The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2

Here's a smear for you, Fb - David Cameron rips the head off a chicken....

[Osem]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

The "sleeper agent" was a joke, hence the 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...

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....

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

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Damien

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?

Originally Posted by Osem

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

Because who on earth reads the Daily Mirror?

[Ignitionnet]

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

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

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Damien

Because who on earth reads the Daily Mirror?

Gordon does - I heard he bases his economic policy on its output...

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

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....

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Osem

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....

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]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

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]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...t-gordon-brown

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

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!

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

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

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

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Damien

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

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....

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]

Originally Posted by Chris

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.

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.