The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 4

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

Somebody with sense.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/essex/8639348.stm

More like nonsense.

[mikegreen]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

You think him insulting someone behind their back then giving a crawling apology is funny?

---------- Post added at 21:51 ---------- Previous post was at 21:46 ----------



This guy is so disliked his own party has avoided using his image in adverts as much as as possible, but you like him and think he's the best change the country has.

So, very simple question, would you care to explain your opinions to the rest of us?

So, again, why would you vote for this? I really don't understand? You are aware that sooner or later your taxes have to pay if by some miracle he decides to live up to his promises on public services, and your taxes will be paying the interest bill and debts he chalked up, along with sustaining his massive public sector spending.

Taxes will have to pay (rise) and that will be irrespective of which party gets elected. And things will get rougher. All as a consequence of a global economic screw up, not something GB cooked up personally (although he could in hindsight have done things differently but then hindsight is a wonderful thing).

It's this annoying emphasis on "personalities" in politics that irks me. I am fully aware that Brown is not blessed with one (a personality) but surely it should be about parties and their policies and not about how a particular political figure behaves or projects.

It's going to be interesting whatever happens. Personally I would not like to see the Tories back on the throne or the Lib Dems sat in it for the first time but then I have very little faith in Labour either.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Earl of Bronze

This little fiasco reinforces the subtext of the Neo-Liebour and liberal elites smearing of anyone who disagree's with the policy of open (and uncontrolled/barely controlled) immigration, being a fascist/bigot/xenophobe/racist.... So much for the governments anouncement of 6 months or so ago, that we, the British people needed to have and open and frank debate about the impact of migration into the UK, without that subtext of smearing that has come from the supporters of immigration.... It seems Gordon, in an unguarded moment may well have stated what he truely believes, and for a change not what he thinks the plebs want to hear.

As for his announcement of contrition outside the ladies house.... He looked as genuine as one of my copies of The Mona Lisa.... Namely, not very....

Correct!

I've just been listening to a succession of shameless New Labour stooges, culminating in that wholly unpalatable hypocrite Charlie Wheelan, claiming everything from Brown's not really like that to it's all been exagerrated by the media. I wonder if former spinmeister Wheelan would have been so understanding of such insults and critical of the the media's role in this had it been Clegg or Cameron who'd slipped up and were getting hammered? No, he'd have been gleefully leading the vitirolic personal attacks and calling for heads to roll just like his former colleagues in the New Labour's miserable grubby smears section Draper and McBride.

This episode has shown up just how these people will say or do anything to try to get votes. The don't give a stuff about the electorate, less still the electorate's concerns. Anyone who disagrees is fair game for any amount of personal attacks - political collateral damage! Only when they get caught out do their true colours show.

Even during his 'sincere' personal apology, Brown's spinners were trying to persuade Mrs Duffy to pose for a handshake photo-opportunity with him. I wonder how much of the 40 odd minutes he spent with her were motivated by and devoted to the 'apology' and how much to trying to persuade her to make a public showing of forgiveness to recover the situation and boost his image? For some people a sincere apology was all that was required from Brown but he couldn't even manage that without blatantly trying to salvage what's left of his tattered reputation.

What this shows yet again is that despite all the regurgitated promises to listen to the people, to respect those with concerns about immigration, encourage debate about it and take action to control it, New Labour's agenda is quite the reverse. They care nothing for the views of the people of this country and gerrymandering on a national scale is what they're about. The utter cynicism and hypocrisy of these people really knows no bounds. They care about one thing and one thing only - their own survival and even their own deluded supporters are fair game!

New Labour - A Future Fair for All (as long as and only when you happen to be of some use to them that is...)

---------- Post added at 08:59 ---------- Previous post was at 08:57 ----------

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

But would it not be nice to have the choice?

Possibly but it'd be even nicer to have someone worth voting for in every constituency...

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Chris

While this argument is sound in principle, its central weakness is in the likely number of people in any constituency who are politically motivated enough to come out to vote and yet not to align themselves with any of the candidates on the ballot.

A typical constituency in England has about 70,000 voters. To expect 28,000 people to turn out with the deliberate intention of expressing support for none of the above is a bit optimistic, I think.

And it's in the majority winner's interest to keep them out of the polling stations lest they vote for the other bloke.
I have often wondered if Labour's plan has been to increase voter apathy so that it comes down to which party has the largest number of die hard supporters that would vote for a banana if you painted it red.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

And it's in the majority winner's interest to keep them out of the polling stations lest they vote for the other bloke.
I have often wondered if Labour's plan has been to increase voter apathy so that it comes down to which party has the largest number of die hard supporters that would vote for a banana if you painted it red.

