General Election

[leeslover]

http://www.autoblog.nl/images/wp/Tamara%20...ne%20Lycos2.jpg

 

In the likely event you don't recognise her that's Tamara Ecclestone- her Dad is Bernie and he's rich but ugly. That's just one example I'm sure there are others.

True. Rich ugly blokes can breed with attractive bimbos to produce attractive but quite possibly stupid children. It only muddies the waters further.

[oafc0000]

Browns done it again This time the camera crew caught him in time...

 

Labour should of dropped him months ago

Edited April 29, 2010 by oafc0000

[garcon]

Labour backed the war, the Torys backed the war and the Libs as a minority third based party did what they do on most issues took the other path. You sure the Libs weren't doing what they did with trident (lied about) and just vote winning ?

First of all, I'm not going to let you accuse the Lib Dems of lying about Trident for a second time without, again, asking you to show us where.

 

Secondly, to suggest the Lib Dems took an anti war stance simply to appear different and seek votes is a very grave insult to those who were consistently against the war in Iraq from the very beginning, and maintained that opposition throughout and to this very day, on strong moral, ethical and legal grounds. It was an illegal war, pursued by a pair of war criminals (Bush and Blair) for false reasons.

 

Just to show I'm not a completely party political animal this week, the one Westminster politician to come out of the Iraq war with by far the most moral credit was Robin Cook (RIP).

[oafc0000]

First of all, I'm not going to let you accuse the Lib Dems of lying about Trident for a second time without, again, asking you to show us where.

 

Three years of PMQs ? Clegg constantly said they would scrap Trident and go for an alternative (although he used to back full nuclear disarmament at one time I am sure). All of a sudden its to hold a defence review

 

If you listen to the first debate again, any PMQs, its all SCRAP SCRAP SCRAP... ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE... and read all the online reports... similar theme...

 

Bloody misleading when apparently Trident remains an option for the Libs...

 

Ask any man on the street about Lib Dem policy on Trident and they will say, oh they want to scrap it... Its not true... Cambell said on Question Time is would remain an option.

 

I should of said misleading rather than lying I suppose.

 

Secondly, to suggest the Lib Dems took an anti war stance simply to appear different and seek votes is a very grave insult to those who were consistently against the war in Iraq from the very beginning, and maintained that opposition throughout and to this very day, on strong moral, ethical and legal grounds. It was an illegal war, pursued by a pair of war criminals (Bush and Blair) for false reasons.

 

Ah well... It what I feel... Parties do play these games.

Edited April 29, 2010 by oafc0000

[jimsleftfoot]

First of all, I'm not going to let you accuse the Lib Dems of lying about Trident for a second time without, again, asking you to show us where.

 

Can't find the quote from Ming Campbell that I saw a few days ago but they aren't going to scrap it. They plan to have a defence review and defer the decision on replacing it i.e. extending its current life. By defering the decision, they don't have the capital outlay up front of replacing it.

 

 

[oafc0000]

Can't find the quote from Ming Campbell that I saw a few days ago but they aren't going to scrap it. They plan to have a defence review and defer the decision on replacing it i.e. extending its current life. By defering the decision, they don't have the capital outlay up front of replacing it.

 

I think Garcon's argument is this was always the case. What I am saying is that Clegg when he speaks says SCRAP and ALTERNATIVE. Its misleading...

 

1, A alternative would apparently contravene a number of agreed treaties on nuclear weapons.

2, When pushed they can give no numbers on the aleged savings, other than it would be apparently cheaper to wait and not spend the money now. Well how can you say that without saying how much the alternative will cost?

3, They have no answers to the skills shortage we will face as the skills go to other countries while we tred water.

3, They have no answer to what happens to the jobs which are reliant on the project... other than the nuclear skilled workers a lot of ship makers are going to be out of jobs.

4, but most of all it is misleading as the Lib Dem party machine has been putting out the word SCRAP over and over and over again. Its not SCRAP...its WAIT.

 

Ming Cambell only cleared it up after Clegg got hurt in the leader debate over it.

Edited April 29, 2010 by oafc0000

[jimsleftfoot]

You got any evidence that the Tories gave less to the unis than Labour?

