Gordon Brown.....

[Bongo]

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

[Jon MW]

... 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

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.

[Geo the Sarge]

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

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

Geo

[kinboshi]

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...

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..............

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).

[TightEnd]

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

[kinboshi]

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...

[TightEnd]

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

[MANTIS01]

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.

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.

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.

[kinboshi]

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.

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.

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.

[MANTIS01]

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.

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.

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.

[Jon MW]

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.

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.

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.

[kinboshi]

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.

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.

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.

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?

[MANTIS01]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Bongo]

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?

[Cf]

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.