[Nedusa]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

Well for me, we have a PM of the largest party in the coalition,that has misled and lied to the voters as to his real intentions from what he promised them he would and wouldn't do in 2010.

We have a Deputy PM, the leader of the other party in the coalition that not only misled and lied to the voters but totally kicked them in the teeth for their trust and support.

One thing Ed Miliband has not been shown to do is lie to the voters as to his intentions in govt:

So even just on that basis for me,before looking at anything else, these 2 deserve to go and he deserves the chance to prove himself, just as they had the chance and then betrayed that chance,even going as far as to abusing the power they got along the way too.

"With respect, Joey, he was a part of the Treasury that oversaw the dismantling of our economy, world recession or not. The whole dismal episode was handled appallingly by Labour, and now we're to trust this man and Ed Balls - who was also in the Treasury - with our economy that's just starting to struggle back to its feet? And furthermore, Ed Miliband shafted his brother to get the job. I think Labour would be in a much stronger position with David Miliband at the helm instead of Ed, who frankly looks like Cain. We'll see..."


I can truths in both these posts and I think that is the reason this election will be the most difficult to call in years.

I prefer Camerons style over Miliband but prefer Miliband's substance over Cameron so is it style over substance or the other way round.

Actually I agree with Livia's point about the other Miliband brother David whom many saw as the next Labour leader. I'm sure Ed's heart and soul are in the right place but he looks ill at ease in the job he is in at the moment let alone the PM's job where he would be running the Country.

I do actually think Joey is right when he suggests Labour will win the most seats but not an overall Majority so am looking forward to see what kind of Coalition results.

As for Mr Cameron saying he doesnt want to serve a 3rd term as Prime Minister, well how arrogantly stupid is he for saying that.

He hasn't even served one term as a PM of a majority Conservative Govt..who does he think he is... Tony Bliar

[Nedusa]

Not sure how to post with two previous Quotes.........does anyone know how to do this as I see people do this all the time.

[Z]

Originally Posted by Nedusa

Not sure how to post with two previous Quotes.........does anyone know how to do this as I see people do this all the time.

Click the MQ button next to the Quote button on the posts you want to quote and then when you come to the last one you want to quote, click Quote and all of them will appear in a blank Reply to Thread post

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Nedusa

"With respect, Joey, he was a part of the Treasury that oversaw the dismantling of our economy, world recession or not. The whole dismal episode was handled appallingly by Labour, and now we're to trust this man and Ed Balls - who was also in the Treasury - with our economy that's just starting to struggle back to its feet? And furthermore, Ed Miliband shafted his brother to get the job. I think Labour would be in a much stronger position with David Miliband at the helm instead of Ed, who frankly looks like Cain. We'll see..."


I can truths in both these posts and I think that is the reason this election will be the most difficult to call in years.

I prefer Camerons style over Miliband but prefer Miliband's substance over Cameron so is it style over substance or the other way round.

Actually I agree with Livia's point about the other Miliband brother David whom many saw as the next Labour leader. I'm sure Ed's heart and soul are in the right place but he looks ill at ease in the job he is in at the moment let alone the PM's job where he would be running the Country.

I do actually think Joey is right when he suggests Labour will win the most seats but not an overall Majority so am looking forward to see what kind of Coalition results.

As for Mr Cameron saying he doesnt want to serve a 3rd term as Prime Minister, well how arrogantly stupid is he for saying that.

He hasn't even served one term as a PM of a majority Conservative Govt..who does he think he is... Tony Bliar

Hi nedusa.
He hasn't lied though Nedusa, that was my point,he was as you rightly point out, part of a govt; at that time, not leading one.

I am prepared to give at times some leeway when a crisis hits.
That financial crisis, the recession and near banking collapse,would have sent any govt; probably spinning as to what was best to do.
Miliband only became an MP in 2005,when that crisis hit and hit everywhere almost, no matter what govts; other countries had, he had only been in parliament for around 3 years.

If making misguided or poor decisions was something that in future barred polticians from being in govt; again or becoming PM then there would in reality, likely be no politicians left to do so.

I accept this govt; has made misguided and poor decisions too,that is not what I hold against them ,it is the fact that both the leaders lied to the voters, and misled them as to what they intended to do.
Miliband has set out his aims, they are aims I can support and thus far he has not been able to with power, show if he would stick to those aims and do the things he says Labour will,the way they are set out.
So for me, I am happy to give him that chance, these liars can clear off for me.
Deliberate misleading of the voters and lying to them as to intentions in order to get their votes is something I would take really seriously.
If they have done it once, they will do it again.

