blonde poker forum

GG fella hahahahaha....turn the lights off on your way out son ;djinn;

GG

Was expecting some kind of lunatic angry type, but she seems intelligent and reserved and genuinely upset

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8649174.stm

I like this question:
"Did you expect that from him?"

any footage around of the conversation they had before he got in the car?

What a complete and utter twat he is...

I've just seen a clip, but not the clip where she was actually talking about immigration - from what I saw she did seem a bit mouthy but fairly reasonable. I'd guess at most she used some slang term for Pole's that he picked up on.

Of course he might just be a twat.

FYP

meh - just seems a bit odd that it's all over the news and we're all suppose to think 'Gordon brown is a twat' without actually seeing what sparked it.  If she did, indeed, say something bigoted though I'd have thought he'd have justified his comment rather than withdrawn it.  Would hope so anyway.  So presumably, she didn't.  I've confused myself now.

the link is on the right of the video posted in the 2nd post in this thread

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8649308.stm

its something they all do, just he got caught with his pants down.

The women is a bigot, who the fuk would clean the toilets and do all the shitty jobs if it wasnt for all the eastern european's? it aint the 50's now love.

it wasn't earlier! But got it now, thanks

meh - she didn't say anything derogatory from what I heard, just asked where all the eastern europeans had come flocking from. I'm gonna put my neck out and say 'eastern europe'

I take it you didn't watch the clip then?

I thought the journalists reporting it might have been spinning it for tabloidy purposes, but the general sense they were saying is that if anybody brings up immigration then Brown will think it's because they're bigoted, and having watched the whole clip he was pushing a very thin and tenuous interpretation of what she said to jump to that conclusion - so I think they might be right.

Where are all these Eastern European's coming from though?

Would have been com if Brown had said "Eastern Europe"

FFS Brown.......I've got millions on the hung parliament,....now I've got to cover a Tory Majority ::)

thats the labour line on these topics.

if you want to discuss immigration, islamisation, european union memberships, war of iraq/afganisthan, then you are a bigot/nazi/idiot

Brown on his way back to the lady's house to apology, mass of media on the doorstep..............

.........please please don't answer the door ;D

So excellent. I love the fact the departing Brown snap blamed one of his staff called "Sue" for "putting him with that woman". Yah Gord it's clearly Sue's fault you can't talk to a random old woman without good gaming yourself.

loved Browns hand on head in Vine interview, lol

Serious face-palm. 

Don't think he made a bad chancellor (obviously some would disagree), but he's a terrible front-man for a party/government/country.  Don't think there's time for Labour to replace him before the election though :D

Classic election gaffe of course


I don't even think what she said was bigotted at all.

I might not share the concerns but a lot of people are worried about levels of immigration and to express the concern as mildly as she did and get called out for it is lol


and which spin doctor made him go back to her house? Surely the best strategy is to front up, explain why you think it';s bigotted and fight back!

VizTopTips
 
VOTERS make sure you have cleaned your house before asking Gordon Brown about immigration issues

Is there any possibility of him losing the Labour leadership before the election?

While this really should be the end of his political career it will also be hugely damaging for the Labour party if he remains in charge. He wasn't exactly particularly popular in the first place but this just shows him up as a two faced AAA+ twat and gives Labour an even better chance of third place. Every Labour politician that publicly defends him is showing themselves up too.

Pretty spectacular GG though.

It's not politically possible for the party's good
I don't think it's even technically possible
And anybody who wants to be the next leader will be better off waiting until after the election for their own good

So, No, would be the short answer.

this'll die down before the election methinks. Big own goal obv but like they all don't mutter shit behind closed doors. Will make the next debate quite interesting tho!

Thanks Jon. 

I think the only possible difference it could make is it a better chance of the conservatives getting a majority instead of a hung parliament, but we will see.

lol @ all the people coming out saying what a twat gordon brown is.  how many times have you said something behind somebodies back even if it wasnt based on absolute fact?

I do it all the time, especially about tightend.

I'm certainly no fan of Brown, (Or any of the others for that matter) but I think it's a sad reflection on our country if elections are decided on issues as trivial as this.

It was stupid, and not what the leader of the Labour party should be saying.

Just in case anyone missed it, this is what he said:

Brown: "Oh everything, she was just a sort of bigoted woman. She said she used be Labour. I mean it's just ridiculous."

Say it to my face, I'd respect you more  ;)

I cannot stand the man and agree with the above posts.

I have lolled so much at the number of posters on this thread that you'll find on various other threads giving it the "freedom of speech" blether.

He had a thought about the woman, that she was a bigot (rightly or wrongly) he said so, where's his right to freedom of speech?

Get a life ffs

Geo

Who cares if it helps get rid of Brown I'm all for it..........

I honestly dont see all the fuss.  Is she definitely not a bigot?

What he actually did/said isn't that interesting in itself, but the underlying problem is with his personality and judgement.

Basically if he can be such a tit after such a mild confrontation, how confident can you be that he won't go on political tilt at any political negotiation when something which is actually important is on the line?

I don't think today will change much, he was on his way out anyway..lucky it wasn't Prescott he'd have probably tw@ed her... :)

comparing his private reaction to a woman giving him some abuse and that in a political environment is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard.  

by the way i think he is a wanker.  this doesnt mean that i am unable to perform my duties at work and call people that i dont like wankers!

if it was a BBC mic not a Sky one would we even know about it?

The woman gave him no abuse at all

I wish he had stuck to his guns and explained why she was bigotted, if he thought it


the basic problem he has on this is that, rightly or wrongly (and I happen to be a social liberal on immigration matters), many of his core voters do not like his immigration policy. They'd like less immigration. At a step he derided them as bigots too

I can see your point, but i wonder how reactions would have differed if he had said something more personal.  Is the problem everyone has with his use of the word bigot?  If he had said 'fat woman' or 'ugly woman' would that have been worse of better?

