Cable Forum
Page 4 of 5 123 4 5
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)
-   Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)
-   -   The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2 (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33663003)

danielf 20-04-2010 14:41
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by foreverwar (Post 35004887)
But surely if the Lib Dems believe in proportional representation, in the event of a hung parliament, they should ally with the party that had the most votes in this election?
I don't see why. It makes far more sense to side with a party (if any) that is willing to push through electoral reform so the results of future elections represent the popular vote more accurately.

Hugh 20-04-2010 14:42
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
I see - they only believe in proportional representation if it helps them......;)

Damien 20-04-2010 14:46
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by foreverwar (Post 35004887)
But surely if the Lib Dems believe in proportional representation, in the event of a hung parliament, they should ally with the party that had the most votes in this election?
Why though? In a PR system you don't have to ally with the party that has the most seats. You can allay with another safe in the knowledge that the combined parties won more votes than the largest one.

Anyway as danielf said, they are far more likely to go with the party that will allow them to push the change in the electoral system. Although they have more common ground with the Tories on civil liberties. I think those are the two issues the Lib Dems are more focused on...

danielf 20-04-2010 14:46
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by foreverwar (Post 35004890)
I see - they only believe in proportional representation if it helps them......;)
On the other hand, if the current polls are an indicator of the outcome, I'd think that all parties should have a serious think about reforming the system as the current one is untenable (imo).

Hugh 20-04-2010 15:21
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
I agree with you, daniel.

Flyboy 20-04-2010 15:47
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by foreverwar (Post 35004887)
But surely if the Lib Dems believe in proportional representation, in the event of a hung parliament, they should ally with the party that had the most votes in this election?
But that wouldn't necessarily give them access to the power needed to change the system.

bjorkiii 20-04-2010 15:55
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
:) Eeeh the betting sites have changed and i bet they will change even more come next 10 days , if your feeling brave theres money to be made here . I cannot believe but hope im wrong that the Be in my community we work together and as one but for free Mr D.c will somehow fiddle his way in :) ooooh slimy toads frogs and newts enter my head as soon as i see the conniving shmuck on tv.

Ignitionnet 20-04-2010 16:05
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bjorkiii (Post 35004929)
:) Eeeh the betting sites have changed and i bet they will change even more come next 10 days , if your feeling brave theres money to be made here . I cannot believe but hope im wrong that the Be in my community we work together and as one but for free Mr D.c will somehow fiddle his way in :) ooooh slimy toads frogs and newts enter my head as soon as i see the conniving shmuck on tv.
Does this post come in English?

---------- Post added at 15:03 ---------- Previous post was at 14:59 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyboy (Post 35004922)
But that wouldn't necessarily give them access to the power needed to change the system.
Of course it wouldn't but it would avoid accusations of hypocrisy. Sadly I don't rate their chances of getting the system changed.

Labour are hardly likely to want to change a system where they can come 3rd in the popular vote and still have the most MPs. The Conservatives are likewise going to be reluctant, changes that don't directly benefit them are unlikely to gain traction.

---------- Post added at 15:05 ---------- Previous post was at 15:03 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by danielf (Post 35004892)
On the other hand, if the current polls are an indicator of the outcome, I'd think that all parties should have a serious think about reforming the system as the current one is untenable (imo).
Agreed. From that point of view I hope that the election goes down the route of Tories and Lib Dems being 1st and 2nd in the popular vote while Labour are 3rd yet have the most MPs. That would put the issue into very clear focus and both force a closer look at electoral form and a fundamental change in thinking.

Downside said hung parliament will get nothing done until that fundamental change in thinking is done.

Hugh 20-04-2010 16:17
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
As Peter Kellner put it in the New Statesman (not the most pro-Tory publication out there) late last year
Quote:
But whatever assumptions are made, two things are clear. First, Britain's political geography is tilted heavily in Labour's favour. Labour needs only the barest lead in the popular vote to win an overall majority: not so the Conservatives. It is quite possible for the Tories to win a million more votes than Labour, and still end up with 20 fewer MPs.
Second, the gap between the overall-majority goals is vast: anything between a Labour lead of 1 per cent and a Tory lead of 10 per cent is likely to give us a hung parliament.
Which isn't quite the same view proposed in the Labour Party Manifesto 2010
Quote:
The cost of politics to the taxpayer must be minimised, but we reject using this as an excuse to *gerrymander constituency boundaries in the interests of one political party.
I believe the phrase used by the "kids" is ROFL.....


*Gerrymandering - boundary delimitation (redistricting) in which electoral district or constituency boundaries are deliberately modified for electoral purposes

Ignitionnet 20-04-2010 16:24
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
Well of course they don't want to gerrymander constituency boundaries, they're just how they want them now ;)

Hugh 20-04-2010 17:00
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
WhatAreTheOdds video

Update - Paxo interviews David Cameron this Friday, 8:30pm; after Eastenders, and just before Ashes to Ashes.....

https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/...2010/04/32.jpg

Timing is everything......:D

Ignitionnet 20-04-2010 17:46
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
I can't seem to see that a date has been set for the PM's interview with Paxman. Anyone?

Ah found it, to be broadcast 30th.

Sirius 20-04-2010 17:53
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osem (Post 35004758)
I think Clegg's refusal to give any indication who his party would be likely to support in the event of a hung parliament may come back to haunt him. At the moment he seems to be trying not to put off the large number of red and blue waverers who're seemingly thinking about the Lib dems as a serious option. As decision time comes closer, however, I think he may just lose a proportion of both unless he nails his colours to the mast.
His dithering and indecision remind me of Brown

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjorkiii (Post 35004929)
:) Eeeh the betting sites have changed and i bet they will change even more come next 10 days , if your feeling brave theres money to be made here . I cannot believe but hope im wrong that the Be in my community we work together and as one but for free Mr D.c will somehow fiddle his way in :) ooooh slimy toads frogs and newts enter my head as soon as i see the conniving shmuck on tv.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35004931)
Does this post come in English?

