General Election 2010 Thread

[EXC]

Re: General Election 2010 Thread

After watching it last night my mind's made up too.

I'm voting for Cameron purely on the basis that he has clearly got the biggest bladder.

[enaid]

Re: General Election 2010 Thread

After watching it last night my mind's made up too.

I'm voting for Cameron purely on the basis that he has clearly got the biggest bladder.

It's not the bladder that's important, it's the bowels, cause they are all full of ****e

[Sapphire]

Re: General Election 2010 Thread

I also watched last night and to be honest I think I may have decided, but then again I may not have........ oh decisions, decisions.

[scoobydoo]

Re: General Election 2010 Thread

I liked the bit where Brown said he would ensure that all young people were going to be in training /study or job- and Cameron said if that was the case why are there at present 900000 who are not?

Where are these jobs going to come from ? If the jobs are there why are the young people not in them now?


Did anyone understand the bit about corporation tax on banks? Was Cameron saying that the banks could retain more profit in order to increase the share prices so the government would get their money back quicker?

I got the bit about inheritance tax - not sure I entirely agree - but do to a certain extent.

I agree about the bit about couples on higher earnings perhaps loosing tax credits and thought Brown was stupid to harp on that the conservatives were cutting tax credits - when DC explained it was only certain sections that may be withdrawn.

Also is it really true that there are now more managers than beds in the NHS?

If so that seems incredible.

[Guest]

Re: General Election 2010 Thread

Whoever we vote for is going to cut jobs, raise taxes and things are unlikely to change. I did watch the leaders debate and I now know who I am going to vote for. One more week and we will see who holds the balance of power.

The re-election of Brown and his friends as a result of the Lib Dems success, does not represent change. If you want to adopt the Euro and get further into Europe vote Lib Dem (and thus get Labour) if you want your country back, vote Conservative.

If you want electoral change and think that proportional representation might be a good idea, bear in mind that it operates in EU elections and it was this very thing that has given us two BNP MEP's.

[ed.]

Re: General Election 2010 Thread

Bottom line for me is who do you trust?

Brown is really what you see is what you get. Cameron is a parody of Blair, isn't liked within the party at grassroots and has never been himself, Clegg is a kid on Xmas day being filmed for the first time and finding he's a natural.

The only honest out of them is Brown simply because he doesn't deny he's a watt (rearrange letters).

All that matters is is the public sector cut now (con) or next year (lab). That is your choice.

If we want to deny democracy works, we can't bitch the BNP get votes because plenty hold their views and Voltaire was correct. If want to admit democracy is a figment of imagination then I'm sure you're all aware of the court case that proves manifesto's basically are toilet paper and a party breaking their promises that they may well have been elected on the back of are not contractual breaches.

Ergo no party is different, what does it matter.

Yet some of us get wrapped up in Brown calling a women a bigot who misunderstands the fact that those bloody easterns are going back home and leaving jobs to chavs in this country that won't do. And when they aren't, they work bloody harder then most people I know. The way she talked was bigoted, simple. It reminded me of my grandad and those darkies when I actually heard her. In truth anyone who denies that is saying more about their opinion on Brown than what actually happened. And that is the problem. It proves you can't talk about immigration without political correctness getting in the way.

Brown's only mistake - he apologised and didn't stick to the truth. He shouldn't have apologised because he was right. And in admitting he was right he should've gone further and addressed the point of why 'easterns' are so employable. What is wrong with the unemployed in this country that most businesses will employ a Pole in their place?

The last temp job I had to bring in extra cash at Xmas for the kids, I worked with a Polish team in a very 'British company'. All throughout my days as a proper employee I never considered myself lazy. I ran one blokes company for him both on the shop and in the office until I had enough because I was never going to get above basic wage. An older employee got almost twice as much as me, for doing twice as little. This Pole didn't take fag breaks, he was one of the last to leave when the dinner break bell went. He was also back quicker than I was.

Her comments weren't about those who come over here to sponge on the NHS, take benefits etc.....she picked on those who do the polar opposite because she stereotyped and generalised. How is that not bigoted?

Yet we have Cammybaby arguing with the father of a disabled lad and completely failing to understand the difference between mainstream school and specialised school. Where are the headlines about Cammy preferring that disabled kids don't get treated as normal kids? We then have Clegg unable to answer the common truth that education equals certificates that aren't worth the paper they are written on. At least that's not discrimination, he just fails to truly realise or argue properly that successive Gov's move the unemployed to training courses so they aren't classed as unemployed anymore.

He has no ideas, he'd simply increase the figure massaging that the other two do?
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
That's democracy, who do we think will do the least worse job. whilst accepting all of them will line their own pockets at our expense and either way we are ****ed. Pretending one is better than other, holding onto one who leaves the mic on or looks best on telly just plays into the hands of all of them.

Cammy said the country was broken, it is. Not because of the chavs. Not because of binge drinking that we used to call the weekend. And not entirely due to parents who simply should be executed, it's because we all allows others to spend our money, make decisions for us and we feel happy thinking because we have a choice we are making the best of it.