She wasn't a bigot but quite obnoxious

I think the use of the word "bigot" is unfortunate, no idea if worse or better. Worse, I suppose, as it related to her views on immigration. Which are pretty mainstream views in a general public sense, I would wager.

It does appear impossible for the leading politicians to discuss immigration policies fully, sadly.

I don't like that The Sun have reported paid Mrs Duffy £50k for her story tomorrow. Totally ridiculous

He was in a car talking to an aide - he was at work, in a work setting, it's not like he was down the pub talking to friends.

I think it speaks volumes about his judgement and his ability, if he tilts that easily it doesn't exactly inspire confidence that he'll always be making +EV decisions.

can't be true!?  if she gets 50k for that it would break my heart!!

my problem i guess is if this woman was a bigot and he said it he would still be getting a flogging!  

Everybody makes snide remarks at times, just because he is the PM doesnt mean he doesnt do it and just because he does do it doesnt mean he is unable to perform in his role!

at work or down the pub makes no difference to me, i slag more people off at work than i do in the pub!

+1


.....and wow 50K for the story!......enjoy the 15 min of fame!

I don't think this will cost him the election (that ship has sailed)

It's just a gaffe. It's not going to change people's minds. People who are anti-Labour anyway will use it as a stick to beat him with and the news media will come along for the ride but I don't think the historians will point to this incident as being the game changer in 2010.

+1

Personally I think he's a twat, he was a crap chancellor and a crap PM.

His comments today have made no difference to my thoughts on him. He's crap!

I agree

the key issue is whether the vote goes from 27% labour to say 23% (1983 low) and thus gives the Tories more hope of avoiding a hung parliament

Even if it does have an impact on that scale on the Labour vote (which I doubt), you'd assume most deserters will go LibDem..

Summary...with LibDems at 30, Tories still need several % more than current 33-35% to get over the line

Hung Parl still odds on

It's his job to make a persuasive case for his arguments, he shouldn't be calling this woman a bigot in private - he should be explaining the benefits the immigrants bring to Britain etc.

is it........texture like sun ?

John I have no idea what you do but have you never insulted someone after a meeting or a crap day at work. I know I have. Shit happens. I agree he should have dealt with the situation much better but saying what he said is hardly a slight on how he would govern.

FWIW I think Brown is uninspiring and uncharasmatic but that was before this incident

this can't be right - me and george agreeing?  worlds gone mad.

Meets a life time labour voter, in front of the press.
Answers points pretty good and comes across fairly well (for Brown!)
 Shakes hand, as she praises the education system, and wishes her well and makes a joke.

"disaster"  "ridiculous"  "bigot" "should never put me with that woman"........ ;dingdell;

;tightend;

Did anyone see Cameron show off his impromptu debating skillz with the mad libdem student heckling him the other day?

Thought he did quite well tbh. First time I've seen him and not thought "twat"

Probs called her an ignorant dyke or summit off camera but he gets away with it coz he runs goot.

I think it might.

The white, working class, vote is one that Labour really needs. Many of these outside of the SE of England naturally gravitate towards Labour. They have genuine concerns about immigration but aren't racist - Gordon Brown has revealed what he really thinks of them. In recent years they'd drifted off to vote UKIP or maybe BNP, but the votes of those parties are collapsing. As the Tories are still too posh to get this vote those people were likely to come back to Labour in this election (hence the bounce in the polls they had in the run-up to the election).

Now Gordon Brown has been caught out placating them in public but then bitching about them when he thinks no one's listening, basically admitting that he thinks these people are stupid racists. He then goes round for a cup of tea and comes out, all fake smiles, saying everything is all right now.

Even if these voters don't turn to UKIP/BNP and just stay at home on election day they'll do a lot of damage, especially when the % share of the vote may be a factor in deciding balance of power in a hung parliament.

The other reason this is important is because it really highlights the 'Brown is a petulant child' narrative that, so far, has only been reported second hand (shouting at and hitting staff, the temper tantrums). The whole country has now seen Brown throwing a hissy fit  - is this the kind of guy that should be running the country?

they *being politicians and leaders* do this all the time, fact..

I am so suprised its big news, shows you how low things have stooped that this is turning into a huge debate.

Agree with Sov. I've called people twats after a meeting to other people at work even when they weren't. Gord didn't think he'd handled her well which i think he did as she was a pain but instead of going over why he was annoyed he just came up with an excuse. He probably didn't mean it but was just annoyed, doubt it affected his work too much though

I don't know if it's so much about the ethics of slagging off a voter, even less to do with freedom of speech. The problem now is the perceived gap that exists between what he actually thinks and the stupid smiley fake persona that he puts on. This was compounded by his silly smiley speech outside her house and his radio interview. 'I'm sorry for what I said; I misunderstood her; I don't blame Sue, I blame myself'
Does he think anyone believes this?

i love these posters, doesnt make me want to vote tory but still makes me laugh on the way to work everyday!

(http://conservativehome.blogs.com/.a/6a00d83451b31c69e20133eca0c378970b-pi)


(http://conservativehome.blogs.com/.a/6a00d83451b31c69e201347fd0be6d970c-pi)


his smile is beautiful

Probably not however is this:

(http://www.provokateur.com/news/wp-content/photos/CameronEton2_468x420.jpg)

great post eck!

You could well be right.

Just seen the 4 minute clip and she didn't come across as being bigoted or ignorant, just concerend. Very much the everypensioner in fact so yeah this could hurt Labour bad.

this woman is brilliant! 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8649174.stm

Tonight Matthew I'm going to be ........... Spandau Ballet

In what way?

What exactly is your point?

Thought that might be a Bullingdon Club photo - but it's from Eton.

