Election 2010 - Post Campaign Vote

[martjs]

I thought you'd finished on this thread ;)

 

Regarding Education, I am afraid this is one area I am particularly elitist. I do not believe in the extension of University Education to all. Education is a pyramid for 2 reasons:

 

1. Not everybody is good at the academic stuff

2. Not everybody wants to do the academic stuff

 

Some people are just not suited to University. They are much better off getting vocational training or getting a trade under their belts. Unfortunately, the policy of openeing it up made everyone think it is a good idea for them. Frankly it isn't and it took a strong personality to say anything to the contrary, particularly where I was educated. This has resulted in lots of people leaving university and hating work as they are doing jobs they considered "beneath them".

 

 

Education for the sake of it is not always a good thing. It shifts people expectations when sometimes that person is frankly not suited. We need a wide ranging education system that suits the need of the individual. We do not need a University focussed education system.

 

Agree with most of this. I was called an elitist in 1999 when Blair was rolling out his "degrees for all" spin. The cynic in me wonders if this was also done since, due to the demise of the manufacturing sector, there aren't that many "trades" available for school-leavers anymore?

 

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

Lib Dem addendum.

 

They're all things to all people, apparently, which is great. They're not anti-Muslim at all (how wrong could I be!).

 

This is Sir Gerald Kaufman, (as it happens, a well known critic of successive Israeli Governments' handling of the Palestinian question) speaking in Parliament today.

 

"I say something else to the Liberal Democrats: they will have to indulge in some internal house cleaning. Their candidate against me at the general election, Qassim Afzal, went round the constituency to mosques and other places where Muslims gather, telling people to vote against me because I am a Jew. That is what their candidate did...My Muslim voters are possessed of a decency and generosity of spirit utterly alien to the Liberal Democrat candidate in my constituency, because they organised for me as they never had before and voted for me in many thousands.

 

The incidents that took place in my constituency as part of an anti-Semitic campaign went on and on. One of my constituents, a Muslim, told me how the Liberal Democrat candidate Qassim Afzal came to his house, which had a poster of mine in the window, and said, “You cannot have a poster in your window of a Jew. Take it down.” I told two Liberal Democrat Members before Parliament was dissolved that that was what their candidate in Gorton was doing. They were horrified. They said that they would bring it to the attention of their leadership. I do not know whether they did. I do know that their Liberal Democrat candidate, against the decency and humanity of my Muslim constituents, went on conducting an anti-Semitic campaign right through to polling day.

 

I say to the Liberal Democrat leader, now the Deputy Prime Minister, that if he did not know about that before, he should have done. His MPs told me that they had told him. He knows about it now. I will wait to see what he does to deal with an overtly anti-Semitic candidate who fought an anti-Semitic, and personally anti-Semitic, election campaign. If the Deputy Prime Minister does not take swift action to deal with that person, I will know that he accepts that anti-Semitism is a run-of-the-mill form of campaigning by Liberal Democrats. [interruption.] Well, it is up to him. That is what their candidate did, disgusting thousands of Muslims in my constituency. It is up to the Liberal Democrats to decide whether those are acceptable campaigning tactics."

 

Over to you, Nicky boy. Disgraceful.

 

I will say no more than that.

 

[oafc0000]

Lib Dem addendum.

 

I was listening to this today and found it utterly disgusting...

[leeslover]

I was listening to this today and found it utterly disgusting...

Nowt surprising, although asking it quite specifically. NB Kaufman has generally been pretty supportive of Israeli policy but was critical of recent actions. It mirrors what I know of Lib Dem actions in Rochdale over recent years.

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

NB Kaufman has generally been pretty supportive of Israeli policy but was critical of recent actions.

 

Example? As far as I know, he's always been fairly critical. By "fairly", I mean he is often wont to call Israeli army officials and ministers "Nazis".

 

It mirrors what I know of Lib Dem actions in Rochdale over recent years.

 

I never heard that before. Surely the good Councillor hasn't been getting in on the anti-Semite action? Or anti-Muslim? Or a bit of this and a bit of that, depending on who he's talking to?

 

 

 

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

NB Kaufman has generally been pretty supportive of Israeli policy but was critical of recent actions.

 

...just had a look at Hansard. He's fairly quiet on the subject (having been Minister or Opposition spokesman for various things not to do with the middle east over the years).

 

The first outright criticism of Israel I can find is here, from 11 January 1988, which is long enough ago to disqualify your theory that he was turned by "recent actions". I haven't found anything "supportive" of Israeli policy nor anything specifically anti-Palestinian, and only a little bit of anti-Arab stuff - when it turned out that Syria was hanging on to prisoners of war from the 1967 conflict in 1972 (which is a bit naughty).

