TiBB's General Election Discussion 2015.

[joeysteele]

Damn right

I am surprised as high as a fifth of voters already would like the SNP involved in UK govt:

Considering just over a third would prefer the Lib Dems who have already been in a coalition,that is a respectable start for Sturgeon and the SNP across the UK generally then.

Someone will have to be in coalition or supporting role if there is a hung parliament.

[Kizzy]

Which is why Ed was 100% right to not align himself with the SNP during the debates, I was really suspicious of her motives in attempting to pin him down too... She must have known that would have a detrimental effect on his popularity in England.
He would have been crucified by the right wing media even more mercilessly than he is and it would give Cameron bullets to fire, boosting his popularity by doing absolutely nothing.

[joeysteele]

Which is why Ed was 100% right to not align himself with the SNP during the debates, I was really suspicious of her motives in attempting to pin him down too... She must have known that would have a detrimental effect on his popularity in England.
He would have been crucified by the right wing media even more mercilessly than he is and it would give Cameron bullets to fire, boosting his popularity by doing absolutely nothing.

The last election was spoiled by the media watching the polls every day as to were the Lib Dems ahead of Labour or not and would the Lib Dems get 100 or more seats.

Now the media is obsessed with who will do a deal with who,this is all this election has been about.
In the end, someone will have to a deal with someone else or even more than just one other party probably.

Personally, I don't doubt Nicola Sturgeon,I think she sees hung parliaments as the likely norm in UK politics long term, she will be looking at the independence issue again,not in the next 5 years however.

She can be so strong against the Conservatives because of the fact, that were she to ever countenance working with the Conservatives, she would lose support for the SNP bigtime,especially as it seems she is now attracting big numbers of former Labour voters.

Ed Miliband is right to rule out at this time any talk of deals,the only sensible time for that is after the election result,'if' it is necessary to do so.
Ed is being massively underestimated in my view.

[arista]

Nigel Farage may end up
costing Labour more seats than the Tories

[Report says even a 2% swing
from Labour to UKIP could
cost Ed Miliband 14 constituencies ]

[Experts from the University of Sheffield
said it was too simplistic to assume
the Tories stood to lose most
from UKIP’s popularity in parts of the country.
They said much of UKIP’s support
came in deprived areas that
are typically Labour heartlands.]

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/6412917/Farage-could-cost-Labour-more-seats-than-the-Tories.html

[joeysteele]

I wouldn't get that excited at any prospect of UKIP costing Labour many seats,I was in Heywood and Middleton where UKIP narrowly came 2nd in the by election.
UKIP are for sure however far preferred to the Conservatives in such seats.

That challenge seems to have faded considerably and it appears Labour are heading for a comfortable win again there.

I think 3 or even 4 are possibly at risk but no more,I would put money on that too,so sure am I as to that at least.
Rotherham is one where this could happen.

[arista]

http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/2015/4/20/385862/default/v2/the-sun-front-page-21.04.15-1-720x960.jpg

[MTVN]

Two routes were available to Nicola Sturgeon as she strode out to rock-concert-like applause at her manifesto launch this morning. Both were politically viable, consistent with her stated desire to lead Scotland to independence, and would have guaranteed her influence over any Labour government dependent on her party's MPs.

The first route was to put forward a really left-wing electoral programme: eye-watering tax hikes on the rich, an expansion of the welfare state, mass-renationalisation of utilities and infrastructure. That would have invited Scottish voters to give Ms Sturgeon a mandate to twist the arm of any Labour government. It would have aligned her with her stated allies in England: the Green Party. It would have fired up the many thousands of excitable young, left-wing Scots who have signed up to the SNP since the independence referendum last September. Indeed, it would have been consistent with the Yes campaign's own loopy proposals and prognostications. That campaign, prone as it was to treating arithmetic as a fusty English imposition, laid radical left-wing tracks onto which Ms Sturgeon could have steered the SNP train. But she did not.

Another option would have been a return to the SNP's own fiscally conservative roots. Remember: the party spent several decades as the "tartan Tories", the home of palid, calculator-fumbling oil executives and chartered accountants. Imagine if Ms Sturgeon had strode out onto that stage and pledged to cut the deficit and make the state leaner and more efficient; to make the numbers add up. "Scots are fed up of paying the interest on English debts", she might have insisted. Imagine the dismay at Miliband HQ as it dawned on strategists that, in any SNP-supported government, SNP MPs in Westminster would be able to point to their own manifesto as justification for siding with Tories, in the event that they did not get their way when legislation was being drafted. With a mandate to triangulate in Scotland's interests, Ms Sturgeon could have variously played off England's two main parties against each other and, whenever she failed, trumpeted the case for independence afresh.

But she took neither route. Instead, she took the one guaranteed (whatever the English tabloids claim) to minimise her party's influence in Westminster; that is, the one entirely in keeping with the outlook of the average member of the parliamentary Labour party. Reading the SNP manifesto, your correspondent was overwhelmed by a single impression: no document in recent British history has better epitomised the instincts of the average Labour MP. Like Labour, the SNP would: raise the top rate of tax to 50p, abolish the "bedroom tax", increase the minimum wage, reintroduce the bankers' bonus tax, boost house-building and support for the disabled, decentralise political power, overhaul the House of Lords, mandate lower energy prices, accelerate progress towards carbon-reduction targets, increase female representation on company boards, cut (but not abolish) tuition fees across Britain, support EU membership, uphold Britain's international aid commitments, oppose the "privatisation" of the NHS and boost apprenticeships. As the Resolution Foundation notes, the two parties' fiscal plans are eminently reconcilable. The only major difference—the SNP would abolish Trident where Labour might not—invites as much prevarication over the next five years as did the coalition agreement between the pro-Trident Conservatives and the Trident-sceptic Liberal Democrats in 2010. And (whisper it softly): those two parties got on just fine.

The fact is that the SNP manifesto could do Ms Sturgeon and her party immense damage. It writes her into an alliance with Labour out of which she cannot easily wriggle. A notable gap between the parties would have given her both leverage in Westminster and, when that fell short, an excuse for the second independence referendum that she craves but that few Scots currently do (witness the noisy booing from the audience when she refused to rule it out in the second televised Scottish leaders' debate two weeks ago). But no such gap exists. The SNP leader will not hold Labour "to ransom". In fact, come any Labour-SNP majority, it is not Ms Sturgeon who would be the "most powerful woman in Britain", but Rosie Winterton. The not-inconsiderable abilities of the Labour chief whip would dictate what any such government could achieve. SNP MPs would have a simple choice: toe the line, or stray from their own manifesto. And be in no doubt: where they erred, Labour would be well placed to dump failures on them in precisely the fashion that makes even left-leaning Lib Dem MPs mumble that they might be better off back with the Tories. Moreover, Ms Sturgeon's case for a second independence referendum, one that she could certainly make (probably successfully) under a new Conservative-led government in Westminster, would wither.

http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21649005-scottish-national-partys-manifesto-does-not-strong-arm-labour-fact-it-condemns-snp

Good job Sturge :fan:

[kirklancaster]

I wouldn't get that excited at any prospect of UKIP costing Labour many seats,I was in Heywood and Middleton where UKIP narrowly came 2nd in the by election.
UKIP are for sure however far preferred to the Conservatives in such seats.

That challenge seems to have faded considerably and it appears Labour are heading for a comfortable win again there.

I think 3 or even 4 are possibly at risk but no more,I would put money on that too,so sure am I as to that at least.
Rotherham is one where this could happen.

Boy do I LOVE that Joey Steele. :laugh:

[kirklancaster]

According to The Guardian today:

Tories strike election gold with warnings on Sturgeon and Miliband

By uniting the SNP and Labour leaders in the nation’s mind, the Conservative party has injected new life into their campaign. The Tories are stoking fears of excessive borrowing, leftwing influence and instability.

Have the Tories hit the jackpot? Judging by the media coverage of the past five days they have. They have managed to combine their warnings of economic chaos after 8 May – the threat of excessive borrowing, leftwing influence and instability – with the threat posed by Scottish nationalism. By uniting Nicola Sturgeon and Ed Miliband in the nation’s mind, the Tories have injected a badly needed new ingredient into their warnings about Miliband. Previously, those warnings were not gaining sufficient traction because Miliband had been outperforming expectations.


http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/21/tories-election-2015-sturgeon-miliband-warning

[billy123]

Probably the most depressing election i have witnessed in my lifetime. All partys align themselves so far right that i am struggling to care which numpty aligns with which numpty. The lack of real choice is alarming,uninspiring and worrying in equal measure.

There might be a 2 party system or a 10 party system but none of it really matters when they are all so similar.
I will vote but whoever wins will leave me feeling pretty disappointed about the options available.

In essence nobody wins apart from big business,banking and the top earners. All just buddies scratching each others testicles while your average Joe works himself into the ground for less money and for longer.

Which is the lesser of the evils money decides.

[kirklancaster]

Probably the most depressing election i have witnessed in my lifetime. All partys align themselves so far right that i am struggling to care which numpty aligns with which numpty. The lack of real choice is alarming,uninspiring and worrying in equal measure.

There might be a 2 party system or a 10 party system but none of it really matters when they are all so similar.
I will vote but whoever wins will leave me feeling pretty disappointed about the options available.

In essence nobody wins apart from big business,banking and the top earners. All just buddies scratching each others testicles while your average Joe works himself into the ground for less money and for longer.

Which is the lesser of the evils money decides.

Welcome to the 'jaded' club - I have felt like this for years.

[Kizzy]

Yes their prophesying has even eclipsed the 12 billion of austerity cuts to come by the looks of it.... I hope Labour have something good up their sleeve, we need it like yesterday! or these monsters maintain the upper hand :(

[joeysteele]

According to The Guardian today:

Tories strike election gold with warnings on Sturgeon and Miliband

By uniting the SNP and Labour leaders in the nation’s mind, the Conservative party has injected new life into their campaign. The Tories are stoking fears of excessive borrowing, leftwing influence and instability.

Have the Tories hit the jackpot? Judging by the media coverage of the past five days they have. They have managed to combine their warnings of economic chaos after 8 May – the threat of excessive borrowing, leftwing influence and instability – with the threat posed by Scottish nationalism. By uniting Nicola Sturgeon and Ed Miliband in the nation’s mind, the Tories have injected a badly needed new ingredient into their warnings about Miliband. Previously, those warnings were not gaining sufficient traction because Miliband had been outperforming expectations.


http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/21/tories-election-2015-sturgeon-miliband-warning


I think this will have some effect in the far south of England but from the Midlands upwards I doubt it.
In the Midlands, and I was born in Worcesterhire and lived there until I went to Uni,when I have been there so far in this campaign albeit very briefly, I cannot get a feeling as to how the voters there are leaning at all.

They say they don't like labour, like the Conservatives even less and don't trust UKIP.
I also really didn't come across one who had taken even any notice of Clegg and the Lib Dems.

However, elsewhere, I think this is seen as desperation from the Conservatives as to the SNP.
And to be fair,it can be said about me at times too and Labour, it is seen as being irrational just as much as Labour warning about a Conservative/UKIP deal too.

Voters are more intelligent than some politicians give them credit for and wheeling out publicity hungry fomer PMs who the Nation were glad to see the back of, I think doesn't really help their cause.
Margaret Thatcher couldn't get the voters to reject Tony Blair, so really I'd say John Major has no chance.

It is clear that if things stay as they are, deals will have to be done, with one other party or several parties.
What the voters hate is being dictated to, and demonising a party just because it is miles away as to policy from the party criticising it, I feel doesn't now wash with the voters.

The other thing as to the SNP, people actually do see Scotland as a success story under the SNP, the charges of recklessness the desperate figures of the Conservative are trying to make against them now, just doesn't fit with their time running Scotland at all.

I got lots of people yesterday saying, they hope the SNP did a deal with Labour after the election and maybe they would make Labour bring in free prescriptions for England too,like they have in Scotland.
I hope the Conservatives are making rods for their own backs with this negative campaigning and I really think they likely are too.

They should be romping home parading their so called miraculous ,(I think not),record in govt; not getting sidetracked going down all the side streets on the election journey and wasting loads of time doing so.

[Livia]

Fascinating article here by Abhaey Singh, government advisor and founder of the The Indian Debating Union. It's quite long but if you've got time, give it a read...

http://www.fourthrepository.com/

Zero-Hours, Food Banks, Immigration: Lies British Voters MUST Deconstruct

One of the delphian truths of modern democracy is that voter perceptions are often far removed from ground realities: ‘Liberals’ draw their lineage from a founder and first prime minister, Viscount Palmerston, who was a manifestly illiberal gun-boat diplomat and pure-blooded imperialist; successive Whig and Labour governments have an enduring record of entrenching protectionism and cronyism, from Victorian Opium Wars, to the safeguarding of 21st Century tobacco interests; whilst Edmund Burke, the progressive founding father of modern Conservative philosophy, was a century ahead of his time in his tireless championing of human rights, with more recent Conservative governments democratising home ownership, undermining City cliques, and legalising gay marriage.

The distortionary reality of policy cycles – as opposed to the contiguity of political cycles – further skews professed or alleged administrative legacy: Margaret Thatcher is still blamed for the deferred symptoms of the Britain inherited from her predecessors, whilst the recently dissolved coalition government will long be tainted by the after-effects – and painstaking correction – of Labour’s ruinous patronage of public finances.

Food Banks
In the same vein, the widespread use of food banks is synchronically used to vilify ‘heartless Tory’ polity, despite first proliferating during Tony Blair’s second and third, and Gordon Brown’s first terms.

Today’s food bank ignominy is a perpetuation of Britain’s Blair-Brown endowment, as well as the product of a now organised food bank sector better equipped to relieve long-established demand: the number of people fed by the Trussell Trust itself grew almost by almost 2,200% between 2005-6 and 2010-11.

Similarly, Mervyn King’s much politicised references to the greatest long-term fall in living standards and household incomes quoted research which measured data as of 2010. Again, this reality had virtually nothing to do with the policies of the coalition government.

Making a spectacle of the misery of others is objectionable in any instance, but much more so when those supposedly predisposed to the economically excluded lack the integrity (or acumen) to accept that their own worldview has long been foundational to the existential indignity of millions: alarming affirmations of Labour-induced poverty – which the SNP and Green Party are hell-bent on re-embedding – are reflected in the pronounced, almost anatomical deprivation in long-held Labour constituencies.

Whilst a structural cost-of-living crisis can seldom be reversed within five years, average wages and disposable household income have noticeably increased within a few years of the coalition government assuming office, whilst core and food inflation have conspicuously fallen.

‘Zero-Hour’ Contracts
Legally enforceable employment contracts with no stipulated minimum hours of work have long been a lifeline for millions of students, single parents, the elderly and social carers. They also provide marginalised, low-skill workers on-the-job training and a stepping stone to better employability. Only 2.3% of Britain’s workforce use such contracts, with one-third of them – or c.0.8% of the working population – wanting more hours per week.

If, as Ed Miliband implies asudden, all such contracts were borne of malevolent intent, he should also explain his uncharacteristic reticence when their usage doubled between 2004 and 2011. It was, yet again, the coalition government’s prohibition of the exploitative exclusivity clause – witlessly sanctified by three previous Labour administrations – that marked a more sincere and propitious political intervention.

David Cameron and Vince Cable’s meek defence of them notwithstanding, flexible contracts are broadly accepted as a critical income facilitator for almost a million Brits; whilst exploitation by some unscrupulous employers must be attenuated, grandstanding on the issue not only betrays a perfunctory appreciation of the low-skill economy, but is also offensively disingenuous.

Immigration
Equally, whilst Nicola Sturgeon, Leanne Wood or Nigel Farage’s pre-election approaches to immigration have been honourably consistent with their broader political philosophies, it is again Miliband’s that has been nothing short of repulsive. In replicating Gordon Brown’s nauseating 2010 pre-election script, his sudden, distastefully heightened proclamations – and mugs – on immigration equate to a brand of reprobate dog whistle politics discarded decades ago by most conscientious politicians.

Lest we forget, it is Labour that has existentially pandered to minorities, turning a blind eye to outrageous practices within their own constituencies: many of the worst cases of societal disharmony, paedophilia and child grooming have happened in Labour constituencies and wards. Votes, evidently, matter more than values.

Such reflexive appeasement politics – which polarises, segregates and vitiates British society – is the product of an unintuitively destructive volte-farce from a post-war Labour Party which entrenched racist attitudes and social schisms by playing ‘working-class’ Britons against first generation African, Caribbean and Asian immigrants.

More than insulting the intelligence of all Brits, this philistine political expediency also serves to debase, dehumanise and disenfranchise minorities: millions of decent, law-abiding and proud British Muslims would not have to absorb the social backlash or relative incapacity borne of Labour’s recklessly opportunistic tolerance of pockets – now palisades – of ghettoisation and radicalisation.