.
I tried babel fish but it gave up. :LOL:

danielf 20-04-2010 17:53
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sirius (Post 35004967)
His dithering and indecision remind me of Brown
I don't think it's dithering and indecision. He's just keeping his options open, which seems like the wise thing to do in his position.

Hugh 20-04-2010 17:57
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
There may be other reasons lurking in Nick Clegg's past......

In an interview with the "Cambridge Student" last month he states
Quote:
(Q) What was your political stance when you were a student here in Cambridge?
(A) I actually wasn't that political, I was probably a lot more left-wing - I mean I very much consider myself a progressive politician - but I think I was then, and certainly after I went to Cambridge and studied at other places, I was probably more left-wing then when I started than I am now. But I wasn't attracted to party politics like lots of the other undergraduates. I didn't have any answers; I still kept finding my way round.
Whilst on the ConservativeHome blog site, there appears to be evidence he was a member of the Cambridge University Conservative Association when he was a fresher - Link

Perhaps he's a Tory "sleeper agent"? :D

Stuart 20-04-2010 18:07
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35004886)
Sadly due to the dubious nature of our system and the manner in which it has been rigged even if the Lib Dems took the popular vote by some distance they still wouldn't be in power. Even if either opposition party took a considerably higher percentage of the vote than Labour did last time they wouldn't have a majority.

Labour would be the biggest party even if it finished Conservatives 33%, Lib Dems 30%, Labour 27%.

That's the problem with our electoral system. For instance, in my area, I can vote Lib Dem all I want, but it's such a conservative stronghold that essentially Hell would have to freeze over before the area would end up with anything other than a conservative MP. Having said that, the LibDems came close to winning in my area in 1997. Only "Close" though.

Osem 20-04-2010 18:49
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by foreverwar (Post 35004972)
There may be other reasons lurking in Nick Clegg's past......

In an interview with the "Cambridge Student" last month he statesWhilst on the ConservativeHome blog site, there appears to be evidence he was a member of the Cambridge University Conservative Association when he was a fresher - Link

Perhaps he's a Tory "sleeper agent"? :D

:D

Whilst certainly not a 'crime' and a long time ago, I think his apparent denials may do him a big disservice.

martyh 20-04-2010 19:05
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
anyone seen this video ...so sad and a bit embarrassing:nono:http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20100420/...u-37e89e1.html

Matty_ 20-04-2010 19:22
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
The papers really seem to be pushing the "Please don`t let it be a hung parliament" line quite a bit since the t.v. debate, after which Lib-Dems polls rating rose like an eagle.

The bird out of Bucks-Fizz is still a bit of allright :naughty:

Angua 20-04-2010 19:23
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
I like this (acquired from a local forum poster) :rofl:

Quote:
Oxford University researchers have discovered the heaviest element yet known to science. The new element, Governmentium (symbol=Gv), has one neutron, 25 assistant neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons and 198 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312.

These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called pillocks. Since Governmentium has no electrons, it is inert. However, it can be detected, because it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact.

A tiny amount of Governmentium can cause a reaction that would normally take less than a second, to take from 4 days to 4 years to complete. Governmentium has a normal half-life of 2 to 6 years. It does not decay, but instead undergoes a reorganisation in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places.

In fact, Governmentium's mass will actually increase over time, since each reorganisation will cause more morons to become neutrons, forming isodopes. This characteristic of moron promotion leads some scientists
to believe that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a critical concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as a critical morass. When catalysed with money, Governmentium becomes Administratium (symbol=Ad), an element that radiates just as much energy as Governmentium, since it has half as many pillocks but twice as many morons.

martyh 20-04-2010 19:26
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angua (Post 35005023)
I like this (acquired from a local forum poster) :rofl:

like that :D

Tezcatlipoca 20-04-2010 20:04
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by danielf (Post 35004892)
On the other hand, if the current polls are an indicator of the outcome, I'd think that all parties should have a serious think about reforming the system as the current one is untenable (imo).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35004931)
Agreed. From that point of view I hope that the election goes down the route of Tories and Lib Dems being 1st and 2nd in the popular vote while Labour are 3rd yet have the most MPs. That would put the issue into very clear focus and both force a closer look at electoral form and a fundamental change in thinking.

Downside said hung parliament will get nothing done until that fundamental change in thinking is done.

Agreed also.

OK, it would probably cause a bit of an outrage & crisis, but I think it would be a good shock to the system, & finally force them to do something about our rather unfair electoral system.

Xaccers 20-04-2010 21:24
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
Why does Cleggy have to state who he'll support in a hung parliment?
Surely he, just like any party can say they'll remain independant and support or oppose bills on their merrit?

Osem 20-04-2010 21:39
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaccers (Post 35005080)
Why does Cleggy have to state who he'll support in a hung parliment?
Surely he, just like any party can say they'll remain independant and support or oppose bills on their merrit?
He doesn't have to at all but I suspect many people want him to be clear about this and he risks losing their votes if he isn't. Of course his judgement may be that it's a risk worth taking...

Xaccers 20-04-2010 21:48
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osem (Post 35005088)
He doesn't have to at all but I suspect many people want him to be clear about this and he risks losing their votes if he isn't. Of course his judgement may be that it's a risk worth taking...
I think he'd lose more votes by announcing who he'd side with.

People disillusioned with Labour and aren't really Labour voters but are swinging towards LDs will end up with Labour not only with a few extra seats than the other two main parties, but in actual power by being backed by LDs, so as has been pointed out, vote LD and get Labour.
If they state they're going to remain independant and follow their own values, then they can get more people to convince themselves that a LD vote isn't a waste, hung parliment is inevitable so LDs could be the deciding vote on any bill.