 

You only have to look at the Capital Building programmes going on in most Universities to know that there is a hell of a lot of money being spent that wasn't there prior to 1998 when I started and the first tuition fee contributions were introduced. Uni of Manchester has spent over £500m on new buildings in the last 5 years.

 

 

[jimsleftfoot]

I think Garcon's argument is this was always the case. What I am saying is that Clegg when he speaks says SCRAP and ALTERNATIVE. Its misleading...

 

1, A alternative would apparently contravene a number of agreed treaties on nuclear weapons.

2, When pushed they can give no numbers on the aleged savings, other than it would be apparently cheaper to wait and not spend the money now. Well how can you say that without saying how much the alternative will cost?

3, They have no answers to the skills shortage we will face as the skills go to other countries while we tred water.

4, but most of all it is misleading as the Lib Dem party machine has been putting out the word SCRAP over and over and over again. Its not SCRAP...its WAIT.

 

Ming Cambell only cleared it up after Clegg got hurt in the leader debate over it.

 

Yeah I would agree that it did come across to me in the leaders debate and before that they were going to scrap it and its only after what Ming Campbell said, that I felt the truth came out and therefore it's misleading.

[garcon]

Fair enough, I'll accept that taken on their own some of Clegg's comments in the first debate could have been misleading on that point. To be fair though, people only had to check the manifesto (already publoished before the debate) for the full position. I think it's fair to say there might have been a change of emphasis - something that happens on some policy or other during every party's campaign.

 

0000's, yes parties do play games, but it would take a degree of cynicism that even few politicians are capable of to do so over the decision to go to war.

Edited April 29, 2010 by garcon

[rudemedic]

You only have to look at the Capital Building programmes going on in most Universities to know that there is a hell of a lot of money being spent that wasn't there prior to 1998 when I started and the first tuition fee contributions were introduced. Uni of Manchester has spent over £500m on new buildings in the last 5 years.

 

I'd be surprised if all that money came from the government- if I remember rightly there was some bruhahah over sponsorship from a tobacco company and universities get a decent sum of money from their residential buildings. Durham has some nice new buildings but that wasn't entirely funded by the government (beit nationally or locally) and rumour has it they are selling a lot of their land in the city centre piece by piece in order to move more out of town.

[beag_teeets]

You got any evidence that the Tories gave less to the unis than Labour?

 

You only have to look at the Capital Building programmes going on in most Universities to know that there is a hell of a lot of money being spent that wasn't there prior to 1998 when I started and the first tuition fee contributions were introduced. Uni of Manchester has spent over £500m on new buildings in the last 5 years.

 

 

And they had one round of voluntary redundancies not long after and another one due to start.....

 

Merv King knows his onions: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/ap...election-victor

 

Come on Dave, you should've had have this election in the bag for ages....

[jimsleftfoot]

I'd be surprised if all that money came from the government- if I remember rightly there was some bruhahah over sponsorship from a tobacco company and universities get a decent sum of money from their residential buildings. Durham has some nice new buildings but that wasn't entirely funded by the government (beit nationally or locally) and rumour has it they are selling a lot of their land in the city centre piece by piece in order to move more out of town.

 

In 1994 the total recurrant grant from HEFCE (govt quango) was just over £3bn. This year it was just under £6.5 billion, which is about a 5% year on year rise (which I think is better than inflation over them years?). Introduction of the tuition fees also can be added to that, though granted this isn't really government funding per se.

 

Various government departments and bodies funded by the govt such as the Dept of Health/NHS Trust provide a considerable amount of funding to Universities for research, use of scanners, supplys of various services. Increased investment in the DoH and Trusts means further invesment for Universities.

 

Not to mention the regional devlopment agencies (set up in 1999) which are government funded (such as the NWDA) who chuck a bit of money at the Uni's, though also act as a conduit for european funding.

Edited April 29, 2010 by jimsleftfoot

[garcon]

But in the latest University budget round, owing to the financial mess the government have helped create, they have slashed University budgets but retained the number of undergraduate positions they must offer. That leads to one very clear scenario: universities increase the proportion of (higher fee paying) foreign students in their intake, thus reducing the number of places available to British students, directly flying in the face of Labour claims that they are increasing the availability of university places for British students.