A far more honourable – and constructive – approach would be of a consistent and balanced narrative on immigration reform, irrespective of elections: it was Margaret Thatcher who evoked Disraeli’s ‘One Nation’ philosophy to co-opt ethnic minorities into mainstream British life, John Major who judiciously insisted that British policies must be ‘colour blind’, and David Cameron who has habitually dignified the contributions of erstwhile migrants, whilst simultaneously, and consistently, making the legitimate case for immigration reform.

The pathological lust to propitiate voters with lazy, easy and feel-good assurances that pander to clannish instincts – whether of creed, club, or constituency – rather than to win them over with hard-won arguments that place nation and community first, reveals the heartbeat, pulse and calibre of those who seek our votes. Similarly, eagle-eyed guardianship of the national treasury and feckless profligacy are each important statements of intent: one elevates nation-building and the security of future generations above short-term politics, the other predicates power before propriety, credo over conscience, and ballot above Britain.

Whilst still far removed from the transcendental nobility of Edmund Burke, the fact that a handful of ‘Eton toffs’ may be better qualified to serve the interests of low-wage earners, impoverished children and small businesses should not be clouded by the frailties of political prejudice. Nor should acceptance that the ‘nasty party’ has recently made prime ministers of a grocer’s daughter and a rejected would-be bus conductor, fought for the dignity of gays and accorded genuine respect to ethnic minorities.

Conceding that these truths may be testament to a devotedly compassionate philosophical core might also prove invaluable when bequeathing electoral custody of the nation’s destiny. Whilst the Conservatives must do far more to crush the degeneracy of Britain’s Cromwellian-Walpolean excess-economy, lessen the transitionary blows from ‘welfare state’ to ‘welfare society’, and at least try to learn the art of communicating with an exasperated nation, it also behoves Britain’s voters to recognise that our suffrage in May 2015, more than ever, cannot be distilled through the prism of political predilection, but through fastidious rationalisation of who is best equipped to nurture the country’s systems and serve her most vulnerable – not merely for five years, but for generations to come.

[bots]

I think John Major is pretty popular, and lets not forget that he had millions more voting for him than either the tories or labour are likely to get now, so I think its a pretty smart move.

Its quite a revelation that we have basically a communicator that won't be the leader of the party in the commons (ie unelected) dictating policy and terms for the whole of the UK in conjunction with the labour party. I think if the tories were doing this, the labour supporters would be shouting foul play.

[joeysteele]

Yes their prophesying has even eclipsed the 12 billion of austerity cuts to come by the looks of it.... I hope Labour have something good up their sleeve, we need it like yesterday! or these monsters maintain the upper hand :(

Hey, don't get despondent Kizzy, come round with me and you will hear very little as to positives for this govt:

I with loads of others mention that 12 billion pounds worth of welfare cuts at every opportunity and will do so until the tuesday before polling day among many other rotten things too.

The media are boring voters rigid with the who will do a deal with who scenarios and the opinion polling, the voters are really learning nothing at all from the media.

This may surprisingly end up an election that is actually won on the streets and doorsteps, and if that is the case, I am finding the Labour message is far preferable.
I helped campaign for the Lib Dems in 2010 and never ever found so many people asking questions of canvassers and wanting to discuss issues the way I am finding things this time.

I still loved the response I got when I mentioned david Cameron and the Conservatives wanting to bring back foxhunting, a group of people I slipped it into the conversation with were horrified, saying NO, surely he isn't.
I said he sure is, check his manifesto.

I think I and the others I was with,just possibly lost him some votes there,oh deary me.:joker:

[MTVN]

lol at Jamie Reed pulling the plug on his interview with Andrew Neil because he was getting torn apart over Labour's NHS policy

[kirklancaster]

lol at Jamie Reed pulling the plug on his interview with Andrew Neil because he was getting torn apart over Labour's NHS policy

Neil should be SIR ANDREW NEIL.

[smudgie]

Fascinating article here by Abhaey Singh, government advisor and founder of the The Indian Debating Union. It's quite long but if you've got time, give it a read...

http://www.fourthrepository.com/

Zero-Hours, Food Banks, Immigration: Lies British Voters MUST Deconstruct

One of the delphian truths of modern democracy is that voter perceptions are often far removed from ground realities: ‘Liberals’ draw their lineage from a founder and first prime minister, Viscount Palmerston, who was a manifestly illiberal gun-boat diplomat and pure-blooded imperialist; successive Whig and Labour governments have an enduring record of entrenching protectionism and cronyism, from Victorian Opium Wars, to the safeguarding of 21st Century tobacco interests; whilst Edmund Burke, the progressive founding father of modern Conservative philosophy, was a century ahead of his time in his tireless championing of human rights, with more recent Conservative governments democratising home ownership, undermining City cliques, and legalising gay marriage.

The distortionary reality of policy cycles – as opposed to the contiguity of political cycles – further skews professed or alleged administrative legacy: Margaret Thatcher is still blamed for the deferred symptoms of the Britain inherited from her predecessors, whilst the recently dissolved coalition government will long be tainted by the after-effects – and painstaking correction – of Labour’s ruinous patronage of public finances.

Food Banks
In the same vein, the widespread use of food banks is synchronically used to vilify ‘heartless Tory’ polity, despite first proliferating during Tony Blair’s second and third, and Gordon Brown’s first terms.

Today’s food bank ignominy is a perpetuation of Britain’s Blair-Brown endowment, as well as the product of a now organised food bank sector better equipped to relieve long-established demand: the number of people fed by the Trussell Trust itself grew almost by almost 2,200% between 2005-6 and 2010-11.

Similarly, Mervyn King’s much politicised references to the greatest long-term fall in living standards and household incomes quoted research which measured data as of 2010. Again, this reality had virtually nothing to do with the policies of the coalition government.

Making a spectacle of the misery of others is objectionable in any instance, but much more so when those supposedly predisposed to the economically excluded lack the integrity (or acumen) to accept that their own worldview has long been foundational to the existential indignity of millions: alarming affirmations of Labour-induced poverty – which the SNP and Green Party are hell-bent on re-embedding – are reflected in the pronounced, almost anatomical deprivation in long-held Labour constituencies.

Whilst a structural cost-of-living crisis can seldom be reversed within five years, average wages and disposable household income have noticeably increased within a few years of the coalition government assuming office, whilst core and food inflation have conspicuously fallen.

‘Zero-Hour’ Contracts
Legally enforceable employment contracts with no stipulated minimum hours of work have long been a lifeline for millions of students, single parents, the elderly and social carers. They also provide marginalised, low-skill workers on-the-job training and a stepping stone to better employability. Only 2.3% of Britain’s workforce use such contracts, with one-third of them – or c.0.8% of the working population – wanting more hours per week.

If, as Ed Miliband implies asudden, all such contracts were borne of malevolent intent, he should also explain his uncharacteristic reticence when their usage doubled between 2004 and 2011. It was, yet again, the coalition government’s prohibition of the exploitative exclusivity clause – witlessly sanctified by three previous Labour administrations – that marked a more sincere and propitious political intervention.

David Cameron and Vince Cable’s meek defence of them notwithstanding, flexible contracts are broadly accepted as a critical income facilitator for almost a million Brits; whilst exploitation by some unscrupulous employers must be attenuated, grandstanding on the issue not only betrays a perfunctory appreciation of the low-skill economy, but is also offensively disingenuous.

Immigration
Equally, whilst Nicola Sturgeon, Leanne Wood or Nigel Farage’s pre-election approaches to immigration have been honourably consistent with their broader political philosophies, it is again Miliband’s that has been nothing short of repulsive. In replicating Gordon Brown’s nauseating 2010 pre-election script, his sudden, distastefully heightened proclamations – and mugs – on immigration equate to a brand of reprobate dog whistle politics discarded decades ago by most conscientious politicians.

Lest we forget, it is Labour that has existentially pandered to minorities, turning a blind eye to outrageous practices within their own constituencies: many of the worst cases of societal disharmony, paedophilia and child grooming have happened in Labour constituencies and wards. Votes, evidently, matter more than values.

Such reflexive appeasement politics – which polarises, segregates and vitiates British society – is the product of an unintuitively destructive volte-farce from a post-war Labour Party which entrenched racist attitudes and social schisms by playing ‘working-class’ Britons against first generation African, Caribbean and Asian immigrants.

More than insulting the intelligence of all Brits, this philistine political expediency also serves to debase, dehumanise and disenfranchise minorities: millions of decent, law-abiding and proud British Muslims would not have to absorb the social backlash or relative incapacity borne of Labour’s recklessly opportunistic tolerance of pockets – now palisades – of ghettoisation and radicalisation.

A far more honourable – and constructive – approach would be of a consistent and balanced narrative on immigration reform, irrespective of elections: it was Margaret Thatcher who evoked Disraeli’s ‘One Nation’ philosophy to co-opt ethnic minorities into mainstream British life, John Major who judiciously insisted that British policies must be ‘colour blind’, and David Cameron who has habitually dignified the contributions of erstwhile migrants, whilst simultaneously, and consistently, making the legitimate case for immigration reform.

The pathological lust to propitiate voters with lazy, easy and feel-good assurances that pander to clannish instincts – whether of creed, club, or constituency – rather than to win them over with hard-won arguments that place nation and community first, reveals the heartbeat, pulse and calibre of those who seek our votes. Similarly, eagle-eyed guardianship of the national treasury and feckless profligacy are each important statements of intent: one elevates nation-building and the security of future generations above short-term politics, the other predicates power before propriety, credo over conscience, and ballot above Britain.

Whilst still far removed from the transcendental nobility of Edmund Burke, the fact that a handful of ‘Eton toffs’ may be better qualified to serve the interests of low-wage earners, impoverished children and small businesses should not be clouded by the frailties of political prejudice. Nor should acceptance that the ‘nasty party’ has recently made prime ministers of a grocer’s daughter and a rejected would-be bus conductor, fought for the dignity of gays and accorded genuine respect to ethnic minorities.

Conceding that these truths may be testament to a devotedly compassionate philosophical core might also prove invaluable when bequeathing electoral custody of the nation’s destiny. Whilst the Conservatives must do far more to crush the degeneracy of Britain’s Cromwellian-Walpolean excess-economy, lessen the transitionary blows from ‘welfare state’ to ‘welfare society’, and at least try to learn the art of communicating with an exasperated nation, it also behoves Britain’s voters to recognise that our suffrage in May 2015, more than ever, cannot be distilled through the prism of political predilection, but through fastidious rationalisation of who is best equipped to nurture the country’s systems and serve her most vulnerable – not merely for five years, but for generations to come.

Interesting read, thanks Livia.

[Kizzy]

Fascinating article here by Abhaey Singh, government advisor and founder of the The Indian Debating Union. It's quite long but if you've got time, give it a read...

http://www.fourthrepository.com/

Zero-Hours, Food Banks, Immigration: Lies British Voters MUST Deconstruct

One of the delphian truths of modern democracy is that voter perceptions are often far removed from ground realities: ‘Liberals’ draw their lineage from a founder and first prime minister, Viscount Palmerston, who was a manifestly illiberal gun-boat diplomat and pure-blooded imperialist; successive Whig and Labour governments have an enduring record of entrenching protectionism and cronyism, from Victorian Opium Wars, to the safeguarding of 21st Century tobacco interests; whilst Edmund Burke, the progressive founding father of modern Conservative philosophy, was a century ahead of his time in his tireless championing of human rights, with more recent Conservative governments democratising home ownership, undermining City cliques, and legalising gay marriage.

The distortionary reality of policy cycles – as opposed to the contiguity of political cycles – further skews professed or alleged administrative legacy: Margaret Thatcher is still blamed for the deferred symptoms of the Britain inherited from her predecessors, whilst the recently dissolved coalition government will long be tainted by the after-effects – and painstaking correction – of Labour’s ruinous patronage of public finances.

Food Banks
In the same vein, the widespread use of food banks is synchronically used to vilify ‘heartless Tory’ polity, despite first proliferating during Tony Blair’s second and third, and Gordon Brown’s first terms.

Today’s food bank ignominy is a perpetuation of Britain’s Blair-Brown endowment, as well as the product of a now organised food bank sector better equipped to relieve long-established demand: the number of people fed by the Trussell Trust itself grew almost by almost 2,200% between 2005-6 and 2010-11.

Similarly, Mervyn King’s much politicised references to the greatest long-term fall in living standards and household incomes quoted research which measured data as of 2010. Again, this reality had virtually nothing to do with the policies of the coalition government.

Making a spectacle of the misery of others is objectionable in any instance, but much more so when those supposedly predisposed to the economically excluded lack the integrity (or acumen) to accept that their own worldview has long been foundational to the existential indignity of millions: alarming affirmations of Labour-induced poverty – which the SNP and Green Party are hell-bent on re-embedding – are reflected in the pronounced, almost anatomical deprivation in long-held Labour constituencies.

Whilst a structural cost-of-living crisis can seldom be reversed within five years, average wages and disposable household income have noticeably increased within a few years of the coalition government assuming office, whilst core and food inflation have conspicuously fallen.

‘Zero-Hour’ Contracts
Legally enforceable employment contracts with no stipulated minimum hours of work have long been a lifeline for millions of students, single parents, the elderly and social carers. They also provide marginalised, low-skill workers on-the-job training and a stepping stone to better employability. Only 2.3% of Britain’s workforce use such contracts, with one-third of them – or c.0.8% of the working population – wanting more hours per week.

If, as Ed Miliband implies asudden, all such contracts were borne of malevolent intent, he should also explain his uncharacteristic reticence when their usage doubled between 2004 and 2011. It was, yet again, the coalition government’s prohibition of the exploitative exclusivity clause – witlessly sanctified by three previous Labour administrations – that marked a more sincere and propitious political intervention.

David Cameron and Vince Cable’s meek defence of them notwithstanding, flexible contracts are broadly accepted as a critical income facilitator for almost a million Brits; whilst exploitation by some unscrupulous employers must be attenuated, grandstanding on the issue not only betrays a perfunctory appreciation of the low-skill economy, but is also offensively disingenuous.

Immigration
Equally, whilst Nicola Sturgeon, Leanne Wood or Nigel Farage’s pre-election approaches to immigration have been honourably consistent with their broader political philosophies, it is again Miliband’s that has been nothing short of repulsive. In replicating Gordon Brown’s nauseating 2010 pre-election script, his sudden, distastefully heightened proclamations – and mugs – on immigration equate to a brand of reprobate dog whistle politics discarded decades ago by most conscientious politicians.

Lest we forget, it is Labour that has existentially pandered to minorities, turning a blind eye to outrageous practices within their own constituencies: many of the worst cases of societal disharmony, paedophilia and child grooming have happened in Labour constituencies and wards. Votes, evidently, matter more than values.

Such reflexive appeasement politics – which polarises, segregates and vitiates British society – is the product of an unintuitively destructive volte-farce from a post-war Labour Party which entrenched racist attitudes and social schisms by playing ‘working-class’ Britons against first generation African, Caribbean and Asian immigrants.

More than insulting the intelligence of all Brits, this philistine political expediency also serves to debase, dehumanise and disenfranchise minorities: millions of decent, law-abiding and proud British Muslims would not have to absorb the social backlash or relative incapacity borne of Labour’s recklessly opportunistic tolerance of pockets – now palisades – of ghettoisation and radicalisation.

A far more honourable – and constructive – approach would be of a consistent and balanced narrative on immigration reform, irrespective of elections: it was Margaret Thatcher who evoked Disraeli’s ‘One Nation’ philosophy to co-opt ethnic minorities into mainstream British life, John Major who judiciously insisted that British policies must be ‘colour blind’, and David Cameron who has habitually dignified the contributions of erstwhile migrants, whilst simultaneously, and consistently, making the legitimate case for immigration reform.

The pathological lust to propitiate voters with lazy, easy and feel-good assurances that pander to clannish instincts – whether of creed, club, or constituency – rather than to win them over with hard-won arguments that place nation and community first, reveals the heartbeat, pulse and calibre of those who seek our votes. Similarly, eagle-eyed guardianship of the national treasury and feckless profligacy are each important statements of intent: one elevates nation-building and the security of future generations above short-term politics, the other predicates power before propriety, credo over conscience, and ballot above Britain.

Whilst still far removed from the transcendental nobility of Edmund Burke, the fact that a handful of ‘Eton toffs’ may be better qualified to serve the interests of low-wage earners, impoverished children and small businesses should not be clouded by the frailties of political prejudice. Nor should acceptance that the ‘nasty party’ has recently made prime ministers of a grocer’s daughter and a rejected would-be bus conductor, fought for the dignity of gays and accorded genuine respect to ethnic minorities.

Conceding that these truths may be testament to a devotedly compassionate philosophical core might also prove invaluable when bequeathing electoral custody of the nation’s destiny. Whilst the Conservatives must do far more to crush the degeneracy of Britain’s Cromwellian-Walpolean excess-economy, lessen the transitionary blows from ‘welfare state’ to ‘welfare society’, and at least try to learn the art of communicating with an exasperated nation, it also behoves Britain’s voters to recognise that our suffrage in May 2015, more than ever, cannot be distilled through the prism of political predilection, but through fastidious rationalisation of who is best equipped to nurture the country’s systems and serve her most vulnerable – not merely for five years, but for generations to come.