Ignitionnet 20-04-2010 21:59
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osem (Post 35005088)
He doesn't have to at all but I suspect many people want him to be clear about this and he risks losing their votes if he isn't. Of course his judgement may be that it's a risk worth taking...
Here's a thought regardless of where the Lib Dems choose to go:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8427233.stm

Quote:
What happens if there is a hung parliament?

The incumbent Prime Minister will remain in power until he or she resigns

Flyboy 20-04-2010 22:42
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by foreverwar (Post 35004972)
There may be other reasons lurking in Nick Clegg's past......

In an interview with the "Cambridge Student" last month he statesWhilst on the ConservativeHome blog site, there appears to be evidence he was a member of the Cambridge University Conservative Association when he was a fresher - Link

Perhaps he's a Tory "sleeper agent"? :D
So unlike the Tories to stoop to smearing, eh? ;)

Osem 20-04-2010 22:42
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaccers (Post 35005096)
I think he'd lose more votes by announcing who he'd side with.

People disillusioned with Labour and aren't really Labour voters but are swinging towards LDs will end up with Labour not only with a few extra seats than the other two main parties, but in actual power by being backed by LDs, so as has been pointed out, vote LD and get Labour.
If they state they're going to remain independant and follow their own values, then they can get more people to convince themselves that a LD vote isn't a waste, hung parliment is inevitable so LDs could be the deciding vote on any bill.

Well no doubt that's the equation Clegg's wrestling with but I also think there are many people who're crying out for just one of these people to be straight for once and this is where Clegg's image has lost a little of it's sheen IMHO.

Hugh 20-04-2010 22:48
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyboy (Post 35005119)
So unlike the Tories to stoop to smearing, eh? ;)
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...;)

Ignitionnet 20-04-2010 22:49
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyboy (Post 35005119)
So unlike the Tories to stoop to smearing, eh? ;)
I'd love to see them do it some more to be honest. It's the only way to have some significant effect against Labour's BS. Policy rooted in the real world isn't going to make much progress against unfunded, unrealistic promises and soundbites. Hate Mandelson for setting the only workable tone of the election to be so incredibly low though I guess there wasn't much else he could do :(

Be good to see the Tories quit trying to rise above it along with giving anything like realistic policy and dive into some hardcore gutter politics, may have some effect on the people who are dumb enough to believe Brown can deliver his guarantees without destroying the country's finances.

Hugh 20-04-2010 22:50
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
Here's a smear for you, Fb - David Cameron rips the head off a chicken....

Osem 20-04-2010 22:55
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
Quote:
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...;)
:rofl:

Yes, smears are what Draper and McBride were up to on behalf of New Labour...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...gn-emails.html

Of course Brown knew nothing about any of that.....


ps are you going to update your Avatar to take account of the interest accruing on the amount owed by each and every one of us....

Damien 20-04-2010 22:56
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
The Tories don't need to fight dirty or smear anyway, they have The Sun and the Daily Mail doing that for them.

Osem 20-04-2010 22:58
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
Quote:
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.
Why did New Labour need McBride and Draper when they had the Daily Mirror?

Damien 20-04-2010 23:00
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osem (Post 35005133)
Why did New Labour need McBride and Draper when they had the Daily Mirror?
Because who on earth reads the Daily Mirror? :D

Ignitionnet 20-04-2010 23:01
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
This is amusing. If for no other reason than watching a man trying to defend the indefensible.

Ditto this. Authoritarian *******s.

Osem 20-04-2010 23:18
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35005136)
Because who on earth reads the Daily Mirror? :D
Gordon does - I heard he bases his economic policy on its output... :D

---------- Post added at 22:18 ---------- Previous post was at 22:01 ----------

Quote:
The UK inflation rate rose sharply to 3.4% in March from 3% the month before, official figures have shown.
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:

Ignitionnet 20-04-2010 23:27
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
Quote:
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:
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.

Osem 20-04-2010 23:30
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
Quote:
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.
Well some of it's down to the weakness of Sterling but let's hope the rest of the world agrees that it's transient...... :)

Tezcatlipoca 21-04-2010 01:11
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...t-gordon-brown

Quote:
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)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35005137)
This is amusing. If for no other reason than watching a man trying to defend the indefensible.
I clicked that... but as soon as I saw Alan "NuttSack" Johnson on it, I had to quickly close the tab.

---------- Post added 21-04-2010 at 00:11 ---------- Previous post was 20-04-2010 at 22:38 ----------

Bloody tree-hugging Generals! :rolleyes: ;)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle7103196.ece

Quote:
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

Damien 21-04-2010 09:44
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
The Sun is really, really aggressively going after the Liberal Democrats in this election....

Osem 21-04-2010 10:17
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35005214)
The Sun is really, really aggressively going after the Liberal Democrats in this election....
It was bound to happen and it's right that the Lib Dems should be exposed to the same level of scrutiny as the other parties if they stand a realistic chance of influence and power.

In spite of what Clegg has said about Gordon Brown, it's clear to me that the Lib Dems will support New Labour and for that reason I don't think I could bring myself to vote for them.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politi...10/8633655.stm

Quote:
Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg has indicated he might find it difficult to do a deal with Gordon Brown in the event of a hung Parliament.
In a Daily Telegraph interview, he says Mr Brown is "a desperate politician".

... Labour had been "a stubborn block to reform and progress" for 13 years which had failed to tackle the "democratic outrage" that was the House of Lords....
After all the damage he's done, the thought of anyone extending Brown's role in our government is frightening....

Chris 21-04-2010 10:26
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
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.")

danielf 21-04-2010 12:02
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
Quote:
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.")
Good points Chris. And valid reasons for preferring a Conservative/LibDem coalition. Personally, I'm not sure which way I want it to go. Just that change is needed (for the longer term) and that the LibDems need to be part of it. For me, Electoral Reform and Civil Liberties are two major issues, and the Tories seem more likely to act on those than Labour.