A world apart from 99.99% of the electorate. 

err, exactly he did it because he lost his temper and was annoyed - hence my tilt metaphor

And exactly, it wasn't a disaster, he handled it quite well - but his judgement was so far out that he handled it appallingly.

So he can't handle minor set backs, he blows them up out of all proportion and it results in him making mistakes - how can that not have any implication about his ability to do the job?

very good

[ ] Never a frown

Is this a level?

Pretty much what Dan said didn't really think you would need that explained to you Jon.

was thinking the same thing!  still cant accept that saying something in private about somebody means he can't do the job.

He didn't blow it out of all proportion. He was annoyed and couldn't be arsed to explain why so just made an off the cuff comment. No biggie. As i said, i've done it and i bet most people have, you don't mean it you just let yourself get wound up for a split second, realised it wasn't a big deal so made a comment and hear no more about it.

Yep obviously if a poker player occasionally tilts means they're shit.

I reckon 8 could do a job

What sort of job though?

Village idiot?

i want to come clean, i've said some nasty things about jon today, i was only speaking to the dog and i dont think it was recorded but i dont want it coming out later putting my job in jeopardy!

Just watched the story on the news.

Think I'm now old enough to say this modern media age has a lot to answer for.

The real lack of judgement here was not to express the opinion that the woman was a bigot, but for a bunch of senior minds in our governing party to decide the best course of action was to travel to an individuals house to give a grovelling apology - how pathetic. I mean, just quite unbelievably tragic to watch.

How easy, if challenged on the subject, to just say I thought she expressed some bigoted views (even if you couldn't then substantiate it). No story in that

its down to the 24 hour news, they need some shit to fill the hours. 

looks to me that he could play dick whittington in panto

If your job was the leader of a political party, or the Prime Minister of the country, then what you say can put your job in jeopardy.  He has the right to say what he wants, but that doesn't mean it's going to help increase the Labour party's share of the votes.

He didn't even say anything 'that bad'.  He said he was "sort of bigoted'.  Hardly the most damning criticism of anyone you're likely to hear.  Cameron had his dodgy moment when being interviewed about gay rights - fortunately for him it has long been forgotten and it wasn't a moment that was going to be pounced on by a media frenzy.  It shouldn't make a blind bit of difference.  But I think it just might.

People seem to be looking at this latest gaffe too literally because for me it's a metaphor for Labour's blinding contempt for the public in general. Labour have this social ideology about how things should be and if people don't fit into their picture there is something wrong with those people. But this is arse about face because the government should be there to represent the views of the public not to dictate to the public. It matters not that he called an old woman a bigot, it matters that he just dismissed the very reasonable views of a pro labour member of joe public without a seconds consideration of those views. Typical labour imo.

So being able to relate to the majority of the electorate is what makes a good Prime Minister?

You don't think any understanding about international relations, economics, history or diplomacy might be more relevant?

and you think he has a greater understanding of those issues because of?

I'm not saying he has, I was only questioning how much you can infer from that picture, and more importantly, how relevant it is

Being able to relate to the electorate might make you a good party politician and a good vote catcher - but it's only of marginal relevance to running the country

Not neccessarily my view but would be the view of many of the electorate with no understanding of the subjects in question 2

Geo

I imagine Eton gives a decent education, which is surely a positive when it comes to running the country.

You really need to be able to tie a dickie bow if you're going to be negotiating with fellow heads of state after dinner.

Wearing one of those elasticated jobbies, you'll be found out.

^^^ Meh, the fact that I and others went to public school means you plebs had less crowded class sizes and probably a better start in life :D

So that's why you walk funny

Its not as bad as you would think tbh ;D

 :goodpost:

Political parties are not there to take on your views. Parties have a manifesto which explains their views and plans and people vote for the one which closely resembles their own view (in theory).

Sandy

When you say Labour, do you mean Gordon Brown, the current front-bench, the current Labour MPs, the Labour party membership, the people who voted Labour, the people who have previously voted Labour, the people who usually vote Labour, or something else?

Just wondered who you're slagging off here.

Wouldn't both be a good thing?

Do any of them really relate to the electorate?

Clegg is the son of a banker and went to a £30k a year school.
Cameron went to Eton.
Brown is... Brown.

I'd much prefer more competence anyway.

I'd prefer both.

Going to Eton or being the son of a rich banker doesn't preclude you from being able to relate to the electorate.  Being Gordon Brown might though...

Both would be good, but it's Prime Minister - not President so it's far from essential.

The ministers in charge of health and social security should be able to relate to the electorate
And it would probably help if the ministers in charge of law and the treasury did
But I'd say it's a fairly minor bonus for the Prime Minister to be able to

Almost every Prime Minister either went to an elite private school, went to an elite university, were members of the aristocracy - or a combination of all 3.

So however important or unimportant it is, there are only a handful of leaders who have had it on their side - which I'd suggest further calls into question how relevant and important it is.

All this did they/didn't they go to public school is a load of bollox and irrelevant anyway. Me and half my mates went to public school and none of us are any different to anyone on here. This perception that we are all spoon fed, posh twat's, that have never worked a day in our lives is just LOL..............

This was why I started questioning it to start with, I just automatically rebel against people making assumptions based on stereotype - whatever the assumption and whatever the stereotype

But you're happy to say that someone who makes an off the cuff remark, is incapable of doing their job?

GG Jon

Geo

When part of their job is not making off the cuff remarks like that then I'd say that is the case.

How is that in any way the same? It isn't based on stereotyping, it's based on what he actually did.

And technically I was suggesting he could be less capable of doing his job, which is not the same as your statement.

Going by this, no-one is capable of being Prime Minister

Geo

That's what I said.  Going to public school or not is irrelevant.  Being a member of the Bullingdon Club is a slightly different matter though (imo).