There's nothing fascinating about it, it's just another tory shmoozefest.
Ancient history along with Mervs (bank of England) musings and no mention of the global recession.
I'm sure if I trawled google I could come up with an equally valid counter.

[Kizzy]

lol at Jamie Reed pulling the plug on his interview with Andrew Neil because he was getting torn apart over Labour's NHS policy

Wonder what he makes of the 8 million jackanory story tory NHS policy?
Neil is getting on my last nerve with his barracking of interviewees lately.

[Livia]

There's nothing fascinating about it, it's just another tory shmoozefest.
Ancient history along with Mervs (bank of England) musings and no mention of the global recession.
I'm sure if I trawled google I could come up with an equally valid counter.

So you knew all that then. Foodbanks thrive under Labour, zero hours contracts not all bad... not something you usually hear Labour supporters admit they knew. Normally they're using those topics as a stick to beat the Tories... and yet, you were aware of this all the time? Shocking.

[arista]

Yes Livia
Ch4HDNews brings that up alot

[Kizzy]

So you knew all that then. Foodbanks thrive under Labour, zero hours contracts not all bad... not something you usually hear Labour supporters admit they knew. Normally they're using those topics as a stick to beat the Tories... and yet, you were aware of this all the time? Shocking.

They grew during a time of global recession and they exploded during a time of supposed economic growth....funny that.

http://www.trusselltrust.org/resources/images/foodbank/stats/people-helped-stats.png

[Livia]

They grew during a time of global recession and they exploded during a time of supposed economic growth....funny that.

http://www.trusselltrust.org/resources/images/foodbank/stats/people-helped-stats.png

Actually they were growing under Labour before the "global recession"... but... shhhhhhhhhhhhh...

Your nice little visual aid only goes back to 2010.

[Kizzy]

Actually they were growing under Labour before the "global recession"... but... shhhhhhhhhhhhh...

Your nice little visual aid only goes back to 2010.

I see no evidence of that from you though Livia. There were always the poor in the UK that wasn't a Labour construct remember the removal of industry? That accounts for a lot of it I'd say.
It was a nice visual aid, here's a link to the Trussell trust there's lots of information on foodbanks.
http://www.trusselltrust.org/resources/documents/Press/TrussellTrustFoodbanksMay2013Small.pdf

[joeysteele]

Foodbanks under Labour rose from around 4,000 using them to an estimated 40,000 using them by the time they left office.

By 2014, the use of food banks had exceeded 400,000 in just 4 years of this govt; and are now believed to have over 750,000 using them.

I have an interest in foodbanks because I assist with one and that is a truly alarming statistic if ever there was one.

On the streets and doorsteps,hardly anyone mentioned them in 2010, now it is mentioned loads and it is amazing the people who know someone who 'had to be referred' to one too.

From 40,000 using them in 2010 to over 750,000 now in just the space of 5 years, should be seen as an absolute disgrace by anyone and should be a rightful massive criticism of whatever govt; was in power that presided over such increases too.

Even now in some supermarkets there are areas or trolleys set aside for donation to foodbanks regularly,that didn't happen under Labour.

[Livia]

I see no evidence of that from you though Livia. There were always the poor in the UK that wasn't a Labour construct remember the removal of industry? That accounts for a lot of it I'd say.
It was a nice visual aid, here's a link to the Trussell trust there's lots of information on foodbanks.
http://www.trusselltrust.org/resources/documents/Press/TrussellTrustFoodbanksMay2013Small.pdf

No, I don't really remember the removal of industry, I was a child. My Dad tells me about when the unions managed to close the London docks and consequently a lot of industry around there that went when the docks went.

Trying to convince the group that Labour are a shining beacon giving hope to the poor is about as convincing as Katie Hopkins' political analysis. I grew up in a Labour borough, I'm not a stranger to how Labour works and the truth is, a large proportion of the people who will vote for Labour will be people afraid of losing their benefits. Good old Ed, eh? Good old Socialist Ed. Mind you, it's easy to be a Socialist when you're a millionaire and live in a £3m house.

[lostalex]

I don't see the british public really getting excited about Ed Millibore. He reminds me of Al Gore and John Kerry.

Ed doesn't inspire anyone. I can't imagine even die hard Labour supporters getting excited about him as PM.

[Livia]

I don't see the british public really getting excited about Ed Millibore. He reminds me of Al Gore and John Kerry.

Actually Alex, he can be quite funny. Unintentionally funny... but funny nevertheless.

[lostalex]

Actually Alex, he can be quite funny. Unintentionally funny... but funny nevertheless.

The ability to be laughed AT is not something i think most Brits are looking for in a leader.

[lostalex]

I bet even Putin could beat him in a head to head election. no polonium required.

[lostalex]

the only question i see, is will cameron get a majority so he can finally drop this pathetic charade of "working" with the libdems.

labor has no chance because scotland will go farther towards SNP, and even libdems will lose because they've been such pathetic lap dogs for cameron. libdems only got their position because the people far left of labour wanted them, but now the've shown themselves as conservative lap dogs, the libdem voters must be completely fed up with Clegg.

I don't see how Cameron is in any kind of danger.

[joeysteele]

With respect to all that chart speaks volumes.

Even had there been no one using them before but then to have the 2010/11 figure there of 61,000+

The rise from that figure to what they are now in the 2014 figure, is shocking as to this govt;

Had the figures only doubled,criticism would not be valid.
However, even on the chart presented there, it is a disgrace what has happened under this govt; as to them in barely 4+ years.

[Kizzy]

No, I don't really remember the removal of industry, I was a child. My Dad tells me about when the unions managed to close the London docks and consequently a lot of industry around there that went when the docks went.

Trying to convince the group that Labour are a shining beacon giving hope to the poor is about as convincing as Katie Hopkins' political analysis. I grew up in a Labour borough, I'm not a stranger to how Labour works and the truth is, a large proportion of the people who will vote for Labour will be people afraid of losing their benefits. Good old Ed, eh? Good old Socialist Ed. Mind you, it's easy to be a Socialist when you're a millionaire and live in a £3m house.

What of the coal, steel, shipbuilding, textile, motor and aircraft manufacture and printing, by the unions I suspect you mean the workers?
The group need be convinced that outsourcing did and is crippling the country.
Not sure what the rest of the post has to do with anything, there is a welfare state for now whoever the leaders of the parties are.

[Kizzy]

With respect to all that chart speaks volumes.

Even had there been no one using them before but then to have the 2010/11 figure there of 61,000+

The rise from that figure to what they are now in the 2014 figure, is shocking as to this govt;

Had the figures only doubled,criticism would not be valid.
However, even on the chart presented there, it is a disgrace what has happened under this govt; as to them in barely 4+ years.

The link states that 05-06 there were just over 2,000 so in the last 10yrs that has been a 456 fold increase, as you say shocking.

[joeysteele]

The link states that 05-06 there were just over 2,000 so in the last 10yrs that has been a 456 fold increase, as you say shocking.

It is beyond defence as to how this govt; has allowed foodbanks to become commonplace rather than a rarity.
Just another reason of the many already, since they have no policies to even start to address the issue, to get them out.

I wouldn't concern yourself with John Major appearing today, he is remembered for 2 things,signing the Maastricht treaty and getting very 'cosy' with Edwina Currie.
Hardly a shining example to anyone really or with any relevance too.

[Kizzy]

Yes when you pull the dinosaurs out of the closet unfortunately the skeletons come with them :laugh:

[smudgie]

:cheer2: I have voted.
Am I the first Tibbers to declare it?

[joeysteele]

:cheer2: I have voted.
Am I the first Tibbers to declare it?

Well done Smudgie.

[smudgie]

Well done Smudgie.

3 Different elections, up to 10 votes:spin:

All to be taken seriously and on merit.

[joeysteele]

3 Different elections, up to 10 votes:spin:

All to be taken seriously and on merit.

We are on opposing sides overall Smudgie but I do sincerely hope your man comes through in your area.

[smudgie]

We are on opposing sides overall Smudgie but I do sincerely hope your man comes through in your area.

Indeed Joey, as long as James does well for us locally I am happy.
Good luck with your candidate too.
We may be on opposing sides this time around, but I really do genuinely admire your passion for politics. If I was to stand I would love someone like you in my corner.

[joeysteele]

Indeed Joey, as long as James does well for us locally I am happy.
Good luck with your candidate too.
We may be on opposing sides this time around, but I really do genuinely admire your passion for politics. If I was to stand I would love someone like you in my corner.

Thank you Smudgie,I am usually fiercely loyal once I give my loyalty and support to someone or something.

I do hope James manages to beat the odds,he deserves too in my opinion.

[joeysteele]

The link states that 05-06 there were just over 2,000 so in the last 10yrs that has been a 456 fold increase, as you say shocking.

Even worse now, as the Trussell trust has anounced that over 1,000,000 usage has been reached with foodbanks in the last year, another increase of 19%.

Wonder if we will hear any of that on the news at all or see the govt; questioned heavily about it.
I am not holding my breath but that is a really massive condemnation of anyones policies in my opinion.

If this was the case under a Labour govt; that Labour govt; would be being condemned and splashed, and rightly too,all over the front pages of every newspaper.
Shocking,I say it again.

[Livia]

The Trussell Trust, while stating it is apolitical, has a Labour Party member as chairman. Now, if the boot was on the other foot and the chairman of some organisation being discussed was a Tory, people would suspect a manipulation of the figures. As it's a Labour member, all the Labour supporters will think that it's gospel because Labour are not capable of manipulation, are they.

[joeysteele]

They still with respect have the figures to confirm what they are issuing,that cannot be glossed over.

They will need to be keeping records, no matter who their chairman may be or from what political leaning they will be from.

The fact has to remain that the use of foodbanks is going through the roof under this govt; and those organisations spending time with their own efforts and then also the large numbers of volunteers who assist with the issuing of vital items to those in dire need,ought to gain respect not derision for those efforts.

If we had elected a Labour govt; in 2010 and these rises had occurred like this under them I for one would probably not be supporting Labour at this election because of that fact.
I find it absolutely appalling that any govt; can preside over this,do nothing whatsoever about it and then actually not get really slated for their policies that have helped bring this worrying and distressing situation about.

I help out at one when I can, and the numbers rising continuously are for me, really alarming as are the stories and reasons they need to come to them too.
Not just those out of work but people in work too.

[Kizzy]

The Trussell Trust, while stating it is apolitical, has a Labour Party member as chairman. Now, if the boot was on the other foot and the chairman of some organisation being discussed was a Tory, people would suspect a manipulation of the figures. As it's a Labour member, all the Labour supporters will think that it's gospel because Labour are not capable of manipulation, are they.

Are you then suggesting the figures are manipulated, Trussell Trust has been associated via the chairman and trustees with both parties, how would that affect the recording of service users?

'Are rumours that The Trussell Trust was founded by Conservative councillor Noel Atkins true? Is The Trussell Trust affiliated to the Conservative party?
There are some misleading blogs circulating online that suggest that The Trussell Trust is in some way affiliated to the Conservative Party, which is completely untrue: The Trussell Trust is an a-political charity that receives no government funding.
A former trustee was a Conservative councillor but he was not a founding member (he was in post from 2007 – 2012) and his role as councillor was entirely separate to his role as trustee at The Trussell Trust. The Trussell Trust’s Chairman, Chris Mould, is a member of the Labour Party but this does not mean that The Trussell Trust is affiliated to the Labour Party either. Trustees are appointed to govern charities and have an individual as well as collective responsibility to exercise proper independence in their discharge of those duties – i.e they cannot allow personal political or professional connections to guide them when carrying out duties as trustees.'

http://www.trusselltrust.org/rumour-response

[Crimson Dynamo]

http://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7714396#post7714396

[Crimson Dynamo]

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/images/stories/scots.jpg


DAVID Cameron has urged England’s xenophobes to focus on Scottish people.

In a St George’s Day message, the Tory leader said it was time for the country to put aside its ‘long and much-loved history of loathing the French and Germans’.

He added: “Recently we have seen marvellous new grudges spring up against the Romanians and Bulgarians, developing a whole range of racist stereotypes that barely existed three years ago.

“But don’t forget the Scots. These people – illegal immigrants in our country, give or take a few hundred years – want to steal our money and destroy our way of life.

“Let them be your scapegoat for the ills of the modern age, the demonic ‘other’ scampering around your brain as you pour your wisdom onto the internet.”

Xenophobe Martin Bishop said: “They speak English, sort of. Apart from that they’re basically Mexicans.”

[Vicky.]

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/images/stories/scots.jpg


DAVID Cameron has urged England’s xenophobes to focus on Scottish people.

In a St George’s Day message, the Tory leader said it was time for the country to put aside its ‘long and much-loved history of loathing the French and Germans’.

He added: “Recently we have seen marvellous new grudges spring up against the Romanians and Bulgarians, developing a whole range of racist stereotypes that barely existed three years ago.

“But don’t forget the Scots. These people – illegal immigrants in our country, give or take a few hundred years – want to steal our money and destroy our way of life.

“Let them be your scapegoat for the ills of the modern age, the demonic ‘other’ scampering around your brain as you pour your wisdom onto the internet.”

Xenophobe Martin Bishop said: “They speak English, sort of. Apart from that they’re basically Mexicans.”

Have a slight feeling this is a satire article :laugh:

[Crimson Dynamo]

Have a slight feeling this is a satire article :laugh:

an element of:joker:

[Crimson Dynamo]

mind you that "joke" Cameron made about AS yesterday

:umm2:

[Kizzy]

I'd be more inclined to believe the mash to the mail :hehe:

[MTVN]

591189788352446464

[Crimson Dynamo]

591189788352446464

Is that the same Fiscal Studies that failed to see the worlds largest recession coming?

:idc:

[MTVN]

591200920010170369

:fan:

[joeysteele]

591200920010170369

:fan:

Well the BBC do set up the links so if they go off it must be more to do with them than at the other end.:joker:

Anyway,Labour MPs don't worry about being cut off, they just walk off if they don't want to continue,as Chukka Ummunah did with Dermot Murnaghan.

Chris leslie was at the time still doing, marginally only just, better than Gauke was.

The truth is it is a daft line of questioning,the voters are not getting the full details and none of them are going to eevr give the full answers before the elections is over.
That is why I am happy neither main party will get an overall majority,despite supprting strongly one of them.

The answers given now could likely be irrelevant if neither get an overall majority and are made to 'really' think again on some main issues.
That is the sad state of UK politics at this time.

I loved Andrew Neill's response however,especially when at the end, he said something like, 'well we are coming to the end of our time but it doesn't matter as I'm not getting anywhere'.

No one will either, this side of the election.

[MTVN]

Well the BBC do set up the links so if they go off it must be more to do with them than at the other end.:joker:

Anyway,Labour MPs don't worry about being cut off, they just walk off if they don't want to continue,as Chukka Ummunah did with Dermot Murnaghan.

Chris leslie was at the time still doing, marginally only just, better than Gauke was.

The truth is it is a daft line of questioning,the voters are not getting the full details and none of them are going to eevr give the full answers before the elections is over.
That is why I am happy neither main party will get an overall majority,despite supprting strongly one of them.

The answers given now could likely be irrelevant if neither get an overall majority and are made to 'really' think again on some main issues.
That is the sad state of UK politics at this time.

I loved Andrew Neill's response however,especially when at the end, he said something like, 'well we are coming to the end of our time but it doesn't matter as I'm not getting anywhere'.

No one will either, this side of the election.

It's a shoddy situation for sure, the electorate has very little idea of the precise plans of every parties and none of them are being clear with their figures. It's little wonder that they all seem to crumble under pressure from Neil because none of the parties are willing to be clear about their claims.

[Kizzy]

All parties are being pressed for figures, except the conservatives who are allowed to continually pluck figures from the air without question.

[joeysteele]

It's a shoddy situation for sure, the electorate has very little idea of the precise plans of every parties and none of them are being clear with their figures. It's little wonder that they all seem to crumble under pressure from Neil because none of the parties are willing to be clear about their claims.

I think he just tries to get one of them to slip up and let something out, however I think this is how it will be to polling day now.
No voter being made any the wiser at all and that is really not a good thing.

I am personally not too bothered as to the cutting of the deficit as I am of the view it should be done more slowly so as to limit the amount of cuts needed to do so quicker.

I do however have to add, I think it really way out of order, to have announced 12 billion of cuts to welfare,only say where 2 billion will be made,then to add that they will not be touching pensions or pensioners extra's in anyway at all.
Which then only leaves jobseekers,which is a pittance anyway now and then the sick and disabled benefits that can be hit.
To leave those groups in people in limbo as to what they intend to do to their entitlements until after the election is over,I find that beyond belief.

[bots]

It's a shoddy situation for sure, the electorate has very little idea of the precise plans of every parties and none of them are being clear with their figures. It's little wonder that they all seem to crumble under pressure from Neil because none of the parties are willing to be clear about their claims.