Govts; make mistakes,I accept that but telling blatant lies,for me, should see them out of office once it is clear they have done so, as with the Lib Dems on vat, tuition fees and how they have supported horrendous policiesa s to welfare reform.

For Cameron too, his staring blatant lie as to no top down re-organisation of the NHS is totally for me ,unforgivable.
he also hid the more extreme elements of welfare reform from the voters too and he is trying to do so again,since he needs to find 12 billion more cuts to welfare to balance his policy statements as to the economy.

You see, I am not sure David Miliband would be doing much better, he would have come with the Iraq baggage as I said on another thread, he would be being constantly questioned as to that and the delay of this inquiry into the Iraq war being published too.
Ed Miliband was not even an MP when the vote was taken to go into Iraq.

It seems odd that someone would take on their brother but in politics you have to sieze the chances when they come.
It no doubt at all shows a ruthless streak to achieve the things he believes in, that may show how determined too he will be to make sure as a PM, that Labour get it right this time in govt:
Frankly I wouldn't have had either Miliband as leader, also however I think all the main party leaders are really bad this time round,except for Nicola Sturgeon of the SNP, and then if Alex Salmond heads the SNP in the next parliament, he will be a another good leading influence in my view.

I will be very happy to see a minority Labour led govt; supported by the SNP on crucial voting in the commons.
That would make for stability and I think a fairer, better and far more compassionate govt; where compassion needs to be shown.

[Kizzy]

Thankyou Joey I can always count on you to be the voice of truth, logic and reason.

The issue regarding the Milliband brothers is a non starter, if your politics differ from your brothers even whilst working for the same party then you are as opposed as two strangers.
It takes more courage to stick to your principles and stand against your brother for what you believe is right for me.
If David had won there would be the same cries of traitor as he would also be constantly accused of shafting Ed wouldn't he?
The fact he scuttled off after shows he didn't really have the countries interests at heart or he would be here now aiding his brother to rid us of the scourge of the tories.

[the truth]

I think both miliblands were useless.....they've learnt nothing. honestly any remotely charismatic labour leader should beable to crush the tories after 5 years of austerity but milibland will probably lose a seemingly un-losable election.

[Kizzy]

What do you want, him juggling chainsaws while tightrope walking with flaming torches sticking out of his crack?

At least reserve judgement until after the debates.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by the truth

I think both miliblands were useless.....they've learnt nothing. honestly any remotely charismatic labour leader should beable to crush the tories after 5 years of austerity but milibland will probably lose a seemingly un-losable election.

A bit unfair, this election should not even have had Labour in the running to win it, it is rare any party after losing an election can come back in one go,
It has only happened once since the war,Labour losing power in 1970 then returning,albeit just, in 1974.

However the only person who has in fact failed to win a comfortable majority in an election that should have been a walkover to do so, is David Cameron in 2010, with in total disarray the Labour govt; 13 years in power and a disastrous elecrion campaign too for them.
Yet Cameron failed to even come close to an overall majority.

[the truth]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

A bit unfair, this election should not even have had Labour in the running to win it, it is rare any party after losing an election can come back in one go,
It has only happened once since the war,Labour losing power in 1970 then returning,albeit just, in 1974.

However the only person who has in fact failed to win a comfortable majority in an election that should have been a walkover to do so, is David Cameron in 2010, with in total disarray the Labour govt; 13 years in power and a disastrous elecrion campaign too for them.
Yet Cameron failed to even come close to an overall majority.

new labour created an army of over 5 million people who would never work abd would always be on benefits who would always vote labour. they also moved some boundaries. its also important to note they had a huge majority going into those elections.....however this time around whilst they should be winning they will probably end up losing. today was a MAJOR disaster for milibland. whereas the tories have done nothing for the working classes too

[Kizzy]

No.... Thatcher created welfare dependency when she removed industry from Britain.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by the truth

new labour created an army of over 5 million people who would never work abd would always be on benefits who would always vote labour. they also moved some boundaries. its also important to note they had a huge majority going into those elections.....however this time around whilst they should be winning they will probably end up losing. today was a MAJOR disaster for milibland. whereas the tories have done nothing for the working classes too

I disagree with just about all that,plenty unemployed were created and lives wasted for decades from the Conservative govts of 1983 onwards.

Labour if it had such votes as you say, it didn't do them any good in the 1983,1987 and 1992 elections.