[leeslover]

...just had a look at Hansard. He's fairly quiet on the subject (having been Minister or Opposition spokesman for various things not to do with the middle east over the years).

 

The first outright criticism of Israel I can find is here, from 11 January 1988, which is long enough ago to disqualify your theory that he was turned by "recent actions". I haven't found anything "supportive" of Israeli policy nor anything specifically anti-Palestinian, and only a little bit of anti-Arab stuff - when it turned out that Syria was hanging on to prisoners of war from the 1967 conflict in 1972 (which is a bit naughty).

On digging a little I see that he is pro-Israel in principle but has been critical of their policies at various times. Which to be fair isn't all that difficult. Re: the Lib Dems, they got caught out in Rochdale dishing out stuff not far removed from the BNP on white estates whislt promising the moon on a stick in Asian languages. A fair while ago but the ones I see and hear don't seem to have moved on much

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

On digging a little I see that he is pro-Israel in principle but has been critical of their policies at various times. Which to be fair isn't all that difficult. Re: the Lib Dems, they got caught out in Rochdale dishing out stuff not far removed from the BNP on white estates whislt promising the moon on a stick in Asian languages. A fair while ago but the ones I see and hear don't seem to have moved on much

 

They really are the pits. Labour and Tories disagree with each other, but at least they both have discernible values and known positions. The Liberals just sicken everyone with their opportunism, hypocrisy and utter unscrupulousness. Now they've got a share of the Government, this will hopefully be exposed (at last), and we'll hear no more from them for another hundred years. There'll be no Cleggmania, no more "Vince Cable is a sage" chatter (when he's really just a flip-flopping fraud), and (God be praised!) no more Liberals.

 

Last night in the House, 60 people (as opposed to the usual two) turned up for the Adjournment debate, which was on the 55% dissolution rule. It was introduced by a Tory, and there were loads of Tory and Liberal backbenchers there. They were not there to show their support for priming the pitch in the interests of the coalition. The Liberal Minister did an extremely bad job of defended the rule, suggesting that his heart isn't in it. Such are the bonds of collective responsibility.

 

There may be trouble ahead...

Edited May 26, 2010 by 24hoursfromtulsehill

[garcon]

They really are the pits. Labour and Tories disagree with each other, but at least they both have discernible values and known positions. The Liberals just sicken everyone with their opportunism, hypocrisy and utter unscrupulousness.

Funny how things can be seen so differently from different camps.

 

Look beyond the brainwashed comrades of the Labour ranks and you'd get pretty unanimous agreement to the above quote if you just swapped "The Liberals" and "Labour".

 

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

Funny how things can be seen so differently from different camps.

 

Look beyond the brainwashed comrades of the Labour ranks and you'd get pretty unanimous agreement to the above quote if you just swapped "The Liberals" and "Labour".

 

I'm afraid that ain't so, Joe. Loads of the Tory home counties bunch who fight Liberals at every election hate nothing more than the Liberals. They'll be out of their boxes soon enough. This is from Hansard. Julian Lewis is a Tory, and he had the following to say about the Liberal PPC in his constituency...This is from before the election, but he's one of the ones who's furious about getting into bed with the mean-hearted f-f-f-f-fascists. There you go. I said it. Check it out. Not a happy bunny, and with good reason.

 

The Hated Liberals

 

 

[OldhamSheridan]

Now I'm really confused. Am I allowed to hope this bent* git gets sacked? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8712383.stm). Or would that go against your random PC policies?

 

When will people learn to stop hiring utter idiots? Obviously not yet.

 

*corrupt

[oafc0000]

Now I'm really confused. Am I allowed to hope this bent* git gets sacked? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8712383.stm). Or would that go against your random PC policies?

 

When will people learn to stop hiring utter idiots? Obviously not yet.

 

*corrupt

 

I think he should be removed... Disgraceful IMO...

Edited May 29, 2010 by oafc0000

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

Now I'm really confused. Am I allowed to hope this bent* git gets sacked? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8712383.stm). Or would that go against your random PC policies?

 

When will people learn to stop hiring utter idiots? Obviously not yet.

 

*corrupt

 

Clearly he's got to go. Just because the Liberals are scraping he barrel when it comes to any and every type of minority doesn't mean that a chiselling crook such as Laws should get away with it.

 

One of the worst things about this is that Laws was one of the most sanctimonious Liberals when the expenses scandal broke. He went around saying that because he rented, he never profited from home sales at the taxpayers' expense. Yet it turns out that his boyfriend did profit from selling a flat - where Laws had sub-let a room for years at the taxpayers' expense, contrary to the rules.

 

Taxi for Laws.