The problem that the main 2 parties have is that if they told the truth about the scale of the cuts/tax rises required to remove the deficit in the time scale they have committed to, no sane person in the country would vote for them. So they then have a choice to live in la la land like some of the other parties or decline to go in to specifics. The reality is that the deficit will still be with us in 5 years time, as neither would dare do what's necessary. They have made a point this election about how dedicated they are to the economy, and to now say the deficit will still be here would make them look stupid.

[Jøsh]

I just heard E4 is closing on election day from 7am til 7pm.

[Kizzy]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CDSh3OcWIAA7r2w.png

[Livia]

Didn't see much of Gordon Brown defending his record five years ago. But then, it's hard to defend the indefensible.

[Kizzy]

Is this thread not for the discussion of the 2015 election?

[bots]

Is this thread not for the discussion of the 2015 election?

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03222/BOB070315_3222561b.jpg

[Kizzy]

:laugh: touche

[Jarrod]

I would have voted for Plaidd - but I miss the voting by two weeks due to my birthday.

[MTVN]

Very cheap point scoring from Miliband today, not heard a peep from him about post-conflict planning and now suddenly he starts ranting about it 2 weeks before the election when the migrant drownings have just happened hmm. And this from the man who voted 4 times against an enquiry into the Iraq war...

Anyway the disaster of Libya was the decision to intervene in the first place not just what happened after, and that decision was fully supported by Labour at the time

[smudgie]

Very cheap point scoring from Miliband today, not heard a peep from him about post-conflict planning and now suddenly he starts ranting about it 2 weeks before the election when the migrant drownings have just happened hmm. And this from the man who voted 4 times against an enquiry into the Iraq war...

Anyway the disaster of Libya was the decision to intervene in the first place not just what happened after, and that decision was fully supported by Labour at the time

It looks like it has backfired on him, not a good word to be said for it on the daily politics today.

[Kizzy]

was the post conflict planning his remit..he supported the intervention but was the aftermath really in his control?
The tories wouldn't want an inquiry into the sinking of the Belgrano before the election either for some perspective.

[MTVN]

was the post conflict planning his remit..he supported the intervention but was the aftermath really in his control?
The tories wouldn't want an inquiry into the sinking of the Belgrano before the election either for some perspective.

No but the issue more is for him to start lecturing on post-intervention planning 4 years after the intervention when until today he has not raised the issue in any meaningful way, it smacks of opportunism and point scoring, particularly given his own and his party's record in post-intervention planning in Iraq and Afghanistan

[arista]

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03222/BOB070315_3222561b.jpg


Love the Scotty Dog

[Kizzy]

So what?... All the election is based on atm is point scoring. Boris the bumbler and mr Gray the adulterer making slur after slur as well as the PM insisting that labour and the SNP are 'pickpockets'.
He is as entitled to an opinion, as he wasn't personally responsible for those either.

[MTVN]

So what?... All the election is based on atm is point scoring. Boris the bumbler and mr Gray the adulterer making slur after slur as well as the PM insisting that labour and the SNP are 'pickpockets'.
He is as entitled to an opinion, as he wasn't personally responsible for those either.

Well it will go against him, the Labour campaign has been pretty strong until now (in England anyway) but most people are agreeing that this is a big own goal

[Kizzy]

24hrs is a long time in politics, it'll be forgotten about by teatime :)

[Kizzy]

'Nicola Sturgeon, the SNP leader, has said that the SNP would oppose Cameron’s Evel plans.'

:joker: :joker:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2015/apr/24/election-2015-live-david-cameron-unveils-conservative-manifesto-for-england

[Kizzy]

Ed Miliband more likely to get keys to No 10, say pollsters

Alberto Nardelli Alberto Nardelli
Earlier this month we asked Britain’s leading pollsters who they thought was winning the election. Back then, with a month to go, although most said Miliband had a slight advantage, not all agreed.

However, now with less than two weeks to the election, when it comes to who will have the numbers to become prime minister, they all now believe that the Labour leader is best positioned in the polls – but in an election this close, uncertainty remains.

We asked this question of eight leading pollsters:

Based on today’s figures, who, between Ed Miliband and David Cameron, do you think is in a better position with just over a month to election day?

:cheer2:

[joeysteele]

I think he is actually only saying what a good few people think.
I actually said this myself 2 days ago, that what Cameron led the UK into with the French then got involved in as to Libya, have contributed in part to this situation now.
Were there a better situation in Libya and had we made sure there was too,then we could have been far better placed to sort out at that source people fleeing from other areas.

That is what Miliband is saying,not that Cameron is personally responsible for deaths but with more careful planning as to the Libya exercises, he certainly could have ensured a far more stable set up there.

As I said, I was saying exactly this 2 days ago, on here too, someone agreed, I will need to look back as to who,in saying they too wondered if Cameron and Sarkosy were now still pleased with their Libyan action.

I think a lot of people will be thinking the same actually.

Ed Miliband for instance has had a senior Minister saying he would stab the UK in the back as a Prime Minister, that seems acceptable to say however.

Ed Miliband, did not and would not have voted for action in Iraq, he opposed that and saw the chaos that came from our involvement there
David Cameron also saw the chaos that came from that, and he as the serving PM should have ensured that whatever he took part in as to Libya,resulted in nothing like the chaos after Iraq.
He didn't and now we have this disastrous affair,now he has his own Iraq really in a way.
He left Libya to become a worse place than it was before.

No one blames him for the deaths obviously but he does, in my view, bear a fair amount of responsibilty along with the French leader too,since they against the wishes of most of Europe got involved in Libya in the first place,for these horrific events unfolding now.

All I can say now further is, thank goodness Ed Miliband led Labour to oppose any involvement as to Syria,since this PM David Cameron would have escalated tensions and probably made matters even worse had he got his way to take action there too.

I applaud Ed Miliband today,I love it when people say what I am already thinking anyway.
Seriously though, I was against the Libyan exercises too,maybe Miliband would have been better not to support that too, however it would have still been done then anyway, with or without the support of any opposition parties.

The Conservatives supported the Iraq invasion, both times it was done, Cameron was right to say when he did not long ago that we should have looked at the consequences of that, as to what we left afterwards.

Well he should have learned from that and as PM made sure any mistakes along the same lines did not come into play after his Libyan action.
He failed to do so and now the world is facing in part, the effects of what he has sown there which are happening daily now as to these tragic losses of life.

I hope Cameron can live with himself,which is why he and Sarkosy should be ashamed of their action as to Libya.
Also the UK and French ought to be bending over backwards to do everything, not just 'barely' enough, to sort this horrific mess out,not piling the pressure only on Italy.

For ill judged action,very badly planned as to the consequences and aftermath of same, there is now little to choose between Blair's Iraq situation and now David Cameron's Libyan actions,in my view.

[MTVN]

I think he is actually only saying what a good few people think.
I actually said this myself 2 days ago, that what Cameron led the UK into with the French then got involved in as to Libya, have contributed in part to this situation now.
Were there a better situation in Libya and had we made sure there was too,then we could have been far better placed to sort out at that source people fleeing from other areas.

That is what Miliband is saying,not that Cameron is personally responsible for deaths but with more careful planning as to the Libya exercises, he certainly could have ensured a far more stable set up there.

As I said, I was saying exactly this 2 days ago, on here too, someone agreed, I will need to look back as to who,in saying they too wondered if Cameron and Sarkosy were now still pleased with their Libyan action.

I think a lot of people will be thinking the same actually.

Ed Miliband for instance has had a senior Minister saying he would stab the UK in the back as a Prime Minister, that seems acceptable to say however.

Ed Miliband, did not and would not have voted for action in Iraq, he opposed that and saw the chaos that came from our involvement there
David Cameron also saw the chaos that came from that, and he as the serving PM should have ensured that whatever he took part in as to Libya,resulted in nothing like the chaos after Iraq.
He didn't and now we have this disastrous affair,now he has his own Iraq really in a way.
He left Libya to become a worse place than it was before.

No one blames him for the deaths obviously but he does, in my view, bear a fair amount of responsibilty along with the French leader too,since they against the wishes of most of Europe got involved in Libya in the first place,for these horrific events unfolding now.

All I can say now further is, thank goodness Ed Miliband led Labour to oppose any involvement as to Syria,since this PM David Cameron would have escalated tensions and probably made matters even worse had he got his way to take action there too.

I applaud Ed Miliband today,I love it when people say what I am already thinking anyway.
Seriously though, I was against the Libyan exercises too,maybe Miliband would have been better not to support that too, however it would have still been done then anyway, with or without the support of any opposition parties.

The Conservatives supported the Iraq invasion, both times it was done, Cameron was right to say when he did not long ago that we should have looked at the consequences of that, as to what we left afterwards.

Well he should have learned from that and as PM made sure any mistakes along the same lines did not come into play after his Libyan action.
He failed to do so and now the world is facing in part, the effects of what he has sown there which are happening daily now as to these tragic losses of life.

I hope Cameron can live with himself,which is why he and Sarkosy should be ashamed of their action as to Libya.
Also the UK and French ought to be bending over backwards to do everything, not just enough, to sort this horrific mess out,not piling the pressure only on Italy.

For ill judged action,very badly planned as to the consequences and aftermath of same, there is now little to choose between Blair's Iraq situation and now David Cameron's Libyan actions,in my view.

Yes it was me who agreed with you, and not to blow my own trumpet but I have been talking about this ever since the possibility of intervening was first raised 3 or 4 years ago :idc: But the way in which Miliband has raised this issue is naked opportunism and nothing more. The failure of intervention was obvious very soon after Gaddafi's death; Libya's descent into chaos has been happening almost ever since. Not once has Miliband raised this in PMQs, not once has he brought the issue forward in a substantial way. Now he wants to talk about post-intervention planning? Why could that be? He was never keen to discuss it before, he was never keen to discuss it in regard to Iraq where he voted four times against an enquiry, and lets not forget he is the leader of the party which has a shameful foreign policy record in the last fifteen years.

And Miliband supported Libya intervention in the first place! In fact 557 MPs did, only 13 voted against it. So let's not get into a finger pointing game. I say again that the disaster of Libya was not the post-intervention planning, it was the decision to intervene in the first place.

[Vicky.]

Very cheap point scoring from Miliband today, not heard a peep from him about post-conflict planning and now suddenly he starts ranting about it 2 weeks before the election when the migrant drownings have just happened hmm. And this from the man who voted 4 times against an enquiry into the Iraq war...

Anyway the disaster of Libya was the decision to intervene in the first place not just what happened after, and that decision was fully supported by Labour at the time

Ouch..I didnt know this. What possible reason could there be NOT to vote in favor of an enquiry D:

[Kizzy]

Ouch..I didnt know this. What possible reason could there be NOT to vote in favor of an enquiry D:

It would affect his chance of becoming PM if the inquiry was held before the election.

[Vicky.]

It would affect his chance of becoming PM if the inquiry was held before the election.

But wasnt this waaay back when labour had no chance anyway? (ie when brown had ****ed them)

[Kizzy]

it shows a mixture of for and against here...
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/11545/edward_miliband/doncaster_north/divisions?policy=975

[Vicky.]

it shows a mixture of for and against here...
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/11545/edward_miliband/doncaster_north/divisions?policy=975

On 11 Jun 2007: Edward Miliband voted no on Opposition Day — Iraq Inquiry
On 11 Jun 2007: Edward Miliband voted yes on Opposition Day — Iraq Inquiry


WTF? :laugh:

[joeysteele]

Yes it was me who agreed with you, and not to blow my own trumpet but I have been talking about this ever since the possibility of intervening was first raised 3 or 4 years ago :idc: But the way in which Miliband has raised this issue is naked opportunism and nothing more. The failure of intervention was obvious very soon after Gaddafi's death; Libya's descent into chaos has been happening almost ever since. Not once has Miliband raised this in PMQs, not once has he brought the issue forward in a substantial way. Now he wants to talk about post-intervention planning? Why could that be? He was never keen to discuss it before, he was never keen to discuss it in regard to Iraq where he voted four times against an enquiry, and lets not forget he is the leader of the party which has a shameful foreign policy record in the last fifteen years.

And Miliband supported Libya intervention in the first place! In fact 557 MPs did, only 13 voted against it. So let's not get into a finger pointing game. I say again that the disaster of Libya was not the post-intervention planning, it was the decision to intervene in the first place.

I don't think Labour has any more a shameful record as to foreign policy than some previous govts;
Iraq was as wrong the first time in 1990,in my view, never mind the 2nd time under Labour.
Maybe had they gone about it the right way in 1990,there would have been no need for a 2nd invasion at all.
I didn't see the need to get so heavily entrenched in Afghanistan either.

The Conservatives supported Iraq but some of them are doing an about turn as to it now too, well after the event.

What I will concede is that Miliband should have been pressing the mess left in Libya more,however I have watched political programmes where the moment Labour mentioned things like Libya,they got a backlash for Iraq and the mess left there.

What is a fact, is the fact that Miliband wasn't even an MP when the Iraq vote was taken and he has always said he disagreed with same.
He may not have raised Libya in public,I don't know for sure whether he has or not.
He did make reference to the chaos looming in Libya at the time he was consulted on would he support action in Syria however.
Which to his full credit, he refused to do,even firmly getting the vote passed too,to close the door on leaving options open for Cameron to take action in Syria if necessary without a new vote in parliament.

I think foreign policy under this govt; has been as much a disaster as the previous govt;
It doesn't,for me anyway, bear thinking about as to where we and the world would be, had David Cameron got his way to go into Syria too.
This is bad enough.

I didn't agree with action in Libya and was disappointed Labour backed it too,however, with the Conservatives and the Lib Dems,the vote would have passed anyway,very easily.
However further, just as Labour have to take the responsibility as to how we left Iraq, which although the Conservatives supported,they were not the govt; of the day so cannot be held responsible for the aftermath of same.

That same scenario applies here, and this PM had the hindsight of Iraq to look to as to Libya.
Although Labour supported the action, it had to be down to the govt; in power to see the action and aftermath through.
What we are seeing now is the total failure of Cameron to learn from history with full hindsight of events too and to have done not a thing as the situation he helped bring about in Libya got worse and worse.

[Alf]

How can anybody vote conservative when working people are needing to use food banks? That is absolutely disgusting.

I don't yet know whom to vote for, but I may have to go for Labour who are a little more human than the tory's but are still no help to the people they're suppose to represent.

Greedy gangsters will be running our Country whoever gets in.

[Vicky.]

How can anybody vote conservative when working people are needing to use food banks? That is absolutely disgusting.

I don't yet know whom to vote for, but I may have to go for Labour who are a little more human than the tory's but are still no help to the people they're suppose to represent.

Greedy gangsters will be running our Country whoever gets in.

Because foodbanks existed under labour (granted for many fewer people but we have to ignore this) and labour is entirely to blame for the global recession and as such its labours fault that the benefit cuts (that have seen no savings, as they are pure ideology and were never about saving money..but we must ignore this too) are therefor labours fault. Of course.

We must never hold the conservatives responsible for viewing the poorest people as vermin who should crawl into a corner and die off. Always blame labour :nono:

[Kizzy]

Boris Johnson Shadow Minister (Higher Education), Education
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that an inquiry could urgently consider our catastrophic failure before and after the war to protect Iraqi cultural heritage from systematic looting, which is devastating Iraq? If the Iraqis are to have any hope of rebuilding their country, that looting must be stopped. What have we in mind to prevent that? The Department for Culture, Media and Sport pledged £5 million, which has vanished, to stop the systematic looting. Would it not help the Iraqis to rebuild their future if they had some idea of what had allowed things to go so catastrophically wrong from the beginning?

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2007-06-11b.532.1

Hypocrite...

[joeysteele]

How can anybody vote conservative when working people are needing to use food banks? That is absolutely disgusting.

I don't yet know whom to vote for, but I may have to go for Labour who are a little more human than the tory's but are still no help to the people they're suppose to represent.

Greedy gangsters will be running our Country whoever gets in.

I am hearing this all the time.

For what the Conservatives have done to the most vulnerable,I could never support them, that and the NHS are the things that have taken me right away from them.

I voted Lib Dem and hoped for a successful coalition that would have been moderated and the NHS fully protected.
I got neither.

I have turned to Labour because I like the compassion in their policies and I hope they have learned,under this new leader from their mistakes in govt; before.

However like yourself, I am coming across more and more who will be voting Labour but only to get this lot out.
people in their 80s are saying,this is the cruellest govt; they have lived under.
The NHS is in near chaos again and unnecessarily due to a re-organisation.

I will have no doubt, if Labour win on May 7th, it will not be because of a passion for them particularly but in a great part to get rid of this heartless lot.
Under the election system we have, the only way to remove this govt; is to vote Labour.
That sadly is the reality of the situation,unless the Greens or UKIP are going to get around 35% in the opinion polls and votes,with Labour and the Conservatives down to something like 25%.

[MTVN]

On 11 Jun 2007: Edward Miliband voted no on Opposition Day — Iraq Inquiry
On 11 Jun 2007: Edward Miliband voted yes on Opposition Day — Iraq Inquiry


WTF? :laugh:

From what I can gather by a quick look at the debate it culminated in two votes, the first being over the wording of the question and the second being on the question itself. Miliband voted no on a question over the wording and then voted yes to the final resolution which was that the Commons "declines at this time, whilst the whole effort of the Government and the armed forces is directed towards improving the condition of Iraq, to make a proposal for a further inquiry which would divert attention from this vital task".