[opinions4u]

It's quite simple.

 

Labour have overspent, forgetting to put money aside for the inevitable rainy day known as recession and aren't really prepared to cut back to help solve the mess they've made.

 

Lib-Dems have some weird sounding policies that don't seem to stack up and invariably contradict.

 

Conservatives don't seem to have any policies at all.

 

The other parties are invariably even loonier.

 

Nearly half the income of the nation is spent by the Government. It really is unbelievably appalling.

 

While the pathetic offerings of the political elite can debate, squabble, get elected and then unelected I have seen my pension fund raped and money poured in to public services without regard for delivering improvements in relation to the amount of the so called "investment".

 

Nobody has the guts to admit "hard times ahead chaps, get behind us and we'll work our way out of it together, and when we get to the other side we'll identify ways to make sure that it never happens again so that we can let you keep more of the money you earned".

 

We have to pay more tax and the oversized public sector needs a good mullering. As things unwind then the higher tax bills should be able to fall. That's the real world that we need to face in to yet none of these idiots are prepared to admit it.

[Stevie_J]

First of all, I'm not going to let you accuse the Lib Dems of lying about Trident for a second time without, again, asking you to show us where.

 

Secondly, to suggest the Lib Dems took an anti war stance simply to appear different and seek votes is a very grave insult to those who were consistently against the war in Iraq from the very beginning, and maintained that opposition throughout and to this very day, on strong moral, ethical and legal grounds. It was an illegal war, pursued by a pair of war criminals (Bush and Blair) for false reasons.

 

Just to show I'm not a completely party political animal this week, the one Westminster politician to come out of the Iraq war with by far the most moral credit was Robin Cook (RIP).

Couldn't agree more. So the Libs were right but they were right for the wrong reasons? Even if that were the case, at least they were on the right side of the fence.

[oafc0000]

Is anyone thinking of voting Tory ?

 

I can understand people voting Lib but not Tory....

[Gentleman]

Much better performance from Gordon IMO.

 

Clegg continued his solid form and I have him down as my winner again. He just gets how to run these debates.

 

Cameron was average, but has no doubt done well in the polls.

 

 

 

[oafc0000]

Much better performance from Gordon IMO.

 

Clegg continued his solid form and I have him down as my winner again. He just gets how to run these debates.

 

Cameron was average, but has no doubt done well in the polls.

 

I thought Gordon said the right things but won't get any credit... Spent force in the public eye...

 

Clegg... Naive... I dont support a blanket amnesty but I do... They just have to speak English But he is well presented and will do well in the polls again... his 10k threshold will be popular...

 

Cameron... wrong... Wrong... WRONG on almost every issue...

[Crusoe]

Three things that I noted:

 

- Immigration is yet again rearing its head as the terrifying bugbear when it's an utter red herring, so far down the list of things that need to be fixed in this country it's laughable how much each leader is drooling over their clampdowns.

 

- Clegg's still (understandably) playing the "I'm not like them" card, but his constant "well, let's move away from political point-scoring" and "why can't all parties get together?" pleas are increasingly unconvincing and grating. While I'd still probably pick the LDs out of all three of these parties, the novelty value would wear off fast.

 

- (As someone pointed out to me) "The 'people like us' versus the otherwordly 'them' has been in nauseatingly full effect tonight. Council house tenants, welfare recipients and immigrants have been discussed throughout as unpeople, things that have to have things done to them."

[oafc0000]

Three things that I noted:

 

- Immigration is yet again rearing its head as the terrifying bugbear when it's an utter red herring, so far down the list of things that need to be fixed in this country it's laughable how much each leader is drooling over their clampdowns.

 

- Clegg's still (understandably) playing the "I'm not like them" card, but his constant "well, let's move away from political point-scoring" and "why can't all parties get together?" pleas are increasingly unconvincing and grating. While I'd still probably pick the LDs out of all three of these parties, the novelty value would wear off fast.

 

- (As someone pointed out to me) "The 'people like us' versus the otherwordly 'them' has been in nauseatingly full effect tonight. Council house tenants, welfare recipients and immigrants have been discussed throughout as unpeople, things that have to have things done to them."