The American economist David Hale says that the governor of the Bank of England has told him that the next British government will need to launch an austerity drive so tough that it will threaten its political survival, potentially leaving that party out of power for a generation.

Tonight's debate should be interesting. None of the parties have really come clean on the unpalatable years ahead for many people

Could cut the spending on Trident... ;)

Interesting, not that it is bought in too many marginal constituency newsagents

The Economist declares for the Conservatives

The Economist backed Labour at the last general election but in tomorrow's edition it declares for the Conservatives.

In an editorial, it praises Brown for keeping Britain out of the euro, yet on the economy states that "a prime minister should not get too much credit for climbing out of a hole he himself dug as chancellor", describing the budget deficit as a time-bomb which Brown is "ill equipped to defuse". It concludes that "a change of government is essential".

Whilst stating that it has been "looking for a credible liberal party in Britain for nigh on a century", it is swift to dismiss the Lib Dems with their enthusiasm for the euro, flirtation with scrapping our nuclear deterrent, desire to abolish tuition fees, opposition to nuclear power and policies on business which are "arguably to the left of Labour's": "Mr Clegg has been a delightful holiday romance for many Britons; but this newspaper does not fancy moving in with him for the next five years".

As for the Conservatives, it admits that the party has its faults, but praises David Cameron for modernising the party and stamping out social illiberalism. It also congratulates George Osborne for not giving in to the demands of the Right for tax cuts and for committing the party to an austerity programme.

It sums up:

    "More than their rivals, they are intent on redesigning the state. They would reform the NHS by  bringing in more outside providers; their plans to give parents and teachers the right to set up schools are the most radical idea in this election. Centralisers under Margaret Thatcher, they now want to devolve power to locally elected offcials, including mayors and police chiefs. Some of this is clouded in waffe about a Big Society. Other bits do not go far enough: it is foolish to rule out letting for-profit companies run schools and wrong to exempt the NHS from cuts. But Mr Cameron is much  closer to answering the main question facing Britain than either of his rivals is. In this complicated, perhaps inevitably imperfect election, he would get our vote."

Jonathan Isaby

I'm talking about socialist politics in general. So yeah the whole Labour party. I figure socialism works much better in theory than in the real world. Labour want to redistribute the wealth to the poor disadvantaged members of society; noble concept. But when you dish out free no obligation money to everybody and anybody you get loads of piss-takers who freeload the system as a lifestyle choice: like people who could work but just don't want to. Bloody piss-takers. Why don't these people do a bit of community service to earn their income support? And immigrants who travel through several free and democratic countries to claim asylum here. Why are they doing that I wonder? Labour are ignoring how their society is developing and are just lazily throwing more and more money at the problem. Hence higher taxes.

So it's much easier to call the old woman a bigot and carry on with your day rather than to actually listen to her geuine concerns and maybe face up to a dose of reality. I mean who needs to hear this old bag's problems if it makes you look bad on TV right? But yeah special mention for Gordon Brown who comes across as a bit of a two-faced bastard really. I mean have you ever seen anyone looking as two-faced-bastardy as Brown when he emerged from that woman's house? He spent a lol hour in there with the old girl when he wouldn't give her opinions the time of day earlier.

Nice.

Particularly love the point about asylum seekers, you really know your stuff there.  Did you know that we rank far below other European countries in terms of the number of asylum seekers we allow into the country.  You ask why they want to come here?  Probably because where they live is bloody terrible.  But sod them, they weren't born here so we don't care.

I'm not asking why they want to come here from those terrible places. I'm asking why they want to come here from France. Did you know that Briton ranks far above other European countries in terms of how much we contribute to international aid, proving how much we care about people who aren't born here.

I suspect that other countries don't actually 'allow' more asylum seekers into their countries, they just have land borders so they don't really have any choice.

But it's not really the main point of Mantis's post - I think the main aim is just that central philosophy of the left that the State can decide what's best and use their power to make it so. It's not really a stretch to say that Labour are much more into social engineering then the Conservatives - Labour's contempt for the public therefore is just their underlying principle that Nanny knows best.

So the welfare state is OK if it extends beyond our own country's boundaries - but it's wrong to look after the less fortunate domestically?

We should absolutely look after the less fortunate domestically.

It seems a Labour MP published the results of a postal vote on Twitter and has been reported to the Police. Do any of them (MPs) have half a brain?

Watching the debate thing. I'm politically ignorant but... does nick clegg have any actual polices? All he seems to be doing is continually chime in saying everything should be open and fair.

And does david cameron have any policy other than "the government waste money, we won't"

Gordon Brown sort of looks a bit Nixon like

I think he's more like Arnie in T1

Who cares, he looks and sounds prettier than GB  rotflmfao

I think he was crushed in the end too.

VAT on homes, GG Nick Clegg.........

Hope people really caught that - mad idea

Sorry it was new homes but still mad.........

Wow I never thought I could lean back towards labour prior to this election but I think it's just happened.

nope

Genuinely interested in the factors that have caused this - given that it is against the tide a little.
 

I'm still undecided as to where my votes going, guess I'm a floater.

Do people vote for the person, or for the party.  In the States, people are definitely voting for the President as a person.  Jon touched on it earlier, but we aren't voting for a president.  But is it important to elect a statesman as well voting for the party who closest represents your views?  If that's the case the Tories and Labour have got it all wrong imo.

I'll be voting for a party. Not that impressed by any of the leaders but one parties policies are pretty close to representing how i feel so i'll vote for them.

pretty much this

That's what I think, dare I say it, 'intelligent' people will do.

So does that mean the live TV debates are for the lowest common denominator, and are they really the ones who watched the debates?  Or is it more about reading what a journalist says about the debates in the newspaper the following day for those who didn't bother to watch?