That website just proves that Miliband voted against an enquiry each time the issue was raised in parliament

I don't think Labour has any more a shameful record as to foreign policy than some previous govts;
Iraq was as wrong the first time in 1990,in my view, never mind the 2nd time under Labour.
Maybe had they gone about it the right way in 1990,there would have been no need for a 2nd invasion at all.
I didn't see the need to get so heavily entrenched in Afghanistan either.

The Conservatives supported Iraq but some of them are doing an about turn as to it now too, well after the event.

What I will concede is that Miliband should have been pressing the mess left in Libya more,however I have watched political programmes where the moment Labour mentioned things like Libya,they got a backlash for Iraq and the mess left there.

What is a fact, is the fact that Miliband wasn't even an MP when the Iraq vote was taken and he has always said he disagreed with same.
He may not have raised Libya in public,I don't know for sure whether he has or not.
He did make reference to the chaos looming in Libya at the time he was consulted on would he support action in Syria however.
Which to his full credit, he refused to do,even firmly getting the vote passed too,to close the door on leaving options open for Cameron to take action in Syria if necessary without a new vote in parliament.

I think foreign policy under this govt; has been as much a disaster as the previous govt;
It doesn't,for me anyway, bear thinking about as to where we and the world would be, had David Cameron got his way to go into Syria too.
This is bad enough.

I didn't agree with action in Libya and was disappointed Labour backed it too,however, with the Conservatives and the Lib Dems,the vote would have passed anyway,very easily.
However further, just as Labour have to take the responsibility as to how we left Iraq, which although the Conservatives supported,they were not the govt; of the day so cannot be held responsible for the aftermath of same.

That same scenario applies here, and this PM had the hindsight of Iraq to look to as to Libya.
Although Labour supported the action, it had to be down to the govt; in power to see the action and aftermath through.
What we are seeing now is the total failure of Cameron to learn from history with full hindsight of events too and to have done not a thing as the situation he helped bring about in Libya got worse and worse.

But I'm not trying to compared Labour to the Conservatives here Joey. I know the Conservatives have ****ed up in Libya, that they have done so in the past, that they supported the Iraq war, that they would have intervened in Libya regardless of Miliband's support and that they would have done so in Syria as well as they could. I'm not trying to stand here as William Hague or Phillip Hammond and laud the Conservatives foreign policy and defend to the hilt every action that they took. On the contrary, I don't think this is a Labour-Conservative thing, I think it's a general Western thing where our global outlook has been in need of revision for quite some time. All I am saying is that I find the way that Miliband has commented on this and the timing as cynical and opportunistic and it does not reflect well on him imo.

[Kazanne]

It's such a cheap shot,makes me dislike him even more,he thinks he is ****in superman who will transform the UK,imo he is all mouth and there will be very little action,he also alluded to the HSBSs statement about moving from the UK as Camerons fault,twonk!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3053665/Furious-row-erupts-shameful-Miliband-claim-Mediterranean-refugee-deaths-direct-result-Cameron-s-Libya-intervention.html

[Kazanne]

From what I can gather by a quick look at the debate it culminated in two votes, the first being over the wording of the question and the second being on the question itself. Miliband voted no on a question over the wording and then voted yes to the final resolution which was that the Commons "declines at this time, whilst the whole effort of the Government and the armed forces is directed towards improving the condition of Iraq, to make a proposal for a further inquiry which would divert attention from this vital task".

That website just proves that Miliband voted against an enquiry each time the issue was raised in parliament



But I'm not trying to compared Labour to the Conservatives here Joey. I know the Conservatives have ****ed up in Libya, that they have done so in the past, that they supported the Iraq war, that they would have intervened in Libya regardless of Miliband's support and that they would have done so in Syria as well as they could. I'm not trying to stand here as William Hague or Phillip Hammond and laud the Conservatives foreign policy and defend to the hilt every action that they took. On the contrary, I don't think this is a Labour-Conservative thing, I think it's a general Western thing where our global outlook has been in need of revision for quite some time. All I am saying is that I find the way that Miliband has commented on this and the timing as cynical and opportunistic and it does not reflect well on him imo.

:clap1::clap1:

[joeysteele]

Because foodbanks existed under labour (granted for many fewer people but we have to ignore this) and labour is entirely to blame for the global recession and as such its labours fault that the benefit cuts (that have seen no savings, as they are pure ideology and were never about saving money..but we must ignore this too) are therefor labours fault. Of course.

We must never hold the conservatives responsible for viewing the poorest people as vermin who should crawl into a corner and die off. Always blame labour :nono:

What a fantastically constructed and impressive post, also sadly as to people most vulnerable, a totally true post too.
Really wish I had made this post,full of fair, valid and undisputable points, said in so few words too.

[Kizzy]

RvB6duPjnng

[kirklancaster]

On 11 Jun 2007: Edward Miliband voted no on Opposition Day — Iraq Inquiry
On 11 Jun 2007: Edward Miliband voted yes on Opposition Day — Iraq Inquiry


WTF? :laugh:

He used to be convinced that he was indecisive - now he can't make his mind up whether he is or not. :laugh:

He used to think he was schizophrenic - now he's in two minds. :joker:

[Kizzy]

http://i.guim.co.uk/media/w-620/h--/q-95/759e66e7ffafc737e42668ad1cfbc685f9da55cc/974_232_4542_2726/1000.jpg

Tsk tsk Network rail remove this billboard due to their 'neutrality' :/

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/24/network-rail-orders-removal-students-anti-lib-dem-posters-tuition-fees

[MTVN]

eamYZUFJKO7

[kirklancaster]

eamYZUFJKO7

FFS sake - absolutely ingenious. :laugh:

[Vicky.]

:joker:eamYZUFJKO7

[Kazanne]

FFS sake - absolutely ingenious. :laugh:

I can't see those pictures Kirk,anyone have any idea why? it's been bugging me a while now

[kirklancaster]

I can't see those pictures Kirk,anyone have any idea why? it's been bugging me a while now

What browser do you use Kaz - I had the same problem then switched to CHROME. I don't really know I'm not up on all this stuff. I'll try pasting in a link and see it it works Kaz.

https://vine.co/v/eamYZUFJKO7

[MTVN]

Afraid to say Kazanne that you are missing out on some exclusive footage of Joeysteele calling out Arista

[Kizzy]

#TEAMJOEY

[Kazanne]

What browser do you use Kaz - I had the same problem then switched to CHROME. I don't really know I'm not up on all this stuff. I'll try pasting in a link and see it it works Kaz.

https://vine.co/v/eamYZUFJKO7

I use IE,but will try this Kirk,I can see any other pics but not these particular ones!! sorry I only just seen this,I would have answered sooner.

[Kazanne]

Afraid to say Kazanne that you are missing out on some exclusive footage of Joeysteele calling out Arista

lol,I saw the one Kirk linked,strange I cant see them here?:conf:

[kirklancaster]

lol,I saw the one Kirk linked,strange I cant see them here?:conf:

:joker: Always here for you Kaz. :laugh:

[Kizzy]

Tsk tsk....

'After months of fruitless wrangling over the televised leaders’ debates, David Cameron has been accused of dodging a less obviously risky encounter: a church debate with a doctor who is mounting a long-shot challenge for his seat in Oxfordshire.

Dr Clive Peedell, a consultant oncologist from Middlesbrough who leads the National Health Action party, has been invited to every hustings in Witney during the campaign except one – the only event attended by the prime minister. Another excluded candidate who successfully applied for a ticket, Christopher Tompson , was turned away at the door after being told that his presence “might cause some unrest”.

Cameron’s team denies exerting any influence on the event beyond security matters. But in an email to a photographer who was also barred from attending, organisers explained that they were following “instructions … from Cameron’s office”.

“I think Cameron dodged it,” said Peedell, who is campaigning for increased health funding and an end to the NHS internal market. “It’s clearly being stage-managed. They’re just so worried about those past episodes with [Tony] Blair and [Gordon] Brown and [John] Major, this whole issue of the public getting involved. They don’t want him to be challenged by people with expertise in a specialist area, especially the NHS.”


http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/24/david-cameron-challenger-clive-peedell-debate-avoid-encounter

[Kizzy]

I’ve been an Aston Villa fan all my life, I literally opened my mouth and I was going off-piste about the fact that in Britain you can be a supporter of the West Indies, a supporter of Manchester United, and a supporter of Team GB.

'I was then busking about other things you can support and was ... I don’t know what happened to me, it was just one of those things.

It wasn’t on the script, I was going off-script to add to the examples, and I suppose it is just the campaign. By the time you have made as many speeches as I have on this campaign all sorts of funny things start popping out of your mouth.

Like saying the NHS can have 8 million? ...

[arista]

Farage Live
is Right we are Global Sellers
but the EU stops that

[arista]

Clegg is Live
South London

But that Yellow backing
in 1080i
is to much

[Kizzy]

Boris on the Marr show?

#WorstCrisisSinceTheAbdication

[joeysteele]

Boris on the Marr show?

#WorstCrisisSinceTheAbdication

I watched this, really, I rather like Boris but he was like a bumbling buffoon on this today.
I cannot bring to mind one sensible thing he said.

What a really poor campaign this, to think they have all had ages to plan for the official campaigntoo, having known the date for almost 5 years now.

[Kizzy]

It just proves what I've always said about boris, he always uses his bumbling diversionary tactics during discussion at every opportunity, but this close to an election when people want direct answers to direct questions to help them decide who to vote for it falls flat.

[joeysteele]

It just proves what I've always said about boris, he always uses his bumbling diversionary tactics during discussion at every opportunity, but this close to an election when people want direct answers to direct questions to help them decide who to vote for it falls flat.

The only thing I can bring to mind was his reaction to being thought of as Cameron's replacement which he largely dismissed.

Even I know loads of Conservative supporters and I also believe there are a good number of MPs who want Cameron replaced as leader.
Many of whom would welcome Boris too.

Look,being fair to him, he is no doubt an entertainer in politics but if he is not going to be serious about serious issues then he will likely end up the clown of politics and the Conservative party, rather than any kind of real Statesman.

[Vicky.]

I watched this, really, I rather like Boris but he was like a bumbling buffoon on this today.
I cannot bring to mind one sensible thing he said.

What a really poor campaign this, to think they have all had ages to plan for the official campaigntoo, having known the date for almost 5 years now.

Just today?! :p

[smudgie]

Poor Andrew nigh on choking when he was apologising about pressing David Cameron on the fox hunting issue.
I would expect far better research from this show before they start asking the PM to answer to something he did not in fact say.

[Kizzy]

Ob2fZIa-ngg

Yes boris shut up or we'll send Eddie Mair round!

[arista]

Yes Boris
Ed was in that New Labour Corruption

[bots]

I watched this, really, I rather like Boris but he was like a bumbling buffoon on this today.
I cannot bring to mind one sensible thing he said.

What a really poor campaign this, to think they have all had ages to plan for the official campaigntoo, having known the date for almost 5 years now.

He and Ed are a pair really. There is one reason people like Nicola, she can communicate clearly. None of the other leaders seems to be capable of stringing even the most basic of sentences together.

[arista]

http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/2015/4/26/387422/default/v1/telegraph-1-720x960.jpg
Bang On Right

Labour is Anti Business

[kirklancaster]

He and Ed are a pair really. There is one reason people like Nicola, she can communicate clearly. None of the other leaders seems to be capable of stringing even the most basic of sentences together.

:laugh: Deviant Adolf and Arthur Scargill were great orators.

[Kizzy]

YouGov @YouGov
Update: Lab lead at 1 - Latest YouGov / The Sun results 26th Apr - Con 33%, Lab 34%, LD 8%, UKIP 14%, GRN 5%; APP -13 http://y-g.co/1GwG3Ip
6:01 AM - 27 Apr 2015
34 34 Retweets 3 3 favorites

[joeysteele]

Not another letter from the minority of business leaders, the Daily Torygraph is really going pell mell on these this election, having these privileged people tell others how to vote.

Jo Malone, wheeled out on the TV too, small business woman I think not, she had a global business which she sold for likely massive returns on.
She didn't have to worry how to start another business and yet she only has now 14 staff in the new one.
Clearly not caring in all likelihood for the staff she had on her bigger business when she sold it to increase her personal wealth.

She made me sick going on about her coming from a Council estate and her working class background,what she turned into was the worst kind of snob, a working class snob.
As a businesswoman also, no way would she or in fact any other business worth anything, have kept in employment Cameron and Osborne.
Had they employed them in 2010, given them targets they had to reach, which they then missed that year,then had to downgrade twice in 2011, again twice in 2012 and then probably again in 2013, they would have been got rid of at least by the end of 2012.

The hypocrisy of these tiny minority of business leaders commands nothing more that total contempt for their greed and selfishness.
Anyway, rant over, the more any kind of businesses come out for Cameron, the more people will associate him with them and not the vast majority of other,general working population and all other areas of society too as to people in the UK.

[Kizzy]

The sun is furious it didn't get the letter and the knives are out, tory headquarters proving they are not wanting to appeal to the wannabe oiks by shunning their low brow rag?

[Kizzy]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CDjmB_cWMAAk4rG.png

[MTVN]

Just had our local MP come round our village, good of him to bother when it's such a safe Tory seat anyway

[user104658]

Just had our local MP come round our village, good of him to bother when it's such a safe Tory seat anyway

Is it really "good of him" to do his ****ing job??

[MTVN]

Is it really "good of him" to do his ****ing job??

More than any other candidates here have done, and its not the easiest constituency to canvass comprised of dozens of small villages and when ours is one of the smallest of those I wouldn't have been surprised if he'd have given it a miss

[MTVN]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CDjmB_cWMAAk4rG.png

Sounds like some of the signatories aren't even shareholders in the companies they're supposed to be representing as well, political stunt gone wrong

[joeysteele]

Andrew Neill on the Daily Politics, and good on him for doing so has exposed this letter as a Conservative political stunt, as to signatories rounded up by the Conservatives and not a randomly created affair.

Then the whole thing going to the Torygraph from Conservative central office.

What a sham and one of the signatures came from a Conservative club apparantly.
Well done Andrew Neill,this kind of exposing some elements of deliberate deceit included may just help start to save politics one day.

[Kizzy]

Cameron sweating and swearing... says it all really.
Surrounded by yes men, can't get within 50ft of him without a wristband to prove you're a paid up tory.

'Signa' the artist formally known as Signatory 413:joker:

[bots]

of course none of the other parties manufacture events to make a point in their election campaigns, its only the evil hounds from hell (the tories) that do it :hehe:

[Kizzy]

If you're going to suggest a comparison it helps to have an example of something as evidence.

[Kizzy]

The finest mind in the universe has just backed Ed Miliband
Stephen Hawking, argued to be the most intelligent man on the planet, thinks that Ed Miliband is the best person to be Prime Minister.

:smug:

[Crimson Dynamo]

LBC reporting that Milliband and Brand have had secret talks. Speculating that Brand may endorse Milliband :suspect:


http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/resources/images/3664493.jpg?htype=354&display=1&type=mc2

[Crimson Dynamo]

http://36.media.tumblr.com/c47b2f46e0ec8a98148fde4cf88e88c7/tumblr_mxuomqmLEZ1qfqz3ao1_500.jpg



Today Labour are trying to tell voters they are tough on immigration


:laugh2:



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32490861

[MTVN]

David Cameron is asked why he’s not getting to spend quality time with Russell Brand, as Ed Miliband did last night. He offers a rather robust reply. “Politics and life and election and jobs and the economy is not a joke -Russell Brand’s a joke!” he says. “Ed Miliband, hang out with Russell Brand, he’s a joke. This is not funny. I haven’t got time to hang out with Russell Brand!”


:clap1:

[Kizzy]

Russel brand isn't a banker there's no money in hanging around with him.

[joeysteele]

He preferred to have Gary barlow alongside him last time in 2010 but had no clue as to what group he was involved with.

Having said that, I take little interest and am not impressed by celebrities adorning Political parties or leaders.

They all speak from privileged positions and being in the public eye which the ordinary public help them attain.
Sadly most of them forget where they came from at times and suddenly then think they know it all, more to the point that 'their' public should listen and act on what they say too.

[Kizzy]

He preferred to have Gary barlow alongside him last time in 2010 but had no clue as to what group he was involved with.

Having said that, I take little interest and am not impressed by celebrities adorning Political parties or leaders.

They all speak from privileged positions and being in the public eye which the ordinary public help them attain.
Sadly most of them forget where they came from at times and suddenly then think they know it all, more to the point that 'their' public should listen and act on what they say too.

'the payment from Gary Barlow and Take That bandmates Howard Donald and Mark Owen is still outstanding – to the tune of up to £20million.'


Oops!