Chris 21-04-2010 12:24
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
There has been a long-term shift in the makeup of our constituencies that seems to favour Labour, i.e. they need a smaller overall share of the vote in order to do well under FPTP. I'm hoping the Tories will see that, if for no other reason than self-interest, the system has got to change.

I began this election campaign as a determined Tory voter, but I'm beginning to become disillusioned. It is becoming ever-clearer to me that nobody has all the answers, and TBH the more knockabout, squabbling and fighting I see in this campaign (and last night's Scottish debate was a real humdinger - well worth a view on the STV version of ITV Player, if you have a few minutes to scan through it - lots of audience participation and direct hard-talk between the SNP, Lab, Con & LD) ... the more of that I see, the more I wish to see them all get their heads knocked together and forced to co-operate.

I think a hung parliament will serve the whole darned lot of them right. It might be purgatory for them, but it might, just might, force them to start thinking about different ways of doing things. One thing I am sure of, we cannot go on any longer as we have done before.

---------- Post added at 11:24 ---------- Previous post was at 11:21 ----------

Incidentally, on the issue of Scotland, here's a useful poll tracker:

http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/i...olls_scot.html

It has serious implications for the whole UK. If there is essentially no change from 2005 (except for one seat switched from Lab to SNP), there is no way the Tories are going to get an outright majority in the UK. IIRC they need at least 10-11 seats up here, on a uniform swing.

The one caveat to that, of course, is that most of Scotland's seats are in and around Glasgow, where they would vote for a turd so long as it was wearing a red rosette.

bjorkiii 21-04-2010 14:08
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
Some Cornish chap has threw an egg at David Cameron :D hope it was free range organic type , "we want everyone to join in" he did say to be part of society :D even the egg throwers.

Damien 21-04-2010 14:22
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bjorkiii (Post 35005324)
Some Cornish chap has threw an egg at David Cameron :D hope it was free range organic type , "we want everyone to join in" he did say to be part of society :D even the egg throwers.

I hate when people do that, what do they hope to achieve? :rolleyes:

Spectato 21-04-2010 14:44
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35005328)
I hate when people do that, what do they hope to achieve? :rolleyes:
They only do it to annoy you! :D

Driving between Devon and Cornwall yesterday....
Massive amount of UKIP banners, lots of Lib-Dem support for local candidates.
Think I saw two Conservative signs (they're a bit too IMO) but zilch for Labour.
Nada, diddly-squat, the big zer0.
Of course, down to the land owners around here, what signs they allow to be staked into their cow pastures!
Bigger your farm, the more UKIP banners you can show off!

Flyboy 21-04-2010 14:59
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
I can't understand farmers who are against the idea of the UK being in the EU. Wouldn't they stand to loose a great deal if the UK withdrew?

Ignitionnet 21-04-2010 15:03
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
Such as?

In other news: Nick Clegg attacks 'desperate' Gordon Brown

Osem 21-04-2010 15:06
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35005348)
I've already posted that link above but I don't mind plenty of repetition when Brown's on the receiving end.... ;)

Spectato 21-04-2010 15:25
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyboy (Post 35005346)
I can't understand farmers who are against the idea of the UK being in the EU.
Doesn't matter really.
It's not like UKIP are actually going to win any seats.
My 3½ pence is on the Lib-Dems cleaning up, in the Southwest.
Not long 'til we find out....

danielf 21-04-2010 16:00
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35005214)
The Sun is really, really aggressively going after the Liberal Democrats in this election....
Yeah, but look at their poll: 34% for the Lib Dems (+3) , 31% Con (-2), Lab 26% (-1)

Damien 21-04-2010 16:04
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by danielf (Post 35005360)
Yeah, but look at their poll: 34% for the Lib Dems (+3) , 31% Con (-2), Lab 26% (-1)
Yeah but I think that is a really soft number, even if they were to maintain a similar rating (which, given two more debates to come, is unlikely) I suspect we will find out that it's a lot smaller.

Osem 21-04-2010 16:08
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
I think the polls right now are pretty meaningless. A lot will depend on Clegg's performances in the next debates and I suspect a lot of waverers who're claiming they'll vote Lib Dem will find they don't on poling day for one reason or another.

Damien 21-04-2010 16:13
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osem (Post 35005365)
I think the polls right now are pretty meaningless. A lot will depend on Clegg's performances in the next debates and I suspect a lot of waverers who're claiming they'll vote Lib Dem will find they don't on poling day for one reason or another.
That's what I think too. I wonder how the polls are compiled but surely there are a lot of people who will state that they will vote for Lib Dem as it fits the national narrative.

Kymmy 21-04-2010 16:20
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
No idea if it's already been posted but on a light hearted note I'm gonna vote this may for the Icelandic Volcano party.. In the last 5 days they've stopped more illegal immigrants than the goverment has in 10 years ;)

Chris 21-04-2010 16:27
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyboy (Post 35005346)
I can't understand farmers who are against the idea of the UK being in the EU. Wouldn't they stand to loose a great deal if the UK withdrew?
Quite the reverse. CAP reduces the benefits of being a large, efficient operation (as many British farms are) because it subsidises small, inefficient ones (as many French farms are). The only people who would be royally screwed without CAP are the French. British farmers would do ok without CAP (which of course would be a necessary consequence of not being in the EU).

Flyboy 21-04-2010 16:28
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
With Brown's clear advantage on his experience with foreign affairs, does anyone think that Cameron will have an edge tomorrow?

Damien 21-04-2010 16:35
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyboy (Post 35005373)
With Brown's clear advantage on his experience with foreign affairs, does anyone think that Cameron will have an edge tomorrow?
Not sure his experence is that good. I think Cameron will have an edge on Brown in terms of EU membership with the Tories policy of implementing a 'British Bill of Rights' which, as far as I can tell, will be the same as we have now but with the word 'British' in front of it.

Clegg should do well with his opposition to the wars, the only main party to reject them at the time. His pro-EU stance will hit him as will trident although the generals' letter might help neutralise that weakness.