I'm pretty negative at the moment with regards to the whole election process.
Just feels like a pretty ineffective way to select the best group of people to run the country.

Lots of people voting for the same group they have always voted for, irrespective.
Some swayed by trivial factors such as whether they like the look of the leader of a party, whether he smiles / waves at the right time.
Some focus on a very small issue that is directly relevant to them, but ignoring lots of bigger factors......
Too much of a popularity contest, to ever be about forming a high achieving government.

I know this isn't anything new............I must just be getting old and grumpy.......

I feel very much the same.  It really does seem more so this time round, but can't put my finger on why.  Maybe I am just getting old and grumpy too.

Even the Guardian gave the debate to Cameron so it sounds a lot against the tide to me!

Cheer up Gordon, could be worse, could be in the Ukraine

YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfCRyLlyqJI

Maybe we should give people some credit. Most people wont really cast their vote based upon a wave and a smile, most people will want to learn more about policies. That's why these first election debates have been a real success; being an opportunity to engage more people in politics. Sure, the personality of the leader takes on greater importance as a trade off...so parties need to consider that when electing future leaders. Overall thou it's good to be engaging what was a lethargic and disillusioned electorate. Lots of people voting for the same party they always have? Lib Dem growth suggests not.

People are so unfair on the Labour Party.

They have so many good ideas and policies to bring a brighter future to Britain yet voters seem determined to judge them on their last 13 years of government. 

A wave and a smile is an obvious exaggeration..............

But look through this thread, many of the posts are from people arguing from a party perspective..........who are going to argue, and vote that way, no matter what.
The average IQ of people on a poker forum >> the average IQ of people.

If we cannot get more intelligent people to approach this with an open mind, then it is reasonable to assume these issues are more extreme in other 'groups'.

For sure labour have done some decent stuff over the last 13 years, that said they do waste a lot of money, I see it in the NHS all the time and it pisses me off..........

This was a bit slower than normal.

BIGOT

Brown is gone on Thursday :D

Sure some people have fundamental allegiances, but many are still undecided. The TV debates allowed those people to be engaged by the leaders. I think forming opinions from what you see for yourself is better media for progressive politics than reading the papers and the opinions of editors, prob more so for low IQ sheep. We should feel positive about politics opening up. Interestingly enough Gordon Brown scores highest on radio. Must be the smile.

Do people still not like to say who they are voting for ? If anyone on here's like that I'd be intersted to know why,well as interested as I can ever be when discussing politics.

I don't like telling everyone who I'll be voting for but I can tell you that it wont GB, NC or others. :)

I'm not always a Conservative but I have to vote Tory this time because of their inheritance tax policy.

Not really a fan of the way they've run their campaign.
Vote for us because we're not Labour.
Then Clegg does his debate thing where he sings his song and remembers people's names.
Then it's all change to Vote for us because a hung parliament will end the world.

Thought this was particularly bizarre as they bang on about how hung parliaments don't work and use places like Italy as examples, but they all completely ignore the Scottish Parliament which has had both Coalition and Minority administrations and the sky hasn't fallen in. Yet.

aye but they are talking about real parliaments, not the kiddy on wan that we have.

I cba to read over the thread again, but can't recall anyone saying they're voting for a particular party because they 'always have'. 

Might be a useful reality check for me.

What are the top 3 labour achievements in the last 13 years that improve the lives of a broad mix of UK citizens ( not including those living entirely off the benefits system)

Germany's probably a better example because they're a parliament responsible for a country in it's entirity rather than one that just deals with devoled issues.

Although there is something to be said for the, if it's possible to co-operate with Alex Salmond...

why not?

People don't have to say it, for it to be pretty obv. (IMO).

Out of the people I know who will auto-vote in every election, well over half will ALWAYS vote for the same party.
The problem with floating voters, is that they are more floating, than voters.

I tend to agree with Mantis' comments on people being more engaged this time round - which hopefully will be reflected in a decent turnout.

I am not a labour fan but here is 3 I can think of

1. They have done well with the NHS on the whole but they have wasted lots of money in the process.

2. Aside from the last couple of years that had fuck all to do with, them they have done pretty well with the economy. Low inflation, low interest rates, plenty of jobs, min wage etc

3. I guess public services as well

They really do waste a lot of money though in the process on bureaucracy. Specifically by employing an excessive amount of middle managers that are basically bean counters to try and implement their strategies and come up with facts and figures to say how well they have done. This applies across most of the major depts. This money would be better spent on the front line to improve stuff that directly affects us.

Perhaps that just the mindset you've come to expect then.  I can only think of one person from my circle of friends that I've known through several elections that would always vote for the same party, come what may.  We all use our vote though.

Because many of them are sponges and should get their fat arses off the couch and get a job.

Of your 3 we have:
1) Throw money at NHS while productivity falls.
2) Take credit for huge economic boom and blame the bust on other people.
3) Throw more money at public services while productivity falls.

I might be biased though!

not as many as the media would have us believe, imo

1. Bollocks, the NHS has got a lot better despite the waste, I see it every day.
2. Ok its argueable about who started the good economy, but they kept it good for 10 years. Anyone who thinks the bust is labours fault is just delusional
3. Ok fair enough I don't know enough about this to argue with you.

As before, I am not a labour fan and will vote conservative, but they have done some good stuff. If anyone doesn't agree with that then they are probably not capable of making an impartial decision.

Still too many to the fkers for my liking, the problem with many is they just don't want to do the shit jobs. Its should be tough, have a choice of doing a shit available job or have their benefits cut off.......

Labour created the regulatory environment that enabled the boom and the bust. Given that the boom was funded by an excess of cheap credit and that also caused the bust I don't see how they can be directly responsible for the boom but have nothing to do with bust.