Me too!

Originally Posted by Xaccers

And it's in the majority winner's interest to keep them out of the polling stations lest they vote for the other bloke.
I have often wondered if Labour's plan has been to increase voter apathy so that it comes down to which party has the largest number of die hard supporters that would vote for a banana if you painted it red.

Another tempting idea, except that the conventional wisdom is that it tends to be Labour voters who are more prone to apathy.

Low turnout is a symptom of voters becoming disengaged with the whole political process. They think they can't change anything, due to a lack of real choice, so therefore why bother. I just don't see how adding a 'none of the above' to the ballot paper is going to change that.

Radical electoral reform, not tinkering around the fringes, is the only way we're likely to get any reversal of that apathy.

[dilli-theclaw]

HHHmmm - I've now voted so the poll no longer applies to me.

But I'm glad it'll (well the electioneering crap) will be over soon.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Chris

Another tempting idea, except that the conventional wisdom is that it tends to be Labour voters who are more prone to apathy.

Low turnout is a symptom of voters becoming disengaged with the whole political process. They think they can't change anything, due to a lack of real choice, so therefore why bother. I just don't see how adding a 'none of the above' to the ballot paper is going to change that.

Radical electoral reform, not tinkering around the fringes, is the only way we're likely to get any reversal of that apathy.

Which is why I said abstaining/spoiling is pretty pointless.
Spoiling would only be less pointless if there was a greater turn out and a large proportion spoilt their ballots.

I don't think electoral reform will do it, look at the European elections, they were PR weren't they? Yet the turn out was only 34% compared with 59% (2001) and 61% (2005)

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by mikegreen

Taxes will have to pay (rise) and that will be irrespective of which party gets elected. And things will get rougher. All as a consequence of a global economic screw up, not something GB cooked up personally (although he could in hindsight have done things differently but then hindsight is a wonderful thing).

Labour's economic policies, which he was the steward of for most of the past decade, are responsible for the majority of the large structural deficit.

Whoever gets in having to make things tougher isn't the point, not rewarding those largely responsible for it being so much tougher on us than other nations by re-electing them and giving them a mandate to continue their failed policies is.

This does of course ignore Labour's disdain for individual responsibility,civil liberties, their totalitarian and relentless social engineering, etc. For evidence of that, please note that the government is the largest advertiser in the country and read their wonderful Equality Act or simply note we have more CCTV cameras per head than any other country in the world and there's little evidence it deters crime.

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

note we have more CCTV cameras per head than any other country in the world and there's little evidence it deters crime.

... note also that their Big Idea of the Day is to give people the right to petition their local council to install more of the things. They announced this on a platform standing alongside a woman who was horribly burned by someone who assaulted her with a cupful of acid, who says CCTV cameras make her feel safer.

The poor woman obviously has serious psychological issues - who wouldn't, after a horrendous experience like that - and I find it despicable that they are using her to bolster their image, knowing fine well how hard it is for someone to stand up and tell someone who has suffered in such a way that their feelings might not justify what she's asking for.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Chris

... note also that their Big Idea of the Day is to give people the right to petition their local council to install more of the things. They announced this on a platform standing alongside a woman who was horribly burned by someone who assaulted her with a cupful of acid, who says CCTV cameras make her feel safer.

The poor woman obviously has serious psychological issues - who wouldn't, after a horrendous experience like that - and I find it despicable that they are using her to bolster their image, knowing fine well how hard it is for someone to stand up and tell someone who has suffered in such a way that their feelings might not justify what she's asking for.

Oh Labour's campaign has been as cynical as they come. They seem to think nothing of trotting out people who've had some pretty unpleasant things happen to them and use them to justify their authoritarian policies. The implications are very clear, that if we just listen to Labour they'll look after us and make sure this won't happen to us while anyone else and that unfortunate person could be one of us.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

I don't think electoral reform will do it, look at the European elections, they were PR weren't they? Yet the turn out was only 34% compared with 59% (2001) and 61% (2005)

I think that is more of a reflection of the fact that people can't be bothered with Europe. Voter turnout for European elections tends to be lower than for General elections in countries that have PR for General elections as well.

[Xaccers]

I was thinking while I made my gf's sandwiches last night, if what Gillian said makes her a bigot, then what does "British jobs for British workers" make Gordon?
And then it came to me. A liar.

[Ignitionnet]

Someone should start a book on how many times Nick Clegg says 'old parties' during this evening's debate.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Someone should start a book on how many times Nick Clegg says 'old parties' during this evening's debate.

Someone should send him a book on the history of the liberal party just to show him how old his party actually is.