Thus I expect Brown to be a non-entity. I think Cameron will be far more aggressive towards Clegg because they now see him as their biggest barrier to a working majority. Especially since he can't really have a go at Labour for their biggest mistake, the wars in the middle east.

Chris 21-04-2010 16:37
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyboy (Post 35005373)
With Brown's clear advantage on his experience with foreign affairs, does anyone think that Cameron will have an edge tomorrow?
What clear advantage is that?

danielf 21-04-2010 16:51
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35005375)

Thus I expect Brown to be a non-entity. I think Cameron will be far more aggressive towards Clegg because they now see him as their biggest barrier to a working majority. Especially since he can't really have a go at Labour for their biggest mistake, the wars in the middle east.
I think there's a bit of a conundrum there. Yes, I expect Cameron will be harsher towards Clegg, but I don't think he can be too harsh, as he might need Clegg in a hung parliament. And let's face it, chances of an outright majority for the Tories seem slim at the moment.

Damien 21-04-2010 16:57
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by danielf (Post 35005379)
I think there's a bit of a conundrum there. Yes, I expect Cameron will be harsher towards Clegg, but I don't think he can be too harsh, as he might need Clegg in a hung parliament. And let's face it, chances of an outright majority for the Tories seem slim at the moment.
Maybe, I also wonder if it might help Clegg look even more unique and 'new' while making Cameron look like more of the same. I suspect they will continue the "Vote Clegg, Get Brown" tactic.

danielf 21-04-2010 17:01
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35005380)
Maybe, I also wonder if it might help Clegg look even more unique and 'new' while making Cameron look like more of the same. I suspect they will continue the "Vote Clegg, Get Brown" tactic.
Or 'Nick agrees with me' even. :D

Either way, I'm looking forward to tomorrow's debate.

Damien 21-04-2010 17:07
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
In terms of electoral reform the worst thing that can happen is the Tories win a working majority. They will do nothing in terms of changing the system. Best case: Labour win the most seats, not a majority, and come third in the popular vote. RIOTS!! :D

Osem 21-04-2010 17:24
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35005376)
What clear advantage is that?
I was wondering that. I think he must be referring to Brown's version of the midas touch... :D

---------- Post added at 16:24 ---------- Previous post was at 16:23 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35005375)
Thus I expect Brown to be a non-entity. I think Cameron will be far more aggressive towards Clegg because they now see him as their biggest barrier to a working majority. Especially since he can't really have a go at Labour for their biggest mistake, the wars in the middle east.

I'd go along with that.

Hugh 21-04-2010 17:25
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyboy (Post 35005373)
With Brown's clear advantage on his experience with foreign affairs, does anyone think that Cameron will have an edge tomorrow?
Strange - I thought he had been Chancellor, not Foreign Secretary? ;)

As the BBC stated when it was announced he was taking over as Prime Minister
Quote:
Gordon Brown is something of an unknown quantity as far as foreign policy is concerned
tbf, at the bottom of the BBC article, it states (re Aid and Development)
Quote:
This was one area in which Gordon Brown made his mark internationally as chancellor.
World Politics Review also stated at the time
Quote:
Gordon Brown becomes Britain's new Prime Minister today amid growing speculation over what kind of foreign policy can be expected from a seasoned politician who has rarely spoken out on foreign affairs in the past. Despite recent speeches on Britishness, national security and climate change, Browns views about the wider global policy agenda, and whether they will differ greatly from Tony Blair, are not yet clear.
Doesn't sound like someone with "clear advantage on foreign affairs" to me.:D

Osem 21-04-2010 17:26
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35005380)
Maybe, I also wonder if it might help Clegg look even more unique and 'new' while making Cameron look like more of the same. I suspect they will continue the "Vote Clegg, Get Brown" tactic.
Yup - it's a good tactic too... :D

---------- Post added at 16:26 ---------- Previous post was at 16:25 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by foreverwar (Post 35005392)
Strange - I thought he had been Chancellor, not Foreign Secretary? ;)

As the BBC stated when it was announced he was taking over as Prime Minister

tbf, at the bottom of the BBC article, it states (re Aid and Development)

Doesn't sound like someone with "clear advantage on foreign affairs" to me.:D
:rofl:

Ignitionnet 21-04-2010 17:41
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyboy (Post 35005373)
With Brown's clear advantage on his experience with foreign affairs, does anyone think that Cameron will have an edge tomorrow?
Brown's lack of personality and past failures comfortably outweigh any advantage his frankly limited experience may give him.

If experience were that much of an issue he would have had a clear advantage in anything relating to the economy but, as the 1337 kiddies say, rofl.

His main advantage is his ability, without battering an eyelid, to promise the electorate anything in order to get re-elected. I can't wait to see what he promises tomorrow, presumably vote for him else North Korea will nuke us to punish us for turning away from the Socialist way.

He actually has one massive weakness relating to foreign affairs, I am just trying to remember the word...

Referee? Nah. Reference? Uh-uh. Referring? Oh I remember now, referendum. Well at least I remembered it in the end, unlike Labour.

danielf 21-04-2010 17:45
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35005402)

His main advantage is his ability, without battering an eyelid, to promise the electorate anything in order to get re-elected. I can't wait to see what he promises tomorrow, presumably vote for him else North Korea will nuke us to punish us for turning away from the Socialist way.
Whose eyelid should would you like to see him 'batter' then? :)

Flyboy 21-04-2010 17:47
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35005402)
Brown's lack of personality and past failures comfortably outweigh any advantage his frankly limited experience may give him.

If experience were that much of an issue he would have had a clear advantage in anything relating to the economy but, as the 1337 kiddies say, rofl.

His main advantage is his ability, without battering an eyelid, to promise the electorate anything in order to get re-elected. I can't wait to see what he promises tomorrow, presumably vote for him else North Korea will nuke us to punish us for turning away from the Socialist way.