On the NHS my point was that it's easy to improve things just by spending more money but it usually isn't a sustainable solution. Productivity has fallen in the NHS too which means we're getting less value for money.

Unarguable, but there really has been a VAST amount of money thrown at it. Do we think we're getting good value? Lots of non-clinical targets that no medical person thinks is a good idea, and lots of managers to make sure the targets are met by whatever means necessary. Given the amount of money spent, I think it could be even better, or as good for less money.

The bust may not be Gordo's fault, but it's his fault there was nothing in the coffers when push came to shove. All the "end of boom and bust", and "golden rules" were just utter BS - despite collecting fairly huge sums during the good times post-1997, it was all spunked away, holding nothing in reserve. That's just bad management.

Fair enough - I don't know how many people like that are really around to make a judgement.  What I do know is that living off benefits is definitely not a lifestyle choice, and a situation any of us can find ourselves in, however invincible we might think we are.  Was just curious to know why Glenn decided to apply the broadbrush.  Surely the social care system in this country is something we should be proud of?

On the first point no other government could have done any different.

On the second point, of course it easy improve things by spending money, but at least they did it, what else would they do? Whip the doctors and nurse to work harder? I don't know how your defining productivity, but services are way better across the board and there is no denying that, as I say I see it every day. And of course its sustainable or the tories wouldn't be ring fencing the money. I t could of course be spent better and that's what the tories plan on doing.........

What in your opinion are labour's top achievements?

I don't define productivity I leave that to the ONS, but they say it fell in the public sector by 3.2% from 1997-2007. It also pointed out that the largest increase in spending was in healthcare and they suffered the greatest decline in productivity.

On the sustainable point the IFS pointed out recently that the parties would need to find huge amounts of cost savings:

"The IFS suggested that the Conservatives need to find £64bn in cuts by 2015 from unprotected areas such as education, housing, transport etc. They have not explained 82 per cent of this, or £52bn of cuts."

(Labour haven't explained 87% of cuts and LD 74% so all parties are guilty of this)

As Rex pointed out Brown as a "prudent" chancellor saved nothing during the boom too.

I don't care what the figures say, the NHS is miles better than it was 13 years ago, anyone who works for it will tell you that.

and this question?

What in your opinion are labour's top achievements?

1. NHS - is generally a good system. But Labour pumped £120 billion of our money into it last year. It should be good. When they came to power in '97 NHS had 12 hospital beds per manager, today it has 4. Targets culture born.

2. Economy - after 13 years the country is £160 billion in debt. Why did Labour have nothing to do with that? Banks weren't regulated, gold sold at it's lowest price, overspending and poor value for money in every department, benefits culture.

3. Public Services - A trillion pounds spent.

And remember they're Labour's top 3 success stories. Fuck me.

I couldn't list one... it might be because they've been in power all my adult life so it's hard to notice things they have improved. They've done lots of things I disagree with though (and they are far easier to notice).

Fair enough, but that tell's me you are probably fairly one eyed, have decided who you want to vote for and aren't too open to other parties suggestions, hence your anti labour comments (I'm anti labour too). Its just LOL to think that a government hasn't done a single good thing in 13 years whether you support them or not.

Peace out..............

I'm anti labour but open to other parties. In one of those who to vote for tests all the parties were about equal on +20 or similar except Labour on -50.

I'm a libertarian at heart and Labour is pretty much the opposite to that.

I think it would be easier to find things they'd done well if I had something to compare to, as it is the positives are probably taken for granted and the negatives glaringly obvious.

first thoughts were that they were obv better off so why include them in the straw poll.  Of course, could be completely wrong if I consider things like scandalously low penisons etc

Fair enough...........

Not especially -  it's a bit like being proud of having roads - I mean you kinda have to have certain things.

However, when money is spent on a road I can see what's been spent, I can see the practical benefits and I probably get more use out of it than a baby machine on a council estate.

If there were better ways to ensure that money arrived with people who genuinely need it I might take some pride - eg, A labour shibboleth is universal child benefits - I sure needed these when I had young kids - give the money to an OAP (or someone else who needs it) please.

My overall problem is trying to think of subsets of society that genuinely need social care. I can see that people who can't work through some debilitating mental health conditions may need help. I can also see that physically disabled people may need help on the basis that they have out of the ordinary expenses that many of us don't have. I struggle beyond that. If I was ever down on my uppers as long as my mental condition was OK and I was physically OK I would find work and I would adjust my lifestyle to the money that came with the work I could find.

Also, as regards the biggest drain - the NHS. I really just don't get the concept. I would like to have my tax back and make a choice of health provider just like I choose a car, a house, a packet of fags, a bottle of wine. I don't like thinking that I pay for this service to be provided to a bunch of non contributing pro gamblers for example.

It's just more equitable if we pay for the level of service we want, including a choice perhaps to opt into a state system

You've done it now, run man, RUN while you can.............. :D

Labour sold us way short on the gold.

Tories sold Gas, electric and telecoms way to cheap. They also hurried with oil deals instead of listening to Benn which have put us nearer Norway than Zimbabwe in the financial stakes.

I wouldn't particularly trust either but i think Labour are more solid and less flash. Libdems i'm not sure of and maybe they deserve a chance but without a hung parliament they have no real power or chance.

Sandy

lol, just happens to be a good example of why a National Health Service that is all embracing is ridic unfair to the tax payer. There should definitely be more love for the tax payer, for example I pay the wages of a bunch of people, a small percentage of literally miilions of them. They don't thank me, they want me to be grateful they're there - well I'm not.

In fact you could argue that people who work in the public sector don't even really pay taxes, since they're only handing over what the 'real' tax payers gave them in the first place. Why go through the pretence of taxing them - just pay them a lower net wage.

At least this way they would realise they are freerolling and might be grateful to me.