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/take-still-owe-up-20million-5584538

[Crimson Dynamo]

I hope Dave is still a hammers fan this week

:suspect:

[Kazanne]

Last time I saw Ed he was besties with Joey Essex :joker: that's about right,taking selfies I think,get down with the best eh Ed?

[Kizzy]

David Cameron criticising Ed Miliband for giving an interview to Russell Brand.

Dave only has time for his business buddies, yes men and donors atm sowee.
No Clive Peedle! You are far too knowledgeable/dangerous to be included you may ask pertinent questions which require an educated answer!

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/25/clive-peedell-i-want-to-challenge-david-cameron-over-nhs

[Loukas]

might have already been posted but i don't care

exCD8IUx5s8

:clap1:

[joeysteele]

Absolutely unbelievable in the defence debate with Andrew Neill today that I have just watched.
Michael Fallon,the current 'Defence' secretary would not commit the Conservatives to supporting a min. Labour govts; legislation to renew Trident.

Andrew Neill pressed him loads of times and got nowhere, what an extraordinary event.
So he and the Conservatives would most likely play a game as to trident too, something they claim to be 100% in favour of.
What a waste of space as a Defence secretary.

Even I, as a current Labour supporter, would expect at least the majority of Labour MPs to support a min. Conservative govt; as to renewing trident.

[MTVN]

Absolutely unbelievable in the defence debate with Andrew Neill today that I have just watched.
Michael Fallon,the current 'Defence' secretary would not commit the Conservatives to supporting a min. Labour govts; legislation to renew Trident.

Andrew Neill pressed him loads of times and got nowhere, what an extraordinary event.
So he and the Conservatives would most likely play a game as to trident too, something they claim to be 100% in favour of.
What a waste of space as a Defence secretary.

Even I, as a current Labour supporter, would expect at least the majority of Labour MPs to support a min. Conservative govt; as to renewing trident.

Yeah seems bizarre to me and I'm sure a lot of Conservatives won't be happy about it either

[Kizzy]

6ac_pbq-zHc

[bots]

Absolutely unbelievable in the defence debate with Andrew Neill today that I have just watched.
Michael Fallon,the current 'Defence' secretary would not commit the Conservatives to supporting a min. Labour govts; legislation to renew Trident.

Andrew Neill pressed him loads of times and got nowhere, what an extraordinary event.
So he and the Conservatives would most likely play a game as to trident too, something they claim to be 100% in favour of.
What a waste of space as a Defence secretary.

Even I, as a current Labour supporter, would expect at least the majority of Labour MPs to support a min. Conservative govt; as to renewing trident.

What it shows is that they serve the parties interests and not the people they supposedly represent. Its disgraceful

[Kizzy]

Absolutely unbelievable in the defence debate with Andrew Neill today that I have just watched.
Michael Fallon,the current 'Defence' secretary would not commit the Conservatives to supporting a min. Labour govts; legislation to renew Trident.

Andrew Neill pressed him loads of times and got nowhere, what an extraordinary event.
So he and the Conservatives would most likely play a game as to trident too, something they claim to be 100% in favour of.
What a waste of space as a Defence secretary.

Even I, as a current Labour supporter, would expect at least the majority of Labour MPs to support a min. Conservative govt; as to renewing trident.

They don't have an Overton window, they have a greenhouse. If that's what voters want that will be their policy changing everyday to encompass all the electorate.
Yet they don't commit to anything, it's all hot air and bluster.

[Kizzy]

FGS Mike (UKIP) Reid is rapping again :/

Mike Read, broadcaster
His reasoning’s unsound and Miliband’s found

Brand rants like a mule or an ass debates.

He has more dosh than those he calls “posh”

For he’s richer than those that he castigates.

Is Miliband mad to go to Brand’s pad?

Where he sits on the sofa berating him.

If he goes on like this he will get a Judas kiss

Or the next thing you know he’ll be dating him.

Brand believes the solution is to talk revolution,

What juvenile waffle, the silly man.

He thinks Farage would be hopeless in charge –

As would Clegg and Cameron and Miliband.

He’s hitting Red Ed with some facts that he’s read

That smacks of a weird personal odyssey.

He’s talking to Labour as if he were the Saviour,

Yet he’s all for a non-voting policy.

Ed told Brand post-election there will be resurrection

And the UK will no longer be Tory … err.

The lies that he’ll feed yer like “I’ll break up the media”

But without all that “giddy euphoria”.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/29/milibrand-verdict-election-ed-miliband-russell-brand-trews-interview

[Kizzy]

OOOHHHH......

'Danny Alexander, the Liberal Democrat chief secretary to the Treasury, has taken the extraordinary step of lifting the lid on Tory plans for an £8bn plan to cut welfare, including slashing child benefits and child tax credits.

Alexander reveals that in June 2012, members of the Quad – the inner group of the four most senior cabinet members – were sent a paper by the work and pensions secretary Iain Duncan Smith entitled “Welfare Reform Quad Summer Reading Pack” setting out plans for £8bn of welfare reforms.

The proposed cuts included:

Limiting support to 2 children in child benefit and child tax credit, so cutting up to £3,500 from a family with three children.
Removing the higher rate child benefit from the first child, an average cut of over £360 for every family with children.
Means testing child benefit – cutting £1,750 for a two child middle income family
Removing child benefit from 16 to 19 year olds – a cut of over £1,000 for parents of a single child.'

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/29/danny-alexander-tory-plans-welfare-cuts-child-benefits

[smudgie]

:shrug: A page sent round nearly 3 years ago....
Nothing much new, the child benefit is means tested now isn't it?
There was also plenty of talk of cutting the benefits for more than two of three kids as well.
Danny Alexander....I wouldn't trust hm as far as I could throw him to be honest.

[Kizzy]

Gingerist... :idc:

[Kizzy]

https://scontent-lhr.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfa1/t31.0-8/s720x720/10960203_10153877904413065_3517247898258075106_o.j pg

Glass houses? :joker:

[joeysteele]

This is clearly older issues but it shows the thinking of the govt:

However, quite a move from Danny Alexander, he has spouted out day after day strong defence of the policies done from the treatments of those most vunerable and the bedroom tax/charge.
All while he was an assured Minister,he wasn't bothered about any of that,what a total snake he is.
Furthermore, he may be happy or horrified to know that most people when you ask which party he is from, say the Conservatives.
Anyway he is gone on May 7th,and he knows it too,he may even come 3rd in his seat in Scotland.
Justice will be done as to that for me and this waste of space.

I would be far more interested to see and hear from him where the cuts now will be falling, since if what David Cameron is true, he can only be left with chopping sickness and disability benefits or jobseekers to find just some of the 10 billion pounds worth of cuts extra he says will be made to the welfare budget.

I am more suspicious as to that, wheresomething as serious as peoples situations who are among the most vulnerable,that no one is going to be told where and what the cuts will be, until after the election.
Cameron was jumping around and was priding himself on saying yesterday, he knows things because he has seen the books.
Right then, spell out where these cuts are going to hit 'before the election' and stop playing around with the sick and disabled peoples lives.

[MTVN]

http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/media/images/82661000/jpg/_82661242_collage.jpg

:think:

[Kizzy]

I knew it! it's a double bluff from Nicola, the only reason she insisted that Ed align with her at the live debates was to derail his campaign. Maybe there was some truth in those leaks after all, if Rupert likes her she must be one of them

[joeysteele]

Oh gosh, what a pathetic paper the Sun is, 2 hypocritical stances in its 2 separate papers.
Talk about dividing a Nation.
How this rotten rag is allowed to exist is beyond me.

[bots]

http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/media/images/82661000/jpg/_82661242_collage.jpg

:think:

haha, the Sun does not support anyone. It puts its hat with who they think is going to win, its as simple as that.

[Kizzy]

I have to say Joey this has thrown me, do you think that it's just a ploy to sell papers in Scotland? I hope it's not due to any shady deals :/

[joeysteele]

I have to say Joey this has thrown me, do you think that it's just a ploy to sell papers in Scotland? I hope it's not due to any shady deals :/

I think the SUN has supported the SNP before in Scotland.
Who cares anyway that matters,the SUN is a total waste of paper and print anyway in my view.

See,I get how the SNP are riding high in Scotland, 45% ended up voting for independence, no other party in Scotland is in favour of Independence.
So the 45% who really got out there and voted for it, will now naturally support the SNP.
It is no surprise to me at all.

For me, it makes no difference only that it will possibly leave Labour,not the largest party,albeit by only a few seats here and there.
However the predictions are still around 275 to 280 seats for each of the main parties.
the SNP in its best sceanrio then could win 50 to 55 seats.
Any seats it fails to get,then saty with Labour and adds to Labour's tally.
That being the case, even in that situation, there would be no easy road for any possible Conservative led govt; as the SNP figures with the opposition would command the majority in parliament.

In truth, that would really mean no Conservative led govt; at all, as the SNP have ruled out ever allowing a Conservative govt; to come to power if it has the figures to stop it doing so.

I'd actually assume the other SUN, will be annoyed that the Scottish one is supporting the SNP again.
Since it exposes the SUN for the total hypocrites they are and of no national interest for the UK as a whole too.
To have one of its publications praising the SNP from the high heavens and supporting them, while the other shower are warning of how dangerous the SNP are.
They look what they are,pathetically ridiculous.

[bots]

I think the SUN has supported the SNP before in Scotland.
Who cares anyway that matters,the SUN is a total waste of paper and print anyway in my view.

See,I get how the SNP are riding high in Scotland, 45% ended up voting for independence, no other party in Scotland is in favour of Independence.
So the 45% who really got out there and voted for it, will now naturally support the SNP.
It is no surprise to me at all.

For me, it makes no difference only that it will possibly leave Labour,not the largest party,albeit by only a few seats here and there.
However the predictions are still around 275 to 280 seats for each of the main parties.
the SNP in its best sceanrio then could win 50 to 55 seats.
Any seats it fails to get,then saty with Labour and adds to Labour's tally.
That being the case, even in that situation, there would be no easy road for any possible Conservative led govt; as the SNP figures with the opposition would command the majority in parliament.

In truth, that would really mean no Conservative led govt; at all, as the SNP have ruled out ever allowing a Conservative govt; to come to power if it has the figures to stop it doing so.

I'd actually assume the other SUN, will be annoyed that the Scottish one is supporting the SNP again.
Since it exposes the SUN for the total hypocrites they are and of no national interest for the UK as a whole too.
To have one of its publications praising the SNP from the high heavens and supporting them, while the other shower are warning of how dangerous the SNP are.
They look what they are,pathetically ridiculous.

One could say that it shows that the Sun does have independent editorial teams for both versions of the paper, and that's a good thing. However, I believe the sole criteria for the paper choosing sides is based on who they think the majority of its readership will vote for, and nothing deeper than that. It would be commercial suicide to advocate a different view from the majority of its readership.

[Ross.]

http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/media/images/82661000/jpg/_82661242_collage.jpg

:think:

Screaming at Stur Wars: A New Hope :laugh2:

[Kizzy]

This is the only bayby dayvid I want to see...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/955000/images/_958207_royle_300.jpg

[MTVN]

I think the SUN has supported the SNP before in Scotland.
Who cares anyway that matters,the SUN is a total waste of paper and print anyway in my view.

See,I get how the SNP are riding high in Scotland, 45% ended up voting for independence, no other party in Scotland is in favour of Independence.
So the 45% who really got out there and voted for it, will now naturally support the SNP.
It is no surprise to me at all.

For me, it makes no difference only that it will possibly leave Labour,not the largest party,albeit by only a few seats here and there.
However the predictions are still around 275 to 280 seats for each of the main parties.
the SNP in its best sceanrio then could win 50 to 55 seats.
Any seats it fails to get,then saty with Labour and adds to Labour's tally.
That being the case, even in that situation, there would be no easy road for any possible Conservative led govt; as the SNP figures with the opposition would command the majority in parliament.

In truth, that would really mean no Conservative led govt; at all, as the SNP have ruled out ever allowing a Conservative govt; to come to power if it has the figures to stop it doing so.

I'd actually assume the other SUN, will be annoyed that the Scottish one is supporting the SNP again.
Since it exposes the SUN for the total hypocrites they are and of no national interest for the UK as a whole too.
To have one of its publications praising the SNP from the high heavens and supporting them, while the other shower are warning of how dangerous the SNP are.
They look what they are,pathetically ridiculous.

You've gotta admit Joey that what's happening in Scotland is absolutely disastrous for Labour though. All the jokes about Scotland having less Tory MPs than they do giant pandas, well its looking like that could be true for Labour now as well! A couple of polls have even had the SNP winning every single seat. The Scottish Labour leader could lose his seat, Douglas Alexander could well lose his seat to a 20 year old politics student! It's remarkable. It's bad for the UK as a whole because I really think that Sturgeon will have good grounds to push for another referendum now and the Yes campaign could very well win it this time.

[Livia]

You've gotta admit Joey that what's happening in Scotland is absolutely disastrous for Labour though. All the jokes about Scotland having less Tory MPs than they do giant pandas, well its looking like that could be true for Labour now as well! A couple of polls have even had the SNP winning every single seat. The Scottish Labour leader could lose his seat, Douglas Alexander could well lose his seat to a 20 year old politics student! It's remarkable. It's bad for the UK as a whole because I really think that Sturgeon will have good grounds to push for another referendum now and the Yes campaign could very well win it this time.

Fingers crossed.

[arista]

http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/media/images/82661000/jpg/_82661242_collage.jpg

:think:



Yes Even the Scottish Labour Leader
has said if the SNP win big
David Cameron will win.


SNP Killing Labour MP's
Utter Bliss

[MTVN]

Fingers crossed.

Don't think you'd be the only one

[Livia]

Don't think you'd be the only one in England

I think it's about time they asked the English whether they want Scotland to remain part of the Union. I'm tired of the tail wagging the dog.

[Kizzy]

I'm trying to imagine us out of Europe and broken away from Scotland... England will be a very lonely eerie place to be.

[Crimson Dynamo]

I think it's about time they asked the English whether they want Scotland to remain part of the Union. I'm tired of the tail wagging the dog.

The tail is the best bit of that mangy old mutt :fan:


(and what part is Wales..the knob?)

[Crimson Dynamo]

http://cdn.spectator.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Leader.jpg



Queen Nicola, the true leader of Britain will be taking questions tonight and if you are not in Scotland then find it up in the 900s on sky past the porn channels

[Kazanne]

What bloody turncoats Liberal Mps are,trying to slur the Tories for child tax cuts when the guy himself commissioned the paper himself,it was done 3 years ago and was not put in place and will not be,good lord,who would want to vote for them,very telling how arsey Clegg got when asked the question about it.arsehole!

[Crimson Dynamo]

What bloody turncoats Liberal Mps are,trying to slur the Tories for child tax cuts when the guy himself commissioned the paper himself,it was done 3 years ago and was not put in place and will not be,good lord,who would want to vote for them,very telling how arsey Clegg got when asked the question about it.arsehole!

its a pathetic attempt and guess who did it, that utter eejit Alexander


nuff said

[arista]

I'm trying to imagine us out of Europe and broken away from Scotland... England will be a very lonely eerie place to be.

Rubbish
we are World Traders

Europe Stops that

[joeysteele]

You've gotta admit Joey that what's happening in Scotland is absolutely disastrous for Labour though. All the jokes about Scotland having less Tory MPs than they do giant pandas, well its looking like that could be true for Labour now as well! A couple of polls have even had the SNP winning every single seat. The Scottish Labour leader could lose his seat, Douglas Alexander could well lose his seat to a 20 year old politics student! It's remarkable. It's bad for the UK as a whole because I really think that Sturgeon will have good grounds to push for another referendum now and the Yes campaign could very well win it this time.

It is disastrous for Labour and I admit that, there was always going to come a time when what happened to the Conservatives as to Scotland,they won 21 seats there 40 years ago, would come round to Labour once the SNP really got 'authority' in Scotland.

As I have said consistently on here even before the election campaign officially began,I am not that bothered.
had the votes been going to the Lib Dems or the Conservatives or even UKIP,then that would have been far worse for me.

As it is,the SNP have more policies I agree with than I do Labours.
Added to that the 45% who voted for independence, the situation in Scotland is not surprising, the scale is but we won't know the real scale until the votes are cast.

I actually don't think Nicola Sturgeon will get or even seek a referendum again,not in this decade at any rate.
No party in Westminster would support another and it would have to be agreed and got through the UK Parliament again.

[Kizzy]

Rubbish
we are World Traders

Europe Stops that

We can't even maintain a relationship with our closest EU neighbours or even countries within our own union... the rest of the world have no chance :/

[arista]

We can't even maintain a relationship with our closest EU neighbours or even countries within our own union... the rest of the world have no chance :/



You are a Grim Speaker


I do not agree with your vision

[Kazanne]

its a pathetic attempt and guess who did it, that utter eejit Alexander


nuff said

:thumbs:

[arista]

:thumbs:



Not Only that
it was Front Page of the Daily Mirror
of 2012


IDS wanted it

The PM said NO


It was Debated on the Daily Politics today



So its a old story
Spewed up by the LibDems



Its ideal for Kizzy

[smudgie]

Gingerist... :idc:

Nah....more like Twatist.