Guy Fawkes had it right. There is no need for a separate central Government thesedays that controls all, the only people who really think it serves a purpose are doing a local Gov down and what they could achieve. First past the post or PR just clouds the issue.

[natweststaffmember]

Re: General Election 2010 Thread

The re-election of Brown and his friends as a result of the Lib Dems success, does not represent change.
Nor does a vote for the conservatives so should I vote BNP? Green? Socialist? UKIP?
If you want to adopt the Euro and get further into Europe vote Lib Dem (and thus get Labour) if you want your country back, vote Conservative.
Clegg has stated a referendum on the whole damn thing and that most certainly appeals to me.
If you want electoral change and think that proportional representation might be a good idea, bear in mind that it operates in EU elections and it was this very thing that has given us two BNP MEP's.

If there was electoral reform I would expect a referendum on that as well.
Please tell me what REAL change is going to happen if the Conservatives come in because fear of a hung Parliament or fear Gordon Brown will still be PM does not mean that I like Cameron any more. Tell me what is right with the Conservatives and not what is wrong with Labour and LibDems because at the moment you are sounding like Cameron's "fear factor" argument and I know you would not want to mimic someone.

[Guest]

Re: General Election 2010 Thread

Clegg has stated a referendum on the whole damn thing and that most certainly appeals to me.

He's lying. Just like David Cameron lied when he stated he would offer a referendum on the EU Lisbon Treaty/constitution. Although, to be fair he did state that it only made sense if the Czech President delayed ratification until the Conservatives take power. Nevertheless, we found that the promise had been peremptorily broken, unilaterally and without prior notice or consultation.

Getting back to Nick Clegg, what their manifesto actually states is that there would be such a referendum “the next time a British government signs up for fundamental change in the relationship between the UK and the EU.”

This is very different from the straightforward In/Out referendum they promised after U-turning on their previous referendum promise. Nick Clegg’s calculation is that there won’t be a major EU treaty in the next three or four years and if there is, he’ll claim that it doesn’t amount to a “fundamental change in the relationship between the UK and the EU”.

After all, the Lib Dems have form here. In 2005, they were elected on the basis of a far less equivocal manifesto commitment:

“We are therefore clear in our support for the [European] Constitution, which we believe is in Britain’s interest — but ratification must be subject to a referendum of the British people.”

By the time the European Constitution Lisbon Treaty came before Parliament, it was obvious that keeping this promise would jeopardise ratification. The peoples of France and the Netherlands had voted “No” and the people of Britain were straining like greyhounds in the slips to do the same.

So Clegg went back on his word and ordered his MPs to abstain on the critical vote. The amendment was defeated in the House of Commons by 63 votes - precisely the number of Lib Dem MPs. In the House of Lords, however, an abstention wouldn’t have been enough, so Clegg adopted his third position in as many weeks and instructed his peers to vote against the referendum he had promised. Instead of a referendum on Lisbon, the Lib Dems would give us a vote on whether to remain in the EU. So a couple of weeks later, the UKIP peer, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, took them at their word and introduced precisely such a proposal in the Lords. Did the Lib Dems support it? Of course not. “We didn’t want to give succour to UKIP,” one of their peers later explained.

Now these Euro-fanatical shysters now have the gall come back with the same promise of a referendum that they have already broken.

How you vote must be up to you. Consider however, the history of the parties and also that if we do not learn from our mistakes, then we are forced simply to repeat them.

The Greek debt crisis should of course have a bearing on how you vote, but will you make the connection? For the most part the whole debate has been about the personalities of the three main party political leaders - as though it were a television game show - just bread and circuses.

Whoever wins the coming general election will receive a poisoned chalice in the form of bond default, a run on the pound and the IMF taking over our finances. Very much better surely that this should be Gordon's just reward for his mishandling of our finances? If to stay at the helm temporarily he is propped up by Nice Nick and his ghastly party they will all suffer the opprobrium of the voters and, with any luck won't get re-elected for generations.

[natweststaffmember]

Re: General Election 2010 Thread

So going with Cameron's policy on Europe, how do you pick and choose which bit you want and which bit you don't want?

[Guest]

Re: General Election 2010 Thread

Nobody gets to pick and choose parts of a party's policy. Either you like the bulk of it and vote for them, of you feel that they do not represent your views and don't vote for them.

Or failing that, you could not vote for a particular party because over a quarter of a century ago somebody did something you think you don't like (because you don't actually remember being all that interested in politics while at junior school) and then ignore what you see around you and indirectly vote for the party who for the last 13 years have systematically wrecked the entire country, by voting for the candidate who represents a party which has not been in power for more than a century.