ANother example of the nonsense of universal benefits like the NHS. Hypotehtically, I have an English friend who has zillions, has a green card, lives in the US and will never come back to live here. All his investments are now US based so he pays minimal tax here now. Does he insure himself for healthcare in the US. No, a cheap flight later and he can be treated here courtesy of the UK tax payer. It's just mad.

Yes it is miles better, but I think the point people are making is along the lines of - it's twice as good, but given the amount of money spent on it it should be ten times as good - hence the inefficiency argument.

(and obv twice and 10x are made up figures just to illustrate the concept)

Those figures don't take in to account better treatment which has 2 issues.

1. It helps people live longer even if that requires more drugs/care.

2. The drugs/treatments are more expensive.

Sandy

Can you not understand that it is miles better and has cost as much to get there due to:

1. Everything is more expensive, not just the drugs but the equipment/the staffing/the transport/the electrcity bills, in effect everything required for the NHS to perform. And we are not just talking hospitals, it's the local doctors surgeries too.
2. There are many more "conditions" that have now been quite rightly recognised as medical and are now being treated through the NHS system where before these poor unfortunates got no recognition or treatment.
3. People are living longer, therfore more people with medical problems are having to be treated for longer, whilst more people are entering the NHS system with conditions not previously treated by the NHS.

The NHS is one of our country's biggest assets and funding should always be there for it. I agree that it could be run a bit better and there is too much bureaucracy.

Geo

The exact specifics of how good it is and how efficient or inefficient it is are ambiguous but that last line would be how I'd sum it up as well.

not sure which of the election threads to put this on so I'll go for this one

here's a piece, published today, that may be of interest to some people written by an old, old friend of mine who happens to be nick clegg's cousin about their great aunt moura budberg who is widely believed to have been a soviet spy

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/election_2010/article7113886.ece

Sunday Times piece today by AA Gill who was in the spin room at the last debate. He has an amazingly amusing and deeply polemic go at Mandy. I wouldn't want to piss AA Gill off. Superb.

Article (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7114093.ece)

The best bit:

Oleaginous is a superb word. I'm going to attempt to use it every day.

The Gulf of Mexico is rather oleaginous at the moment :).

Paxman used the word oleaginous on Newsnight last week. Had to look it up.

Hadn't heard it in 27 years of life and now twice in a week.

referring to who?

The singer from Hadouken was saying nice things about Paxman.

They were on the show as part of a feature where they got 3 bands to make songs for the political parties.
Right Said Fred did the Libdem song and some rappers did the Tory one. They were all pretty good actually (and that's not me being oleaginous.)

what a tops word oleaginous is :)

I remember Victor Lewis Smith once described someone (can't remember who) as 'so oleaginous he doesn't need to open a door to enter a room - he just oozes underneath it'

Because his content in the economy debate was miles ahead of the other two. An awful PM yes but he knows the economy. GG now tho!

Yup, Brown ended Boom and Bust.

insert own punchline here

Now Gordons resigned the story changes hour by hour.

The news reporters are kept guessing and don't know who to follow or interview, lol

Politics has never been so interesting.




 

Minimum wage and devolution for Scotland, Wales and N.I (and a relative level of harmony in the latter, although the Major government set the basics in there). Not too much else really though

Independence for the Bank of England was a good move as well

Imo opinion worst case scenario is Brown resigning, new labour leader, Lib Dems make pact with labour who has a leader who wasn't elected (again) and both the labour votors and the conservatives end up with something that wasn't what they voted for.

As someone said last night at Luton - Will Nick Clegg please shut up ffs, he's strutting around as if he's prime minister and he got less votes than the other two!

Browns resignation tactical to continue negotiations with Lib Dems, the election reflects the fact the electorate didn't want him as pm, he resign, labour gets power if lib dems agree with an unknown labour leader at the helm and the conservatives who polled more votes loose the election. WTF?

Now we know that the lib dem popularity contest was a complete farce when it came to the actual polling day lets have a re-election with 2 horses only in each constituency, the two highest polling parties in that area, and lets see who wins without the 'benefit' of tactical voting, and with the labour partys leader announced so people knwo who they are voting for.

You can't enter the eurovision contest and if there is a tie change your song for the tie breaker. If labour are changing their leader a revote is needed imo.

why does it matter if Labour have a new leader and he becomes PM

In an election you arent voting for a leader of a party or of the country.

John Major wasnt voted for as a PM i dont remember the Conv making a big deal about it then

I dont care who goes with who, its all apples and oranges

lol @ new election needed now that Brown resigned.

This is not America FFS.

There can't be a Lib/Lab coalition(with all the fringe parties), it would be a nightmare for the country to have such an unstable government.

It is also not what the electorate voted for; Labour have lost seats, even the Lib Dems lost seats and together they don't have a clear majority. To have a Lib/Lab coalition now would be ridic.

Lib/Tory is really the only way and if they can't work something out that's a fairly persuasive argument against Proportional Representation IMO.


This all being said even though I am for PR and, generally, not for the Tories.

A lot of people make their voting descion based on who is going to lead the party - look at Obama. Had he been white would he have got as much of the black vote?

Politics is also about who leads the party, I would have been more likely to vote for labour had they had a different leader.

Lol at apples and oranges.

No, but Americans vote for a president and you don't in this country.


How you couldn't see it coming that, if Labour lost the election, Brown would resign is beyond me.

This confuses me as well actually.

There's all this talk about him resigning and most of the media and analysts seems to be treating it like a huge surprise.

But how many sitting PM's have lost an election and then stayed on as party leader?

I don't think it can be many, but having said that apparently Brown did need persuading to do it so maybe the surprise was genuine and based on knowledge of his personality.

I don't give a monkeys about what we are technically voting for. In my eyes the person leading the party is one of the main reasons you vote for them, so to me it does matter............

there is a difference re the unelected leaders point.