I also think you may actually be surprised at the number of people you call on benefits,who acually don't vote Labour at all.

AS for boundary changes, they rarely benefit Labour anyway.
Labour's 65+ overall majority in 2005, would have been reduced to around 55 after the boundary changes done in that parliament.
Also had the Lib Dems not blocked the boundary changes laid out in this parliament, that would have reduced the seats Labour had again as prospective holds.

Boundary changes as I said, rarely,if ever are to Labour's benefit at all.

[Kizzy]

How about changing the boundries on elections so you can fleece the country for an extra year?

[the truth]

[QUOTE=joeysteele;7658854]I disagree with just about all that,plenty unemployed were created and lives wasted for decades from the Conservative govts of 1983 onwards.

Labour if it had such votes as you say, it didn't do them any good in the 1983,1987 and 1992 elections.-
neil kinnock never had a chance , theyd bankrupted the nation the unions out of control again, he was also considered too bald too ginger and too welsh

I also think you may actually be surprised at the number of people you call on benefits,who acually don't vote Labour at all.
-pls provide evidence of this? it contradicts all my findings
AS for boundary changes, they rarely benefit Labour anyway.
Labour's 65+ overall majority in 2005, would have been reduced to around 55 after the boundary changes done in that parliament.
Also had the Lib Dems not blocked the boundary changes laid out in this parliament, that would have reduced the seats Labour had again as prospective holds.

Boundary changes as I said, rarely,if ever are to Labour's benefit at all

that's simply untrue

from the 2005 general election, when Tony Blair’s Labour won 35.2 per cent of the popular vote, compared to 32.4 per cent for the Conservatives.

Despite the fact that the difference between the total votes cast for both parties were very small, Labour ended up with 355 seats and the Tories got just 198. That’s 55 per cent compared to 30 per cent.

[Kizzy]

Didn't the tories attempt this a while ago?...

How would different parts of the UK be affected?
Under the plans, Wales would lose 10 seats, Scotland would lose seven seats, Northern Ireland two seats and England 31 seats.
The figures for English regions are given below (percentage reductions in brackets):
North East to lose three seats (-10%)
North West to lose seven seats (-9%)
West Midlands to lose five seats (-8%)
Yorkshire and the Humber to lose four seats (-7%)
London to lose five seats (-7%)
South West to lose two seats (-4%)
East Midlands to lose two seats (-4%)
Eastern England to lose to seats (-3%)
South East to lose one seat (-1%).

Note how the areas affected are not tory strongholds.....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19166125

Good job they failed

'Plans to redraw constituency boundaries before 2015, backed by the Tories, have been defeated in the House of Commons.
MPs voted by 334 to 292 to accept changes made by peers, meaning the planned constituency shake-up will be postponed until 2018 at the earliest.
It was the first time Lib Dem ministers have voted against their Conservative coalition colleagues in the Commons.'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21235169

[the truth]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Didn't the tories attempt this a while ago?...

How would different parts of the UK be affected?
Under the plans, Wales would lose 10 seats, Scotland would lose seven seats, Northern Ireland two seats and England 31 seats.
The figures for English regions are given below (percentage reductions in brackets):
North East to lose three seats (-10%)
North West to lose seven seats (-9%)
West Midlands to lose five seats (-8%)
Yorkshire and the Humber to lose four seats (-7%)
London to lose five seats (-7%)
South West to lose two seats (-4%)
East Midlands to lose two seats (-4%)
Eastern England to lose to seats (-3%)
South East to lose one seat (-1%).

Note how the areas affected are not tory strongholds.....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19166125

Good job they failed

'Plans to redraw constituency boundaries before 2015, backed by the Tories, have been defeated in the House of Commons.
MPs voted by 334 to 292 to accept changes made by peers, meaning the planned constituency shake-up will be postponed until 2018 at the earliest.
It was the first time Lib Dem ministers have voted against their Conservative coalition colleagues in the Commons.'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21235169

labour have always done it too and as my facts prove the voting boundaries suit labour more than anyone

[Kizzy]

Sorry, which facts are these?

[Kizzy]

Here is how it split as of 2010..
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/swingometer-map

Area demographic ( select your own area)
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/leedswest/

[Nedusa]

Originally Posted by Z

Click the MQ button next to the Quote button on the posts you want to quote and then when you come to the last one you want to quote, click Quote and all of them will appear in a blank Reply to Thread post

Thanks Z .....

[joeysteele]

[QUOTE=the truth;7659029]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

I disagree with just about all that,plenty unemployed were created and lives wasted for decades from the Conservative govts of 1983 onwards.