He actually has one massive weakness relating to foreign affairs, I am just trying to remember the word...

Referee? Nah. Reference? Uh-uh. Referring? Oh I remember now, referendum. Well at least I remembered it in the end, unlike Labour.
I thought that was Cameron's threat, wasn't it?

Ignitionnet 21-04-2010 17:52
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyboy (Post 35005406)
I thought that was Cameron's threat, wasn't it?
The referendum yes. North Korea I seem to be struggling to find a citation for, beyond that both Brown and Cameron have used North Korea as a justification for Trident replacement. Could you point me in the direction of this?

Flyboy 21-04-2010 17:59
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
In the last debate, didn't Cameron suggest that China et al would be sending us a few hot pressies, if we dumped Trident?

Ignitionnet 21-04-2010 18:11
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyboy (Post 35005409)
In the last debate, didn't Cameron suggest that China et al would be sending us a few hot pressies, if we dumped Trident?
So exactly as I suggested it was a justification for Trident upgrade, something also directly referred to by Gordon Brown who is also convinced in the need for a like-for-like replacement.

Not really much of a 'vote for me or else' threat when it concurs with the main opposition's point of view to be honest.

British Jobs For British Workers - an interesting story from the BBC and not actually as biased as their normal output.

This paragraph amused me:

Quote:
Since 1997, there has been net migration out of the country by 988,000 British-born people. Put it another way - for every net job created for British born people in the UK since Labour took office, two and a half people who were born here have left the country.
:D

Chris 21-04-2010 18:54
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyboy (Post 35005406)
I thought that was Cameron's threat, wasn't it?
Are you going to ignore the fact that at least three different people have asked you to justify your claim that Brown has a 'clear advantage' with regard to foreign affairs?

Hugh 21-04-2010 19:21
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyboy (Post 35005409)
In the last debate, didn't Cameron suggest that China et al would be sending us a few hot pressies, if we dumped Trident?
No, he didn't - you appear to be doing a Whelan.....

He actually said "Are we really happy to say that we’d give up our independent nuclear deterrent when we don’t know what is going to happen with Iran, we can’t be certain of the future in China?", which is completely different. He was referring to future uncertainties, using China and it's ever-changing policies as an example.

I would have thought Labour supporters would have been the last people to be commenting about politicians making statements about other countries sending us a "few hot pressies", AKA "Weapons of Mass Distraction"...;)

Tezcatlipoca 21-04-2010 20:20
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osem (Post 35005221)
It was bound to happen and it's right that the Lib Dems should be exposed to the same level of scrutiny as the other parties if they stand a realistic chance of influence and power.

In spite of what Clegg has said about Gordon Brown, it's clear to me that the Lib Dems will support New Labour and for that reason I don't think I could bring myself to vote for them.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politi...10/8633655.stm

After all the damage he's done, the thought of anyone extending Brown's role in our government is frightening....
I'm not sure that what the Sun has been printing is what I would call "scrutiny" though...

Why is it clear to you that the Lib Dems would support New labour?

Still, if they did support Labour in the event of a hung parliament, hopefully one of the conditions would be "Give Brown the boot!" :D

Were New Labour to get the most seats in a hung parliament, but lose the popular vote, I can't see Brown struggling on for much longer anyway.


Quote:
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.
[/SIZE]
Yup.

Lib Dems on Civil Liberties

The Freedom Bill

(as for how it would work if they were in a coalition with Labour :erm:...)

Quote:
Originally Posted by danielf (Post 35005260)
Good points Chris. And valid reasons for preferring a Conservative/LibDem coalition. Personally, I'm not sure which way I want it to go. Just that change is needed (for the longer term) and that the LibDems need to be part of it. For me, Electoral Reform and Civil Liberties are two major issues, and the Tories seem more likely to act on those than Labour.
I trust the Tories more on Civil Liberties than New Labour (hard not to really!).

For Electoral Reform, though, AFAIK although the Tories do at least agree with the need for some sort of partially elected upper house, they are still in favour of FPTP for the Commons.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35005384)
In terms of electoral reform the worst thing that can happen is the Tories win a working majority. They will do nothing in terms of changing the system. Best case: Labour win the most seats, not a majority, and come third in the popular vote. RIOTS!! :D
This. (IMO) (without the riots though ;) )

If Labour win more seats than the Tories, but with a lower share of the popular vote, & no-one party has an overall majority, it should surely & finally give them all a good kick up the arse (which they all most definitely need!), plus give the Tories reason to actually support electoral reform for the HoC (instead of continuing to insist that FPTP works fine).

Flyboy 21-04-2010 20:23
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35005442)
Are you going to ignore the fact that at least three different people have asked you to justify your claim that Brown has a 'clear advantage' with regard to foreign affairs?
I really don't see what the point is to be honest. But how about this?

Gordon Brown honoured in New York as world statesman of the year

Quote:
Rock star Bono, Queen Rania of Jordan, and the Israeli defence minister Ehud Barak were among the audience as Kissinger praised Brown for his "vision and dedication" in handling the world economic crisis.

"His leadership has been essential to our ability to overcome the moment of danger," said Kissinger. The award has been previously been given to French president Nicolas Sarkozy and to German chancellor Angela Merkel.
Now I am sure that something will be made of the fact that the Israeli defence minister was there, but the award still holds some kudos on the world stage.

papa smurf 21-04-2010 20:42
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyboy (Post 35005471)
I really don't see what the point is to be honest. But how about this?

Gordon Brown honoured in New York as world statesman of the year



Now I am sure that something will be made of the fact that the Israeli defence minister was there, but the award still holds some kudos on the world stage.
well if bonio is in his corner he cant go wrong:rolleyes:

Hugh 21-04-2010 21:04
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyboy (Post 35005471)
I really don't see what the point is to be honest. But how about this?