Home, Major, Brown etc all took over mid parliament and it is correct to say that we are electing a parliament not a presidential leader, so this is perfectly acceptable

What I find less acceptable is the current situation where a Prime Minister loses an election, then resigns and gets replaced by another leader who then ( if the LibLab deal happens ) becomes a Prime Minister representing a defeated party too. Surely this is unprecedented?

what do you make of the fact that there has been multi party co-alitions in the Netherlands for as far back as I can remember, which dont seem to result in instability ?

The dutch political system is built on consensus anyway, you don't get hardcore activists in the same way you do here (not with same influence anyway).

But mainly, as with a lot of other PR based parliaments, they're a lot lot smaller. It's a lot easier to gain a consensus when you only need a majority of 120 - 150 MP's.

Even if the Lib Dems measures were introduced in full you'd still have 500 MP's (probably covering about 100 constituencies), it's not hard to see why that would make things so much more difficult.

Whoever the next Pm is no party won the election so either way we will have a PM not voted in by the people

but one who was up for election and took part in the leaders debates (which presidentialised the election, like it or not) has more legitimacy than one who didn't surely?

I accept constitutionally there is no problem, merely a question of public acceptance/legitimacy

the issue in this current situation though is that;

Labour and the Lib Dems don't have a majority, they would need the help from several of the other parties (nationalists) to get to a majority. These parties would be holding more power here than "fringe" parties do in the Netherlands. This is a bad situation to be in. the SNP, Welsh Nationalists etc would be able to demand certain concessions they otherwise would never get. And if one of them has a fit the government would collapse.

it is not uncommon for the government to fall in Holland (certainly happens more than it does here) but, generally, it is not unstable because;

A; We're more used to compromise than the parties over here are.
B; the same 3 or 4 parties just about always find a common ground (whether it'd be PVDA (Our version of Labour) the VVD (our version of the Tories), the CDA (Christian party but more based on the German CDU than the Christian party you have here) and D66 (the Lib Dems). These are our 4 big parties and they're not miles apart in the same way that say the Tories and Labour are.

To have fringe parties like the SNP and Plaid Cymru be an important part of any coalition government brings you much closer to the Israeli system (albeit it with less extreme parties) and that's not really a good idea and, proportionally, the smaller parties hold much more power in that system,.

Tighty - what will you do once this is all over? Do we need to put you on suicide watch? Will your world be over. I love the fact that you love this so much and know so much!

If the LibLab coalition happens I will be outside Parliament with a placard and a crowd, I can assure you of that. Scandalous times.  :D

Sir Malcolm Rifkind lets Rip

Sky news reporter Dermot Murnaghan interviewed Sir Malcolm as he left westminster this morning at 10.30am,

The conversation went out live and Sir Malcolm was furious that Clegg had dared to have a secret meeting with labour last night when he was in the middle of negotiations with the conservatives.

The even went so far as to say Clegg was behaving like the Robert Mugabe government ,

thats well out of order Sir Malcolm

 

If i dont fly tomorrow ill go up there tomorrowwith a placard that says

"BLONDEPOKER.COM"
          says
    BAN BOLDIE!!!

This is just getting weirder now...

Labour in talks with LDs before the election. Brown only informed on Friday.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/benedictbrogan/100039174/when-did-gordon-brown-know-about-this-labour-coup/

 ;popcorn;

i think i might actually die laughing if Cameron doesnt become PM...

Agreed, as a labour supporter it would be hilarious to see the tories in opposition again and cameron going crying to lord ashcroft

This very much brings to mind the phrase, be careful what you wish for, in the longer term it would put the Conservatives in a stronger position

All this talk of Ashcroft makes me laugh, anyone would think the Labour party had no non dom donors :P

I'm one Tory voter that wouldn't mind seeing the rainbow coalition in government. Perfectly legit vis a vis current constitution. (maybe the people who made the constitution figured no-one would be dumb enough to actually try it, they'd have little public support and would get punished by the electorate eventually)

Fact of the matter is it'll last 5 minutes and we'll storm in with massive majority, even if they manage to vote through STV version of PR (and I'll believe that when I see it).

Cameron's tactics have been bang on. Only way for Clegg to look good now is take the deal and be a nice little bitch in a coalition gvmnt. Paddy Ashdown makes a lot of sense when he says that playing nice and showing that coalitions can work will convince public that PR is way forward.

We shall see, somethong tells me libdems are too stupid to deal. AV is akl they're gonna get right now, they need to remember that they lost this election too.

and it's not even AV, it's a referendum on AV that the Tories are saying they'll campaign against.

That really is pretty sucky for the Libdems. They have to fight a pretty tough referedum for something that they don't really want in the first place.

gg Labour

As Gordon resigns as Prime Minister, he announces he is to visit the Queen,

 to give back the keys to number 10 and leave a copy of the meter readings.

He is also cancelling the milk , having his post redirected to Scotland

and transferring his Sky Sport Package to his scottish home in time for the World Cup.

David Cameron arrives at Number 10

Will the staff had time to remove the mooses heads from the walls, the tapestries, the empty green bottles

The smell of Harris Tweed will surely linger

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8675913.stm

I would have voted for *that* guy lol. Wife looks [ ] delighted

New Caption competition

Cameron > Hello Maam,.... your much shorter in real life

Queen > What do you do ?

Queen > Are you Simon Cowell

Queen > The Corgi's will be pleased

Already a Scottish family is homeless and unemployed. That's a Tory government for you

lol, like it

lol

haha excellent

Perhaps someone should telephone ahead to Leverndale Mental Hospital in Glasgow soon.

Straight jacket and less of his pills should suit Mr. Brown to a T.

keep it up - all that 13yrs of pent up bile will be gone after one or two more posts

.