of these options to be carefully evaluated, alongside like-for-like replacement and disarmament.

It is no longer good enough to skirt round the question of what actual military value an expensive nuclear deterrent provides to our services by labelling the decision a “political one”. This decision will have a direct impact on our overstretched Armed Forces. Allowing the military’s views to be excluded from this decision will have consequences both predictable and regrettable.

(snip)

Field Marshal Lord Bramall is a former Chief of the Defence Staff, General Lord Ramsbotham is a former Adjutant-General, General Sir Hugh Beach is a former Master-General of the Ordnance, Major-General Patrick Cordingley is a former Commander of the 7th Armoured Brigade

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35005214)

The Sun is really, really aggressively going after the Liberal Democrats in this election....

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35005225)

Realistically, how would a Lib-Lab coalition work? How could it possibly work? The Liberal Democrats, AFAIK, are committed to reversing a lot of the odious, authoritarian outrages Labour has put on our statute book over the past 13 years, like the way the DNA database is used, the national ID card, rights of protest, 28 day detention.

Is Labour really going to agree to repeal any or all of that as the price of staying in power? Or are we actually going to get nothing more than the odd token concession, such as the so-called 'proportional' voting system Gord has in mind (AV, the 'Alternative Vote' system, which the Electoral Reform Society regards as "... not a proportional system, and can in fact be more disproportional than FPTP.")