Gordon Brown honoured in New York as world statesman of the year



Now I am sure that something will be made of the fact that the Israeli defence minister was there, but the award still holds some kudos on the world stage.
And the award was presented on behalf of that well-known worldwide organisation,
Quote:
the Appeal of Conscience Foundation, an interfaith organisation which campaigns for religious freedom and human rights by the veteran US former secretary of state Henry Kissinger
Or to put it another way - "who?";) (and being given an award by Dr Strangelove is probably not something I would want on my resume.... )

btw, the 2008 winner was Nicholas Sarkozy, 2005 John Howard of Oz, 2004 Goran Persson (the Prime Minister of Sweden), 2003 the President of Spain, 2001 Jean Chretien of Canada, 2000 Gerhard Schroeder, the Chancellor (prime minister) of Germany (could "buggins turn" have been a factor here....:D )

Ignitionnet 21-04-2010 21:14
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyboy (Post 35005471)
I really don't see what the point is to be honest. But how about this?

Gordon Brown honoured in New York as world statesman of the year

Now I am sure that something will be made of the fact that the Israeli defence minister was there, but the award still holds some kudos on the world stage.
Quote:
The award was presented on behalf of the Appeal of Conscience Foundation, an interfaith organisation which campaigns for religious freedom and human rights, by the veteran US former secretary of state Henry Kissinger.
Pretty laughable to be honest. An organisation that campaigns for human rights giving an award to the leader of a political party with such a strong record for eroding them.

Tezcatlipoca 21-04-2010 21:19
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
ELECTION CAMPAIGN STILL THERE

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Daily Mash
BRITAIN was profoundly disappointed today as the volcano-based news plume dispersed to reveal that the general election campaign has just been sitting there the whole time.

Viewers who watch the first five minutes of News at Ten before switching over to a Living TV programme about ghosts said they were positive it had all been sorted out last week.

Helen Archer, from Peterborough, said: "I thought that telly programme was the election. I told the lady on the phone that I liked the man who looked like a cross between the other men.

"I assumed that would be that, but now you're saying it's going to be on the telly every day for the next fortnight? <removed>."

She added: "I want the volcano to come back. I like that kind of telly news. I find it exotic."

Osem 21-04-2010 22:07
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35005514)
Pretty laughable to be honest. An organisation that campaigns for human rights giving an award to the leader of a political party with such a strong record for eroding them.
Laughable - too true! But then that adjective sums up Brown and his supporters quite nicely really....:D

Ignitionnet 21-04-2010 22:30
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
Wish I could put a question to Gordon Brown / Alistair Darling. Why is not taxing by 6bn as the Tories plan to so critical, crippling and taking money out of the economy while the 2.5% VAT reduction was stimulating as it, err, kept money in the economy.

How stupid do they think we are? Sad part is they are actually not far wrong.

TheDaddy 22-04-2010 02:54
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
I am goin to vote for Iclandic Volcano party, they have done more to stop immigration into the UK in 5 days than new Labour did in 13 years.....

Tezcatlipoca 22-04-2010 03:01
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
More on the Trident debate:

"Election: Clegg right to scrap Trident II, says Owen"

Quote:
Originally Posted by BBC News
Meirion Jones
BBC Newsnight

On the eve of the Leaders' Debate on foreign policy, Lord Owen has backed Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg's call to scrap Trident II, while the former Chief of Defence Staff Lord Guthrie has called for a rethink.

Lord Owen has told Newsnight that a perfectly adequate nuclear deterrent could be produced for a tenth - or even a twentieth - of the price of the planned Trident II nuclear submarines:

"It's quite ludicrous overkill for a country that's facing a huge structural fiscal deficit and has got to cut public expenditure".

(snip)

... Lord Owen ... says that Britain should never have bought Trident in the first place.

While he was in office he privately advocated a system based on cruise missiles for a fraction of the cost. Nowadays, he says, it would be even cheaper.

New Astute class submarines which are starting to go into Royal Navy service are already fitted with cruise missiles. In times of emergency, he says, their conventional warheads could be switched for nuclear ones.

In today's Times newspaper the former Chief of the Defence Staff, Lord Guthrie, adds his voice to calls from other former military leaders for a review.

"Do we really need the kind of effective weapon we had in the Cold War?" he asks. "There is quite an argument to say we do not."

Lord Owen says this is a commonly held view inside the armed forces:

"Many senior people in the Ministry of Defence want to keep a minimum deterrent with Astute submarines with cruise missiles".

(snip snip snip)

The Daily Telegraph has a story regarding donations received by Clegg:

"Nick Clegg denies wrongdoing over donation cash account"

Quote:
Originally Posted by BBC News
Nick Clegg has denied any wrongdoing after money given by party donors was paid to his private bank account.

The Daily Telegraph says the Liberal Democrat leader received up to £250 a month from three businessmen in 2006.

Mr Clegg officially declared the donations to the parliamentary authorities and said the money helped pay for a member of his staff.

A spokesman for Mr Clegg said the money was "properly given, properly accounted for and declared".

(snip)


---------- Post added at 02:01 ---------- Previous post was at 02:00 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35005733)
I am goin to vote for Iclandic Volcano party, they have done more to stop immigration into the UK in 5 days than new Labour did in 13 years.....
Kymmy is voting for them too ;)

Jimmy-J 22-04-2010 06:53
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt D (Post 35005735)
The Daily Telegraph has a story regarding donations received by Clegg:

"Nick Clegg denies wrongdoing over donation cash account"
Also in the news...
And...

Sirius 22-04-2010 07:35
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35005733)
I am goin to vote for Iclandic Volcano party, they have done more to stop immigration into the UK in 5 days than new Labour did in 13 years.....
:LOL: :clap:

---------- Post added at 06:35 ---------- Previous post was at 06:30 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Product 13 (Post 35005745)
Also in the news...