 

PS There's nothing random about asking questions about the commitment to equality of a major political party when it doesn't seem to practice what it preaches. There's also nothing random about wondering how they manage to field anti-Semitic candidates in a general election. We should all be a bit worried about that type of thing.

 

 

 

 

 

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

Funny how things can be seen so differently from different camps.

 

Look beyond the brainwashed comrades of the Labour ranks and you'd get pretty unanimous agreement to the above quote if you just swapped "The Liberals" and "Labour".

 

Watch this and tell me Vince Cable is serious.

 

!

 

 

[rudemedic]

Something which is still yet to be reported in this thread, (although I'm sure a few people know about it) is that the Tories won Thirsk and Malton, the Liberals came 2nd and Labour came 3rd. Labour dropped 9.8%- so much for the anti-coalition backlash.

[oafc0000]

Something which is still yet to be reported in this thread, (although I'm sure a few people know about it) is that the Tories won Thirsk and Malton, the Liberals came 2nd and Labour came 3rd. Labour dropped 9.8%- so much for the anti-coalition backlash.

 

Maybe so but it was only the papers really talking this up... Would of been a more interesting result if it was a marginal....

[opinions4u]

Any anti-coalition backlash at this stage will only come from within the parties themselves, not from the electorate.

 

Wait until a few benefits have been scrapped, a handful of services cut and a couple of taxes raised and then many voters may react - some who will have forgotten what caused the changes they are reacting to.

[oafc0000]

Any anti-coalition backlash at this stage will only come from within the parties themselves, not from the electorate.

 

Wait until a few benefits have been scrapped, a handful of services cut and a couple of taxes raised and then many voters may react - some who will have forgotten what caused the changes they are reacting to.

 

The world wide banking collapse ?

[opinions4u]

The world wide banking collapse ?

No.

 

The dickhead who forgot to save for an inevitable rainy day.

 

(and encouraged the banks to grow the mortgage market, driving prices up, increasing tax revenues for the Treasury from Stamp Duty, IHT and VAT).

[rudemedic]

Maybe so but it was only the papers really talking this up... Would of been a more interesting result if it was a marginal....

 

Yeah I see your point but Labour were second last time around (nominally as it is a new constituency), they were beaten into second by the Lib Dems (whose vote increased 4.5%)- despite a load of Lib Dems being angry with them siding with the Tories. Now who told me that

[oafc0000]

No.

 

The dickhead who forgot to save for an inevitable rainy day.

 

(and encouraged the banks to grow the mortgage market, driving prices up, increasing tax revenues for the Treasury from Stamp Duty, IHT and VAT).

 

You forget the state of public services when labour took over and Labours commitment to fix them backed by the electorate...

 

If you think Labour could of got away with saving anything you are fooling yourself but please, feel free..

Edited May 29, 2010 by oafc0000

[oafc0000]

Yeah I see your point but Labour were second last time around (nominally as it is a new constituency), they were beaten into second by the Lib Dems (whose vote increased 4.5%)- despite a load of Lib Dems being angry with them siding with the Tories. Now who told me that

 

Its a simple fact that a lot of Lib Dems are angry...

[opinions4u]

You forget the state of public services when labour took over and Labours commitment to fix them backed by the electorate...

 

If you think Labour could of got away with saving anything you are fooling yourself but please, feel free..

It's a case of value for money.

 

I don't mind paying the tax when it's well spent. The problem with New Labour is they never saw it as the people's money and simply spent it on whatever they wanted regardless of the benefit.

 

The number of non-jobs in the public sector, not just collecting a salary but also accruing pension liabilities for a future generation to pay, is utterly ridiculous.

 

As for the bolded bit above .... Labour's manifesto pledges over the their first 3 elections promised to balance the books over "the economic cycle" while delivering the services promised. They were elected on that basis. Then Brown decided that the economic cycle wasn't 7 years it was 9, then 11. Other than their first two years in power they never managed to balance the books. When it all went tits up they had nothing left in reserve to deal with it because some Scottish meglomaniac actually believed he had ended the "boom and bust" of economic cycles.

Edited May 29, 2010 by opinions4u

[leeslover]

You forget the state of public services when labour took over and Labours commitment to fix them backed by the electorate...

 

If you think Labour could of got away with saving anything you are fooling yourself but please, feel free..

And everyone drove a Ford Cortina and there was no broadband and mobile phones cost £3 a minute to use, until Gordon fixed all of that as well.

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

How come no one wants to talk about the fact that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is a crook? He's paying back more than twice what Hazel Blears did, and you can bet your life his boyfriend is not going to reimburse the public purse for its share of the profits on his former home.

 

TAXI FOR LAWS.