Labour if it had such votes as you say, it didn't do them any good in the 1983,1987 and 1992 elections.-
neil kinnock never had a chance , theyd bankrupted the nation the unions out of control again, he was also considered too bald too ginger and too welsh

I also think you may actually be surprised at the number of people you call on benefits,who acually don't vote Labour at all.
-pls provide evidence of this? it contradicts all my findings
AS for boundary changes, they rarely benefit Labour anyway.
Labour's 65+ overall majority in 2005, would have been reduced to around 55 after the boundary changes done in that parliament.
Also had the Lib Dems not blocked the boundary changes laid out in this parliament, that would have reduced the seats Labour had again as prospective holds.

Boundary changes as I said, rarely,if ever are to Labour's benefit at all

that's simply untrue

from the 2005 general election, when Tony Blair’s Labour won 35.2 per cent of the popular vote, compared to 32.4 per cent for the Conservatives.

Despite the fact that the difference between the total votes cast for both parties were very small, Labour ended up with 355 seats and the Tories got just 198. That’s 55 per cent compared to 30 per cent.

This may be massive mistake on my part and a waste of my time but here goes anyway.

What a shocking thing to describe as reasons for Neil Kinnock not becoming PM.

There is one thing I would ahve admired about him and that was he took his party by the scruff of the neck and gave it a good shaking.
Something the Conservatives need from a leader too, to get rid of the noisy and disruptive nasty element of its party,which has got worse under this leader.

The boundary changes near always reduce the seats in the areas where Labour are strongest, that is a fact.
On the daily politics at the time the boundary changes were being debated, the concensus was that if they went through,labour would ahve an even harder job to win and the Conservatives badly needed the boundary changes in place.
The Lib Dems blocked them being done.

AS to the 2005 election, a major change came about in 1997,in my view,a change that removed the Conservatives as the 'natural' party of power and saw the Conservatives swept away.
Why they did so badly in 2005, was because Labour had that massive build up of votes that fell to them in 1997 and therefore only needed to be virtually level with the Conservatives to gain an overall majority.
Nothing to do with boundary changes.
The other factor to the 2005 election was that in 2 elections from losing in 1997, and 3 other leaders on from John Major, in that time, the Conservatives could only add less than 2% to the votes they got in a general election.
Rising from just under 31% in 1997 to just under 33% in 2005.

In a whole 8 years they only added 2% at best to their votes won at the 1997 election.
That is why they failed to get over 200 seats in 2005,their failure to attract votes despite Labour's vote plummeting too to hust over 35%.
Their votes going to the Lib Dems who were then able to make greater inroads to and take more Conservative seats.

AS for some on benefits not voting Labour, many went over to the Lib Dems and many vote Green too,I say that because I have been involved with people with benefit problems and when we get on to politics, I have been surprised how many do not vote Labour.
I don't have to prove anything to you just as we rarely get anything of substance to back up what you say which brings me to another point.

The state of the area you live in should be visited by all politicians of all parties I think, it seems from what you say, there are jobs a plenty,no one needs to be out of work, the jobs are good jobs and the only blight on the landscape is that near all who work in the NHS are useless and finally people on benefits when they needn't be, spoil things by voting Labour.

It seems,with all due respect from what you keep saying,all the answers to the the whole of the rest of the UK are there in your area,a separate state of Utopia almost.
Set apart from the rest of the UK, as all that goes on there is at odds with what most others find near everywhere else across all corners of the UK.

Finally,I also don't see what being Welsh has to do or should have to do with not getting to be PM of the UK.
Some of the finest politicians have come from Wales and held Welsh seats.

I agree with one thing you said, the Unions did need restraints put on them at the end of the 70s,no disagreement there.

However even as to that now, I think they need less restraints in the light of workers being exploited by short 16 hour weeks or less, and zero hour contracts.
Or do such part time jobs with low hours and zero hour contract jobs not exist too at all where you are.

[Kizzy]

[the truth]

[QUOTE=joeysteele;7659650]

Originally Posted by the truth

This may be massive mistake on my part and a waste of my time but here goes anyway.

What a shocking thing to describe as reasons for Neil Kinnock not becoming PM.

There is one thing I would ahve admired about him and that was he took his party by the scruff of the neck and gave it a good shaking.
Something the Conservatives need from a leader too, to get rid of the noisy and disruptive nasty element of its party,which has got worse under this leader.