[Kizzy]

You are a Grim Speaker


I do not agree with your vision

I'm a realist.

[Livia]

I'm trying to imagine us out of Europe and broken away from Scotland... England will be a very lonely eerie place to be.

Except for the Commonwealth. And the USA. And the rest of Europe which we will continue to trade with. Sounds okay to me.

[Kizzy]

Except for the Commonwealth. And the USA. And the rest of Europe which we will continue to trade with. Sounds okay to me.

Are you referring to TTIP?

[joeysteele]

I'm trying to imagine us out of Europe and broken away from Scotland... England will be a very lonely eerie place to be.

For me, it doesn't even bear thinking about Kizzy.

Had Scotland voted for independence,then I am sure I would have moved there with it then being a far more forward looking Nation,with a govt; that more represented a fairer society as to its policies..
I'd have hated to have remained in England, with the pompous South dictating to the whole of the rest of the UK as usual.

If the UK was to leave the EU however, then I would be off.
The USA would likely give token trade and support to the UK as it wants the UK in the EU and has strongly said that too.
That for me, would be too much of a massive step backwards and I would not want to remain and support such a backward looking Nation were that to come about.
It would lead to,in my view, economic disaster,to trade with the EU we would still have to accept free movement of its citizens and not always get the best deals as to trade either.

In fact,if that happened even my Mum and Dad and a lot of my family would move to another EU country too.

[Jøsh]

The countdown is on,1 week to go until the election!

[Kazanne]

Looks like it's not just a UK problem.
http://www.msn.com/en-gb/entertainment/news/scarlett-johansson-my-family-survived-on-handouts/ar-BBiVbHa?ocid=LENDHP.

Maybe that's a good point they make about the tons of food that is wasted.

[joeysteele]

What bloody turncoats Liberal Mps are,trying to slur the Tories for child tax cuts when the guy himself commissioned the paper himself,it was done 3 years ago and was not put in place and will not be,good lord,who would want to vote for them,very telling how arsey Clegg got when asked the question about it.arsehole!

I said ages ago they would turn Kazanne, somewhere around 2011.

I was wrong in my thinking they would pull out of the coalition but I still only believe they didn't because their poll ratings have been so desperately low.

I knew come the election,they would want to distance themselves from the bad things they did support and try to take credit for all the succeses.

What sticks in my throat as to them is they are warning of a lurch to the right with the Conservatives or a lurch to the left with Labour.

What utter hypocrisy, they fought the 2010 election on a manifesto that was even more to the left than Labour's.
Then to have a miserable 5 years of shared power,a title for Clegg and some Ministerial positions, they made the biggest lurch to the right, as to policies supported, that any party has ever done virtually overnight.

Also, if it was possible to form a coalition with Labour after May 7th and Miliband agreed.
They would then happily walk through the lobbies supporting over the next 5 years, repeal after repeal of any legislation Labour maybe wanted to repeal,as to what they supported this last 5 years.
Just to have another period of shared time in govt:

While Clegg is their leader,they haven't an ounce of political credibility or integrity left.

[Kazanne]

I said ages ago they would turn Kazanne, somewhere around 2011.

I was wrong in my thinking they would pull out of the coalition but I still only believe they didn't because their poll ratings have been so desperately low.

I knew come the election,they would want to distance themselves from the bad things they did support and try to take credit for all the succeses.

What sticks in my throat as to them is they are warning of a lurch to the right with the Conservatives or a lurch to the left with Labour.

What utter hypocrisy, they fought the 2010 election on a manifesto that was even more to the left than Labour's.
Then to have a miserable 5 years of shared power,a title for Clegg and some Ministerial positions, they made the biggest lurch to the right, as to policies supported, that any party has ever done virtually overnight.

Also, if it was possible to form a coalition with Labour after May 7th and Miliband agreed.
They would then happily walk through the lobbies supporting over the next 5 years, repeal after repeal of any legislation Labour maybe wanted to repeal,as to what they supported this last 5 years.
Just to have another period of shared time in govt:

While Clegg is their leader,they haven't an ounce of political credibility or integrity left.

:clap1::clap1:

[smudgie]

I said ages ago they would turn Kazanne, somewhere around 2011.

I was wrong in my thinking they would pull out of the coalition but I still only believe they didn't because their poll ratings have been so desperately low.

I knew come the election,they would want to distance themselves from the bad things they did support and try to take credit for all the succeses.

What sticks in my throat as to them is they are warning of a lurch to the right with the Conservatives or a lurch to the left with Labour.

What utter hypocrisy, they fought the 2010 election on a manifesto that was even more to the left than Labour's.
Then to have a miserable 5 years of shared power,a title for Clegg and some Ministerial positions, they made the biggest lurch to the right, as to policies supported, that any party has ever done virtually overnight.

Also, if it was possible to form a coalition with Labour after May 7th and Miliband agreed.
They would then happily walk through the lobbies supporting over the next 5 years, repeal after repeal of any legislation Labour maybe wanted to repeal,as to what they supported this last 5 years.
Just to have another period of shared time in govt:

While Clegg is their leader,they haven't an ounce of political credibility or integrity left.

:clap1: wise words Joey.

They look to be willing to swing either way......meal ticket springs to mnd.

[joeysteele]

:clap1::clap1:

:wavey::cheer2::cheer2: Yay, my first clap from Kazanne this whole election so far.:joker:

Thank you Smudgie for yours too.

[Kizzy]

Lucky old you :idc:


;)

[Kizzy]

Hmmmm first 200,000 ballot papers get robbed and now this...

'More than 480 postal ballot papers have been sent out without the names of the Green and Labour Party candidates.
Labour's Karl Turner and the Green Party's Sarah Walpole were not on the list for the Hull East constituency.
Hull City Council confirmed a printing error had affected a batch of papers and said the mistake affected people who registered to vote after 1 April.
A council spokesman apologised for an "inadvertent mistake" and said the matter was being investigated.'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32514019

[the truth]

dave Cameron was miles ahead of miliband tonight.......we got rid of 20,000 nhs burocrats and replaced them with 9000 doctors and 7000 nurses
we increased the nhs budgets beyond inflation every year as promised..........next we want a 7 day nhs............damnd RIGHT....THE FACT THE NHS has been skeleton staff on weekends has been insane for decades and costs thousands of lives

he was strong on welfare and frankly sounded fair even though its hard to see 12 billion cuts on young people going off job seekers and creating new jobs...MAY PEOPLE USED TO LOSE MONEY IF THEY WORKED A FEW EXTRA HOURS...INSANE MATHS

only 1 in 50 jobs is a zero hours.....66% of the record 2 million jobs are full time

weve created MORE JOBS THAN THE REST OF EUROPE COMBINED IN THE LAST 5 YEARS

labour who run wales has doen the opposite in the nhs spending , in welfare cuts, their unemployment rate has barely shifted, uk under Cameron has halved in 5 years
the unemployment rate is now lower than nearly every European nation

hes not anti European union sadly, but he will give us a referendum and his plan to make people pay national insurance for 4 years to get tax credits etc and NO MORE SENDING CHILD BENEFITS ABROAD ETC

[MTVN]

Funny seeing that interview with the BNP on Daily Politics, you wonder how the hell they ever became big enough to have an MEP, to have Griffin on QT and to get 600,000 votes in the general election. What a joke of a party but quite an entertaining interview.

[Kizzy]

12 billion more welfare cuts cameron?... groovy.
Get ready for more stories like this.

(graphic image)
https://metrouk2.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/ad_167280418.jpg?quality=80&w=768&h=768&crop=1#038;strip=all&w=960&h=960

'A man has had all of his toes amputated after he became a victim of the bedroom tax and was forced to spend the entire winter in a tent.

Mitchell Keenan, 32, was rushed to hospital six weeks ago and diagnosed with frostbite, after his severely blackened toes were discovered by his family.

He was forced to live in the tent with dad Keith after they were unable to keep up with bedroom tax payments and were evicted from their four-bedroom home in Birch Green,Skelmersdale, Lancashire.

Keith, 62, was also diagnosed with dementia, malnourishment and scabies.'

http://metro.co.uk/2015/04/27/man-loses-toes-to-frostbite-after-bedroom-tax-forced-him-to-live-in-a-tent-5170189/

[Kizzy]

'Election 2015 poses some profound questions for this country. Ed Miliband has better answers than his rivals, and so deserves a chance to govern.

The campaign is nearly over and it is time to choose. We believe Britain needs a new direction. At home, the economic recovery is only fragile, while social cohesion is threatened by the unequal impact of the financial crisis and the continuing attempt to shrink the postwar state. Abroad, Britain remains traumatised by its wars, and, like our neighbours, is spooked by Vladimir Putin, the rise of jihadist terrorism and by mounting migratory pressures. In parts of Britain, nationalist and religious identities are threatening older solidarities, while privacy and freedom sometimes feel under siege, even as we mark 800 years since Magna Carta. More people in Britain are leading longer, healthier and more satisfying lives than ever before – yet too many of those lives feel stressed in ways to which politics struggles to respond, much less to shape.'

'Mr Miliband has grown in this campaign. He may not have stardust or TV-ready charisma, but those are qualities that can be overvalued. He has resilience and, above all, a strong sense of what is just. Mr Miliband understood early one of the central questions of the age: inequality. While most Tories shrug at that yawning gap between rich and poor, Labour will at least strive to slow and even reverse the three-decade march towards an obscenely unequal society. It is Labour that speaks with more urgency than its rivals on social justice, standing up to predatory capitalism, on investment for growth, on reforming and strengthening the public realm, Britain’s place in Europe and international development – and which has a record in government that it can be more proud of than it sometimes lets on.'

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/01/guardian-view-britain-needs-new-direction-needs-labour

[joeysteele]

Funny seeing that interview with the BNP on Daily Politics, you wonder how the hell they ever became big enough to have an MEP, to have Griffin on QT and to get 600,000 votes in the general election. What a joke of a party but quite an entertaining interview.

Watching this later as I was out when this was on,they surely weren't expecting to be in any leaders debates were they MTVN.

[Kizzy]

FMpl7eDEeYg

[arista]

http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/2015/5/1/388912/default/v1/020515-i-newspaper-1-720x960.jpg

[billy123]

Interesting.
Ed Miliband enters the final lap of the election boosted by a poll today showing Labour has regained the lead over the Tories.

The Survation survey for the Daily Mirror reveals Labour has overturned a 4pt lead for David Cameron to take a point advantage.

Just a week ago Ed Miliband was trailing on 29%.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/labour-regains-lead-over-tories-5618314

http://i2.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article5618418.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/Westminster-voting-intention-graphic.png

[Crimson Dynamo]

Interesting.
Ed Miliband enters the final lap of the election boosted by a poll today showing Labour has regained the lead over the Tories.

The Survation survey for the Daily Mirror reveals Labour has overturned a 4pt lead for David Cameron to take a point advantage.

Just a week ago Ed Miliband was trailing on 29%.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/labour-regains-lead-over-tories-5618314

http://i2.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article5618418.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/Westminster-voting-intention-graphic.png

for the Daily Mirror

:suspect:

[Kizzy]

And why are the suns yougov polls more accurate?...

[Kizzy]

Exercise of regulatory functions: economic growth

(1)A person exercising a regulatory function to which this section applies must, in the exercise of the function, have regard to the desirability of promoting economic growth.
(2)In performing the duty under subsection (1), the person must, in particular, consider the importance for the promotion of economic growth of exercising the regulatory function in a way which ensures that—
(a)regulatory action is taken only when it is needed, and
(b)any action taken is proportionate.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/20/section/108/enacted

[Jack_]

594512844407894016

594508048632283137

yaaaaasssss :clap1: even more of a Ronnie fan than I already was now, what a great man

[Shaun]

what a guy

[Tom4784]

I'm sick of getting a lot of **** through my letterbox every morning, I live in a marginal constituency so everywhere you go you get harassed by campaigners and leaflets.

I'm getting quite irked with it all.

[arista]

Farage is on Marr now

Then Its Clegg

[joeysteele]

Farage is on Marr now

Then Its Clegg

Do you know, I really think Nigel Farage made the best points this morning. He was so right to suggest with 4 days left, can there be discussion as to the 'issues' of policy in the election rather than deals with who after the election.

Absolutely staggering too,from Nick Clegg, after the last tuition fees fiasco,that to Yvette Cooper's question,as to would he vote to increase tuition fees further, he cold not say a firm 'no' to that.
Beyond all belief.

I also have to say,Andrew Marr has now become sadly one of the worst interviewers, he stays on topics that are a waste of time to even start and his programme has gone down dramatically.

[arista]

Do you know, I really think Nigel Farage made the best points this morning. He was so right to suggest with 4 days left, can there be discussion as to the 'issues' of policy in the election rather than deals with who after the election.

Absolutely staggering too,from Nick Clegg, after the last tuition fees fiasco,that to Yvette Cooper's question,as to would he vote to increase tuition fees further, he cold not say a firm 'no' to that.
Beyond all belief.

I also have to say,Andrew Marr has now become sadly one of the worst interviewers, he stays on topics that are a waste of time to even start and his programme has gone down dramatically.


Yes thats why I like to hear Farage

[arista]

Farage is now on SkyNewsHD

[joeysteele]

I was also pleased to learn this morning that Nigel Farage has admitted he got Ed Miliband wrong as to changing his mind on an EU referendum.

His addition to that because he didn't, has made any agreements between those two parties impossible, I think Nigel Farage is actually slightly disappointed as to that.

[arista]

CNN now
UK Election Debate

In or Out of Europe


UKIP , Labour, LibDem
Conservative there


They have LCD touch screen votings

Repeated at 10:30PM

[Kizzy]

you know, I'm feeling pretty confident that the other parties will work together to keep the toxic tories locked out.
If you look at the legislation that's been rushed through and has achieved assent in the last year its clear why they should never be let back in.

[Kizzy]

Financial crisis not caused by Labour over-spending, says top Treasury official

Patrick Wintour Patrick Wintour
Sir Nicholas Macpherson, the permanent secretary to the Treasury, has argued that the 2008 financial crisis was “a banking crisis pure and simple”, contradicting Conservative claims that it was caused by Labour over-spending, Patrick Wintour reports.

[Macpherson’s] surprising remarks come after Ed Miliband came under pressure on a leader’s question time debate last week that Labour government had overspent, a view strengthened by the notorious letter left by the former Liam Byrne treasury chief secretary to his successor saying there is “no money left”.

In a largely challenging review of Mr Osborne’s Economic Experiment, a book by William Keegan, the Observer economics columnist, Macpherson wrote “some of Keegan’s book resonates. The 2008 crisis was a banking crisis pure and simple. Excessive risk had built up in the system; the regulators failed to appreciate the scale of that risk or to address it.

“As he puts it, it was ‘a failure of the Group of Seven economic policymaking establishment’, myself included. Inevitably, countries with bigger banking sectors, notably the UK, were worse affected.”

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2015/may/03/election-2015-live-nick-clegg-and-nigel-farage-interviewed-on-the-andrew-marr-show#block-55463e7fe4b0fc4f1b18c06b

[bots]

It was the labour party that over spent, selling off all our assets that made it an event we couldn't cope with. Simple.

[joeysteele]

Financial crisis not caused by Labour over-spending, says top Treasury official

Patrick Wintour Patrick Wintour
Sir Nicholas Macpherson, the permanent secretary to the Treasury, has argued that the 2008 financial crisis was “a banking crisis pure and simple”, contradicting Conservative claims that it was caused by Labour over-spending, Patrick Wintour reports.

[Macpherson’s] surprising remarks come after Ed Miliband came under pressure on a leader’s question time debate last week that Labour government had overspent, a view strengthened by the notorious letter left by the former Liam Byrne treasury chief secretary to his successor saying there is “no money left”.

In a largely challenging review of Mr Osborne’s Economic Experiment, a book by William Keegan, the Observer economics columnist, Macpherson wrote “some of Keegan’s book resonates. The 2008 crisis was a banking crisis pure and simple. Excessive risk had built up in the system; the regulators failed to appreciate the scale of that risk or to address it.

“As he puts it, it was ‘a failure of the Group of Seven economic policymaking establishment’, myself included. Inevitably, countries with bigger banking sectors, notably the UK, were worse affected.”

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2015/may/03/election-2015-live-nick-clegg-and-nigel-farage-interviewed-on-the-andrew-marr-show#block-55463e7fe4b0fc4f1b18c06b

He is right.
You know Kizzy,I wanted to vote Conservative in 2010,however I never blamed Labour for the financial crisis, I just felt they had run out of steam and I was disappointed with Gordon Brown's performance as PM.
Anyway like you, for my sins I voted Lib Dem in the end mainly because of tuition fees.

In both elections after 1997 however, in 2001 and 2005,both under William Hague and Michael Howard, the Conservatives said they would keep to Labour's spending plans if they had won those elections.
So little would have been different once the crash came likely anyway.

Where they differred before 2008,was once David Cameron became leader in 2005, he and the Conservative opposition then felt that the Labour govt; was actually regulating the Banks 'too much'!!