And...
Quote:
‘All nations have a cross to bear, and none more so than Germany with its memories of Nazism

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz0lnxP2U7E
Quote:
But the British cross is more insidious still.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz0lnwlLeFq
More so than murdering millions of innocent people in death camps

Quote:
‘A misplaced sense of superiority, sustained by delusions of grandeur and a tenacious obsession with the last war, is much harder to shake off. We need to be put back in our place.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz0lnvnRVtJ
Indeed Mr Clegg and here was me starting to think you might just be able to swing my vote but there again NOOOOOOOO

There's that roll over and give in attitude i expected from the tree huggers and to think that came from the mouth of a man who wants to lead this country. Sorry i dont want someone that thinks we need to be put in our place.

Maggy 22-04-2010 08:22
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
Wooo the other two parties must be running scared if the media have been persuaded to star a slur campaign against Clegg, because up to now he hasn't been worth the effort.

I'm most definitely voting for the Lib Dems now...I so hate this sort of partisan journalism when I should be getting a neutral reporting of facts during an election.:mad:

Ravenheart 22-04-2010 09:07
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maggy J (Post 35005757)
Wooo the other two parties must be running scared if the media have been persuaded to star a slur campaign against Clegg, because up to now he hasn't been worth the effort.

I'm most definitely voting for the Lib Dems now...I so hate this sort of partisan journalism when I should be getting a neutral reporting of facts during an election.:mad:
I was thinking something very similar Maggy, I was shocked (but not surprised) at the headlines on a lot of the papers this morning.

Damien 22-04-2010 09:27
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
The Mail and The Sun will be doing this all the campaign! Thankfully it hasn't damaged them yet. Probably for the same reason Maggy has, given this constant attacks in the aftermath of their rise in the polls people mightjust see it for what it is. Desperate attacks.

Sirius 22-04-2010 09:30
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maggy J (Post 35005757)
Wooo the other two parties must be running scared if the media have been persuaded to star a slur campaign against Clegg, because up to now he hasn't been worth the effort.

I'm most definitely voting for the Lib Dems now...I so hate this sort of partisan journalism when I should be getting a neutral reporting of facts during an election.:mad:
thing is Maggy i have always said they would role over and give in even before this campaign against clegg and this just confirms it.

Damien 22-04-2010 09:34
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sirius (Post 35005771)
thing is Maggy i have always said they would role over and give in even before this campaign against clegg and this just confirms it.
No it doesn't. Where is it written that he will rollover? I think he is saying that Britain needs to be more realistic about it's place in the world.

Hugh 22-04-2010 09:38
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
However, it is appropriate to for the press, and others, to point out discrepancies and issues in Lib Dem policies and stories, just like they do with the other parties - the Lib Dems should not be treated any differently.

If they want to play with the big boys, they have to play by the big boys' rules......;)

Damien 22-04-2010 10:02
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
If anyone wants to read the article the Mail referenced in context it is here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/19/eu.germany

Or, as I suspect many will, you can ignore it and focus on the Mail's interpretation.

Osem 22-04-2010 10:12
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by foreverwar (Post 35005775)
However, it is appropriate to for the press, and others, to point out discrepancies and issues in Lib Dem policies and stories, just like they do with the other parties - the Lib Dems should not be treated any differently.

If they want to play with the big boys, they have to play by the big boys rules......;)
Yes, until now the other major parties have enjoyed the luxury of being able to largely ignore the Lib Dems and, as a result, they've slipped under the radar. Having made Brown look like a pathetic middle aged groupie with a crush on a 'pretty' young thing (something he'll always have my respect for!), Clegg is in for a rough ride and about to find out how the 'premier league' conducts its business. It'll be interesting to see if he rises to the challenge or.......

Damien 22-04-2010 10:55
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by foreverwar (Post 35005775)
However, it is appropriate to for the press, and others, to point out discrepancies and issues in Lib Dem policies and stories, just like they do with the other parties - the Lib Dems should not be treated any differently.

If they want to play with the big boys, they have to play by the big boys rules......;)
That is what the Telegraph are doing, The Sun and Mail are just smearing him as much as possible to try and stop him preventing the Tories.

Ignitionnet 22-04-2010 11:04
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35005785)
If anyone wants to read the article the Mail referenced in context it is here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/19/eu.germany

Or, as I suspect many will, you can ignore it and focus on the Mail's interpretation.
Nice persecution complex, woe is me! :p:

They all take smears from their respective opponents, in the case of the Tories it's the Mirror and, more subtlely, the BBC. Lib Dems had it easy because they weren't considered worth the effort. The extent to which Vince Cable unravelled on the Daily Politics show yesterday wasn't good, we'll see if they can actually stand up to the scrutiny they haven't experienced yet.

Sirius 22-04-2010 11:35
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35005785)
If anyone wants to read the article the Mail referenced in context it is here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/19/eu.germany

Or, as I suspect many will, you can ignore it and focus on the Mail's interpretation.
Not a problem i am happy to correct the quote

Quote:
All nations have a cross to bear, and none more so than Germany with its memories of Nazism. But the British cross is more insidious still. A misplaced sense of superiority, sustained by delusions of grandeur and a tenacious obsession with the last war is much harder to shake off. I wish Mr Puhle and Mr Sawartzki well. We need to be put back in our place.
So how does he intend to do that ?????

Is that a better quote for you, btw the corrections are in red

---------- Post added at 10:35 ---------- Previous post was at 10:22 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35005807)
That is what the Telegraph are doing, The Sun and Mail are just smearing him as much as possible to try and stop him preventing the Tories.
If he wants to play with the big kids, He needs to act like one of them. He has moved out of the junior section of politics and into the senior section and the crap throwing that it brings with it. If he cannot handle this what would he be like when we need him to support us in negotiations with other countries and we all know how nasty that can get..

Chris 22-04-2010 11:36
Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 
I heard the Mail is considering adding Nick Clegg to its list of things that Could Cause Cancer ...


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:50.
Page 4 of 5 123 4 5
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
All Posts and Content are © Cable Forum