 

Good points...

[Gentleman]

Three things that I noted:

 

- Immigration is yet again rearing its head as the terrifying bugbear when it's an utter red herring, so far down the list of things that need to be fixed in this country it's laughable how much each leader is drooling over their clampdowns.

 

- Clegg's still (understandably) playing the "I'm not like them" card, but his constant "well, let's move away from political point-scoring" and "why can't all parties get together?" pleas are increasingly unconvincing and grating. While I'd still probably pick the LDs out of all three of these parties, the novelty value would wear off fast.

 

- (As someone pointed out to me) "The 'people like us' versus the otherwordly 'them' has been in nauseatingly full effect tonight. Council house tenants, welfare recipients and immigrants have been discussed throughout as unpeople, things that have to have things done to them."

 

 

I quite agree.

[beag_teeets]

Cameron - Dean Brill

 

Clegg - Danny Whitaker

 

Brown - Sean Gregan

[Stitch_KTF]

What Labour has done for the working class of the top of my head

 

Tax Credits

Child Trust Fund

Maintaining Child Benefit

SureStart

Investment in state schools

Investment in the NHS

Means tested the tuition fees / grants

Help with the cost of nursery fees

MINIMUM WAGE!!!!

 

Attack on the rich

 

50% tax band

Closing of tax loop holes like BN66 as an example

 

This idea that Labour has attacked the working is total bollox...

 

I do have two criticism under Labour regarding the working (yes I will do your jobs for you both ).... NMW should be higher and the increases in National Minimum Wage where under hand

 

 

Any benefits of a minimum wage are a simplistic fantasy - increased productivity increases wages, not government legislation. This is a fundamental that must be respected in order to prevent a scenario of people being priced out of work (see the self-service things being phased in at supermarkets and automated call centres) which consequently sees more people on benefits. Furthermore, artificially expensive low-skilled labour actually acts to protect and benefit the higher-skilled labour, as there is less threat in terms of competition from it.

 

Moving on, investing in schools/NHS is all good and well, if you can afford it. Same goes for tax credits. Excessive grants and guaranteed loans for further education ultimately only drive up it's cost as the demand increases, and likewise nursery fees. Speaking of nursery, why are the government paying people to have children when, quite clearly, we suffer from over-population?

 

As for the attack on the rich, I posted a link to a video further up the thread which, to me, demonstrated comprehensively how heavily taxing the rich is yet another counter-productive fundamental Labour policy.

 

SureStart I'll give them.

 

It seems to me that the majority of Labour policies, and voters for that matter, plain ignore that fact of life which states that you can't get anything out without putting anything in.

 

 

If you insist on turning out then be sensible and spoil your ballot paper. If you must be conformist and vote then just don't vote Labour, whatever you do! I'm sure they mean well but they're idiots.

[Stevie_J]

Three things that I noted:

 

- Immigration is yet again rearing its head as the terrifying bugbear when it's an utter red herring, so far down the list of things that need to be fixed in this country it's laughable how much each leader is drooling over their clampdowns.

 

- Clegg's still (understandably) playing the "I'm not like them" card, but his constant "well, let's move away from political point-scoring" and "why can't all parties get together?" pleas are increasingly unconvincing and grating. While I'd still probably pick the LDs out of all three of these parties, the novelty value would wear off fast.

 

- (As someone pointed out to me) "The 'people like us' versus the otherwordly 'them' has been in nauseatingly full effect tonight. Council house tenants, welfare recipients and immigrants have been discussed throughout as unpeople, things that have to have things done to them."

Good post. Although, on the first point, it's not really laughable because, sadly, a good number of people will base their vote on this issue. They all know what a valuable vote-winner it could be.

[Stitch_KTF]

Such a bone head comment

 

You do realise we are an ageing society and we need more youngsters to pay for someone to change you piss stained pants when you get older

 

Do you realise how much revenue is generated from a new life being created ? I can't remember the numbers but the country makes something like £250k (can't remember the exact number) on average from every kid born after paying for education, nhs child benefit, etc etc.... So its profitable overall to economy making babies...

 

 

And how many generations will that go on for?