I do criticise heavily Gordon Brown for selling off the gold reserves,they would have certainly offset some of the effects of the crash,he also made bad decisions as to pension funds too.

By the same token to be fair, the Conservative govts; of the 80s sold off the public utilities very cheaply too,gas, electricity and water.
It seesm to be a problem govts; have as to getting really good and the very best deals..

There would have been the same crash, the same massive recession,the same baling out of the Banks and subsequently some really enormous mess and task for the nex govt; after the financial crisis hit globally.
Whoever had been in,would have left chaos in 2010.

It may well have been under the Conservatives, more human cost as to massively high unemployment,rather than a financial mess but some really nasty situation would have been left no matter what govt; had been in power.
No way could I have seen the Conservatives letting the Banks go to the wall and the massive fears ensuing for savers funds and other customers accounts.

I think Liam Byrne's letter was a stupid thing to even write by anyone for any new govt; to see, however to have someone like Lib Dem. David Laws highlighting that at the time was equally a sick joke too.

Govts' get it wrong, I do think myself, with 11 unbroken years of growth and no hint of recession,despite their spending between 1997 to 2007,really Labour should have,and were in the position to, planning more for any bad times that may come.

That was a failure on their part but no way did I blame Labour for the crash itself,(I don't think any so called brilliant forward looking worldwide financial institutions even saw that banking crisis coming either), and I doubt much of any planning for bad times would have avoided the massive effects of the crash and recession that came from it.
It didn't help,I admit, that they didn't prepare for times like that 'possibly happening' however.

[bots]

He is right.
You know Kizzy,I wanted to vote Conservative in 2010,however I never blamed Labour for the financial crisis, I just felt they had run out of steam and I was disappointed with Gordon Brown's performance as PM.
Anyway like you, for my sins I voted Lib Dem in the end mainly because of tuition fees.

In both elections after 1997 however, in 2001 and 2005,both under William Hague and Michael Howard, the Conservatives said they would keep to Labour's spending plans if they had won those elections.
So little would have been different once the crash came likely anyway.

Where they differred before 2008,was once David Cameron became leader in 2005, he and the Conservative opposition then felt that the Labour govt; was actually regulating the Banks 'too much'!!

I do criticise heavily Gordon Brown for selling off the gold reserves,they would have certainly offset some of the effects of the crash,he also made bad decisions as to pension funds too.

By the same token to be fair, the Conservative govts; of the 80s sold off the public utilities very cheaply too,gas, electricity and water.
It seesm to be a problem govts; have as to getting really good and the very best deals..

There would have been the same crash, the same massive recession,the same baling out of the Banks and subsequently some really enormous mess and task for the nex govt; after the financial crisis hit globally.
Whoever had been in,would have left chaos in 2010.

It may well have been under the Conservatives, more human cost as to massively high unemployment,rather than a financial mess but some really nasty situation would have been left no matter what govt; had been in power.
No way could I have seen the Conservatives letting the Banks go to the wall and the massive fears ensuing for savers funds and other customers accounts.

I think Liam Byrne's letter was a stupid thing to even write by anyone for any new govt; to see, however to have someone like Lib Dem. David Laws highlighting that at the time was equally a sick joke too.

Govts' get it wrong, I do think myself, with 11 unbroken years of growth and no hint of recession,despite their spending between 1997 to 2007,really Labour should have,and were in the position to, planning more for any bad times that may come.

That was a failure on their part but no way did I blame Labour for the crash itself,(I don't think any so called brilliant forward looking worldwide financial institutions even saw that banking crisis coming either), and I doubt much of any planning for bad times would have avoided the massive effects of the crash and recession that came from it.
It didn't help,I admit, that they didn't prepare for times like that 'possibly happening' however.

Pretty balanced summary I think

I was angry at the qt debate last week when Ed failed to acknowledge this misspending. In an ideal world we would have both parties modifying their proposals such that they don't over spend or underspend, but it seems that will never happen. Given that, while we have a massive deficit, I personally am more comfortable with an underspend as that will at least get us back to an equilibrium where continuous overspending won't.

If there was a genuine protest party that didn't have the sinister under currents that UKIP has, I think all those undecided and disillusioned potential voters would flock to it. At the moment there just isn't a real alternative and to me that is what is wanted at this time

[Kizzy]

What misspending? Does the opinion of Mcpherson not trump that of the sun?
Maybe Labour should focus more on the misselling of current and past conservative govts instead of proactive forward thinking?

[joeysteele]

Pretty balanced summary I think

I was angry at the qt debate last week when Ed failed to acknowledge this misspending. In an ideal world we would have both parties modifying their proposals such that they don't over spend or underspend, but it seems that will never happen. Given that, while we have a massive deficit, I personally am more comfortable with an underspend as that will at least get us back to an equilibrium where continuous overspending won't.

If there was a genuine protest party that didn't have the sinister under currents that UKIP has, I think all those undecided and disillusioned potential voters would flock to it. At the moment there just isn't a real alternative and to me that is what is wanted at this time



Thank you for that.

I also agree totally with the part of the post in bold.

[user104658]

If there was a genuine protest party that didn't have the sinister under currents that UKIP has, I think all those undecided and disillusioned potential voters would flock to it. At the moment there just isn't a real alternative and to me that is what is wanted at this time

Yes, there is a reason that the SNP are expected to get 90% (or maybe even more) of Scotland's 59 seats, and this is a pretty huge part of it. People are completely disillusioned with the Con/Lab endless seesaw and are being offered a real alternative with a very different vision.

[Kizzy]

nhw5RHvPalk

[joeysteele]

Yes, there is a reason that the SNP are expected to get 90% (or maybe even more) of Scotland's 59 seats, and this is a pretty huge part of it. People are completely disillusioned with the Con/Lab endless seesaw and are being offered a real alternative with a very different vision.

I agree with that and even in northern areas of England I have been to, many would like to see what happens with a result, as is being expected from the polls.

Somehow,it may be that Labour can still do better than the polling suggests in Scotland.
They will lose seats heavily and badly but in polling,it is generally assumed the rise of SNP support ad the fall of Labour support will be the same in all seats across the Nation.

However,many Labour MPs have likely strong personal votes,so I can see them scraping home in more seats than would be expected from the polling.
I am sure the SNP will stack up vote after vote in the seats they already have and I am certain they will romp home in Lib Dem held seats.

Although,I still cannot see the Scots voting out Charles Kennedy for the Lib Dems,he did after all vote against going into this coalition and must have a really strong personal vote up there.

All eyes will be on Scotland however,no doubt as to Thursdays results.
What feeling do you get Toy Soldier?

[arista]

Scottish Labour Leader with Izzy Izzard
in Glasgow
got protesters stopping them.

[joeysteele]

Scottish Labour with Izzy Izzard
in Glasgow
got protesters stopping them.

Actually that doesn't do politics any credit.

Candidates should be able to speak and protesters then protest before/afterwards or challenge them via questioning and the odd bit of heckling.

Ugly scenes of pushing and ignorance, do no one any service at all and certainly not the area or Country it takes place in either.

One would hope all parties, will condemn this,because it is something that should not be tolerated, no door should be opened to this kind of behaviour, if people moan at politicians.(all politicians of all parties), not going out and facing them,then attack them like this and act like animals,then politics is really doomed in this Country.

I believe in civilised protest and discontent, not this kind of aggression it seems occurred here today.

I wouldn't blame the SNP,I understand there are good pockets of really strong socialist acivists in Scotland, who genuinely feel that Labour has never really delivered for them in govt;,and also turned their back on even now.
As was said today,the move from Labour really took hold in 2011 at the Holyrood elections,Labour was high in the polls in the UK but underperformed in those Holyrood elections.
Until the SNP really badly slip up, this is how it is going to be likely there now.

[Kizzy]

Russell Brand backs Labour and Ed Miliband :cheer2:

Come on yoof! time to vote :D

[arista]

and he backs Greens

[joeysteele]

and he backs Greens

One Green only in Brighton, Labour everywhere else as to England.

Actually I rate caroline Lucas for the Greens too.

Good on him for coming out now ,after saying to masses of people don't vote at all before, it shows even the most ardent non voter can have their mind changed.

[bots]

Doesn't say a lot for his previous conviction not to vote when he can have his mind changed after a 2 minute chat. All a bit contrived and silly if you ask me

[Kizzy]

Needs must when the devil drives.

[Jack_]

So happy that the Trews teaser video was right and Russell's backing Labour :D

Robert Webb tweeted the video as well and Caroline Flack retweeted it, all these celebs who aren't Tories :clap1:

[Kizzy]

It's on my trews thread Jack :D

[MTVN]

Doesn't say a lot for his previous conviction not to vote when he can have his mind changed after a 2 minute chat. All a bit contrived and silly if you ask me

Well exactly, Brand's great revolution becomes 'vote for one of the main two parties' after a short interview where Brand actually did most of the talking over Miliband. Genuinely radical activists must think the man is a total tool. I'd think the whole thing was some sort of long-winded stunt if it wasn't for the fact that he's publicly urged for people to vote after the deadline to register has passed and he's been telling all his followers for the last couple of years how pointless voting is

[joeysteele]

For me, it is always a good thing to try to work out and understand why someone doesn't think voting does any good.
Ed Miliband has clearly helped achieve what would have been maybe considered an impossibility.

The one thing I hope is, that should Labour win enough to be the govt; on Thursday,that he does keep his word,I think he will but I do hope he will too.

No one can measure what success if any comes from Russell's statement and endorsement today,he has felt convinced enough with meeting Ed Miliband,to not only endorse Labour but suggest others vote Labour too.

Russell Brand has, love or hate him, a massive following, so I say again, well done to Miliband for meeting up with him and talking to him.
Anything that helps in any way to turn around someone against voting into getting them to consider doing so let alone do it,warrants praise not condemnation.

I am also still really pleased that Miliband went to see him after the voting deadline registration had passed as he would have had all sorts of 'pulling stunts' accusations thrown at him, had he done so.

[Kazanne]

Who really would vote for someone just because they are a celebrity(kind of)? C'mon ,lol,that's really desperate,so people are saying labour will win,not due to their policies etc,but because Brand told them too,sorry that's a pretty weak party imo.

[joeysteele]

Who really would vote for someone just because they are a celebrity(kind of)? C'mon ,lol,that's really desperate,so people are saying labour will win,not due to their policies etc,but because Brand told them too,sorry that's a pretty weak party imo.

No, I certainly wouldn't say that,however Russell Brand does have a very large following of people who in the main follow what he says and does.

I prefer celebrities to keep out of things,however we have had Ant and Dec sticking the knife in Miliband,last election we had Gary Barlow doing so as to Brown.

What I like about this is,that someone who is in the public eye,has said repeatedly, people shouldn't bother voting as it likely changes nothing.
From a discussion with a party leader and it could have been any party leader really.
A almost definite non voter has become a voter and he has now retracted his statement of people shouldn't vote.

Anything at all,in my view, that helps gets anyone to vote that wasn't going to, is for me only good for politics.
No matter who the people then vote for.
This may have some effect, little effect or no effect at all but at least hopefully more people voting could be a result.

It saddens me that more politicians don't make greater efforts as to trying to persuade likely non voters to vote, instead of thinking they can rely on their usual voters trooping out, most taken for granted, election after election, to see them through.

If more was done to find out why people didn't vote, and more was done to address it, we may get far better government in the UK,no matter the result of elections.

Anyway, Delia Smith has also endorsed Labour today, well she could do a lot for the worn out foot weary troops and bake loads of cakes to give out to them to eat,as they go about leafleting and canvassing.
That would be a good practical help.:joker:

[Kazanne]

No, I certainly wouldn't say that,however Russell Brand does have a very large following of people who in the main follow what he says and does.

I prefer celebrities to keep out of things,however we have had Ant and Dec sticking the knife in Miliband,last election we had Gary Barlow doing so as to Brown.

What I like about this is,that someone who is in the public eye,has said repeatedly, people shouldn't bother voting as it likely changes nothing.
From a discussion with a party leader and it could have been any party leader really.
A almost definite non voter has become a voter and he has now retracted his statement of people shouldn't vote.

Anything at all,in my view, that helps gets anyone to vote that wasn't going to, is for me only good for politics.
No matter who the people then vote for.
This may have some effect, little effect or no effect at all but at least hopefully more people voting could be a result.

It saddens me that more politicians don't make greater efforts as to trying to persuade likely non voters to vote, instead of thinking they can rely on their usual voters trooping out, most taken for granted, election after election, to see them through.

If more was done to find out why people didn't vote, and more was done to address it, we may get far better government in the UK,no matter the result of elections.

Anyway, Delia Smith has also endorsed Labour today, well she could do a lot for the worn out foot weary troops and bake loads of cakes to give out to them to eat,as they go about leafleting and canvassing.
That would be a good practical help.:joker:

:joker:I saw Delia Joey,are you getting excited about it all now?I must say I will be watching it throughout the night,I might have to have Friday off work,:-) I never saw the Gary Barlow ,Ant and Dec thing,just seen that Russle Brand has been pretty vocal,anyway good luck with it all,I will keep my fingers crossed for my boy,IF Milliband gets in,I hope he doesn't let you down even worse the country,anyway enjoy xx

[joeysteele]

:joker:I saw Delia Joey,are you getting excited about it all now?I must say I will be watching it throughout the night,I might have to have Friday off work,:-) I never saw the Gary Barlow ,Ant and Dec thing,just seen that Russle Brand has been pretty vocal,anyway good luck with it all,I will keep my fingers crossed for my boy,IF Milliband gets in,I hope he doesn't let you down even worse the country,anyway enjoy xx

Excited definitely but I have met some amazing people and had incredible conversations.
Most of them probably will not even be voting but if I have managed to persuade even one,it is progress.

Hard to work this one out,the Midlands is very hard to work out and that was my home area,They give very little away.

I am excited, determined but who knows really, I may not end up getting all I hoped for but I have done, and will continue to give as much of my all trying to.
I've no fears of Ed Miliband letting me down,his policies are easy to implement and succeed in,he hasn't over promised.:joker:

[bots]

If no-one else is going to say it, I will - Russell and Delia - a recipe for disaster :laugh:

[Kizzy]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CD1vRD-WIAAZXYo.jpg:large
Come on Kaz, you would... :joker:

https://twitter.com/cooledmiliband

[arista]

https://scontent-lhr.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/11026293_10152838836373017_5439375925679502389_n.p ng?oh=a7c498f08b7ecb745d2b8a3d4ff8786e&oe=55E116D6

[Kizzy]

Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us, and lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil.

Wise words?.....

[arista]

From todays Daily Politics

The Bow Group
is backing Conservative
and UKIP in South Thanet

[arista]

[Independent Newspaper Backs
Conservative-Lib Dem Coalition
The newspaper gives surprise praise to David Cameron
and Nick Clegg and says Labour propped up by the SNP would be "a disaster".]

http://news.sky.com/story/1477664/independent-backs-tory-lib-dem-coalition


A Very Wise Paper

[Kazanne]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CD1vRD-WIAAZXYo.jpg:large
Come on Kaz, you would... :joker:

https://twitter.com/cooledmiliband

:joker: No I wouldn't Kizzy,I don't like his eyes:joker:

[joeysteele]

[Independent Newspaper Backs
Conservative-Lib Dem Coalition
The newspaper gives surprise praise to David Cameron
and Nick Clegg and says Labour propped up by the SNP would be "a disaster".]

http://news.sky.com/story/1477664/independent-backs-tory-lib-dem-coalition


A Very Wise Paper

They may come to regret this, I read the Independent,I am not happy at their stance this time round,I always liked that they usually keep fairly neutral.

I understand there were rumblings of great doubt at the offices of the paper as to doing this.
They do stress they want a much stronger Liberal orientated coalition, they are in no way endorsing the Conservatives, they actually criticise heavily the Conservatives.
However as was seen last time, the Lib Dems will cave in to have any share of power.
I think the Independent has made a very big error here.

Personally it doesn't bother me,the press are losing more and more of any influence they likely ever had before, that is the real good thing about politics now.

[arista]

They may come to regret this, I read the Independent,I am not happy at their stance this time round,I always liked that they usually keep fairly neutral.

I understand there were rumblings of great doubt at the offices of the paper as to doing this.
They do stress they want a much stronger Liberal orientated coalition, they are in no way endorsing the Conservatives, they actually criticise heavily the Conservatives.
However as was seen last time, the Lib Dems will cave in to have any share of power.
I think the Independent has made a very big error here.

Personally it doesn't bother me,the press are losing more and more of any influence they likely ever had before, that is the real good thing about politics now.


Yes a Great Paper
that does not want Chaos of Labour-SNP

[MTVN]

I agree with much of the editorial tbh. Really its more an endorsement of the Lib Dems for their moderating impact on the Conservatives and for offering the best hope of a stable coalition which would ideally be a lot more liberal the second time around. It might not prove very wise by them though given its struggles with readership anyway and most those who do buy it tend to be left of centre with a lot of Labour voters amongst them