The boundary changes near always reduce the seats in the areas where Labour are strongest, that is a fact.
On the daily politics at the time the boundary changes were being debated, the concensus was that if they went through,labour would ahve an even harder job to win and the Conservatives badly needed the boundary changes in place.
The Lib Dems blocked them being done.

AS to the 2005 election, a major change came about in 1997,in my view,a change that removed the Conservatives as the 'natural' party of power and saw the Conservatives swept away.
Why they did so badly in 2005, was because Labour had that massive build up of votes that fell to them in 1997 and therefore only needed to be virtually level with the Conservatives to gain an overall majority.
Nothing to do with boundary changes.
The other factor to the 2005 election was that in 2 elections from losing in 1997, and 3 other leaders on from John Major, in that time, the Conservatives could only add less than 2% to the votes they got in a general election.
Rising from just under 31% in 1997 to just under 33% in 2005.

In a whoole 8 years they only added 2% at best to their votes won at the 1997 election.
That is why they failed to get over 200 seats in 2005,their failure to attract votes despite Labour's vote plummeting too to hust over 35%.
Theru votes going to the Lib Dems who were then able to make greater inroads to and take more Conservative seats.

AS for some on benefits not voting Labour, many went over to the Lib Dems and many vote Green too,I say that because I have been involved with people with benefit problems and when we get on to politics, I have been surprised how many do not vote Labour.
I don't have to prove anything to you just as we rarely get anything of substance to back up what you say which brings me to another point.

The state of the area you live in should be visited by all politicians of all parties I think, it seems from what you say, there are jobs a plenty,no one needs to be out of work, the jobs are good jobs and the only blight on the landscape is that near all who work in the NHS are useless and finally people on benefits when they needn't be, spoil things by voting Labour.

It seems,with all due respect from what you keep saying,all the answers to the the whole of the rest of the UK are there in your area,a separate state of Utopia almost.
Set apart from the rest of the UK, as all that goes on there is at odds with what most others find near everywhere else across all corners of the UK.

Finally,I also don't see what being Welsh has to do or should have to do with not getting to be PM of the UK.
Some of the finest politicians have come from Wales and held Welsh seats.

I agree with one thing you said, the Unions did need restraints put on them at the end of the 70s,no disagreement there.

However even as to that now, I think they need less restraints in the light of workers being exploited by short 16 hour weeks or less, and zero hour contracts.
Or do such part time jobs with low hours and zero hour contract jobs not exist too at all where you are.

The anti Kinnock tabloid campaign was horrific and his welshness his gingerness and his baldness were all used as huge weapons against him.
\that you've chosen to be offended by me saying that is a joke. this is the bigotry that existed and was allowed to be used against him at the time to ultimately destroy his chances of winning the election. \I think overall hed have done a good job. he messed up a few issues including the miners strike but ultimately he was a good man. unlike blair and his revolting new age kronies

[joeysteele]

[QUOTE=the truth;7660871]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

The anti Kinnock tabloid campaign was horrific and his welshness his gingerness and his baldness were all used as huge weapons against him.
\that you've chosen to be offended by me saying that is a joke. this is the bigotry that existed and was allowed to be used against him at the time to ultimately destroy his chances of winning the election. \I think overall hed have done a good job. he messed up a few issues including the miners strike but ultimately he was a good man. unlike blair and his revolting new age kronies

Wow, no disagreement with you at all there the truth ,I would, had I even been born then,(well, I just was when Neil Kinnock lost the 1992 election), taken Neil Kinnock any day over Tony Blair and his New Labour nonsense.
My Dad says Neil Kinnock and his wife Glenys got despicable attacks from the press, although my Dad was then a lifelong Conservative and wouldn't have supported Labour at that time.

[the truth]

[QUOTE=joeysteele;7660890]

Originally Posted by the truth

Wow, no disagreement with you at all there the truth ,I would, had I even been born then,(well, I just was when Neil Kinnock lost the 1992 election), taken Neil Kinnock any day over Tony Blair and his New Labour nonsense.
My Dad says Neil Kinnock and his wife Glenys got despicable attacks from the press, although my Dad was then a lifelong Conservative and wouldn't have supported Labour at that time.

labour were on track to be a proper decent honest socialist party at that time and with john smith. tragically he died and somehow that vile rat bliar was somehow allowed to get his filthy paws on the hands of power. first thing he did was try to ruin the unions further, he did nothing for the collapsed industries or deprived communities nor did he fight vat and the rich got richer the poor got poorer. the only people who hated new labour more than the tories was old labour.