[natweststaffmember]

Re: General Election 2010 Thread

We were debating Europe and you can pick up stuff from the LibDems policy and from Labour but yet with Conservative policy you can't. That isn't exactly a reason to vote Conservative so I guess we have to choose the party based on who we believe is credible. Who we believe will be the best for our country(and that may mean that we don't agree with certain elements of policy as put in the manifesto).
I do believe in a vote for change and I don't believe David Cameron and the Conservatives are the right party to lead the country so I WILL be voting LibDems and if that means Labour and Gordon Brown becomes leader again then so be it but I don't believe that the Conservative Party is the right choice.

However, I will leave a caveat for you. Mervyn King has said that whoever wins the next general election may well be given a poison chalice that could ruin their party for a generation.

[enaid]

Re: General Election 2010 Thread

Out Hazel has done it again pmsl..........................


EX-CABINET minister Hazel Blears dealt Labour another election blow last night as she admitted using an illegal immigrant on her campaign team.

Nigerian Rhoda Sulaimon has been knocking on doors alongside the MP in Salford, Gtr Manchester, to help defend a 7,945 majority.

Facing boot... mum Rhoda Sulaimon

But The Sun can reveal she is in Britain illegally and faces deportation.
Single mum Rhoda volunteered to work for Mrs Blears in the hope it might help her remain in Britain, it was claimed.
The revelation will heap fresh embarrassment on party chiefs already on the rack over their open-door immigration policy following Gordon Brown's Rochdale "bigot" jibe.
Last night a Labour campaign source said: "Rhoda has been working voluntarily for Hazel Blears in the hope it might help her case.
"She doesn't want to go back to Nigeria and is desperate to stay here. She's been helping out for weeks at the local campaign office and has been out with Hazel when she meets people and goes out leafleting."
Rhoda came to Britain on a student visa five years ago but overstayed after having her daughter, now four.
Home Office immigration officials served her notice on April 16 that she had 30 days to report for deportation - an order imposed only after all appeals have been exhausted.
But yesterday she was still working at Mrs Blears' Labour campaign office.
Last night the former Cabinet minister, who quit the Government last summer following the MPs' expenses scandal, said she had instructed Rhoda to leave.

Advertisement



She said: "I want to thank The Sun very much indeed for bringing this important matter to my attention. Well done to The Sun.
"I had absolutely no personal knowledge about the situation whatsoever and in fact I'd never met this woman until she walked off the street to volunteer to stuff a few envelopes about three weeks ago. I certainly do not, and never have, condoned illegal immigration.
"If you check my record in the various posts I've held, I've cracked down hard on immigration. In terms of this woman Rhoda, I have instructed her to leave the campaign, and she has gone." Last night Mrs Blears said she had informed the Border Agency after learning that the party worker should have left Britain years ago.
She added: "She told me at about 2pm today. I told her that if she didn't have any right to be here she should go. She was upset. I'm concerned she may go underground or leave her accommodation. I have therefore contacted the Border Agency and spoken to the chief immigration officer.
"I've told her she should go back to Nigeria voluntarily and I want the process speeded up so she can go back as quickly as possible."
Rhoda, who is understood to live on benefits in a council flat, refused to comment.


Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...#ixzz0mhFVuq1v

[scoobydoo]

Re: General Election 2010 Thread

thought this was an interesting article

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/co...e-Cameron.html



thought it explained the thoughts behind the "big society" words.

anyone see the Brown/paxman interview?

I am begining to find his smile when he is on the back foot a bit creepy.

[EXC]

Re: General Election 2010 Thread

She said: "I want to thank The Sun very much indeed for bringing this important matter to my attention.

Yeah sure she does.

Like all of Blair's Babes she's a patronising old trollop.

Labour are finished and good riddance to them.

[Amethyst]

Re: General Election 2010 Thread

For interest ref Personal Finance in Manifestos (from the BBA)

Labour

Introduce a universal service obligation on retail banks (all consumers with a valid address will have a legal right to a basic bank account).

Clamp down on the interest rates and other fees charged by instant loan companies and payday or doorstep lenders.

Introduce a single regulator for consumer finance.

New rules governing how financial products are sold will be introduced with a crackdown on unfair terms in contracts.

Promote competition in high-street banking by introducing portable bank account and cash ISA numbers that stimulate switching.

Introduce consistent, easily understood labelling of financial products.

Transform the Post Office into a People's Bank.

The Social Investment Bank will make additional capital available to social enterprises with an initial endowment of £75 million funded by dormant accounts alongside existing funding streams.

Banks will have to publicly report on the extent to which they are under-serving communities.

Conservative

Create the Consumer Protection Agency (see above) with powers to define and ban excessive borrowing rates on store cards.

Launch a national financial advice service (funded through a new levy on the financial services sector).

Introduce a seven-day cooling off period for store cards.

Require credit card companies to provide clear information.

Ensure that no-one is forced to sell their home to pay unsecured debts of less than £25,000.

Will take measures to encourage saving, especially on pensions (‘We must not let the mis-selling of financial products put people off saving’).

Will implement the Ombudsman’s recommendation to make fair and transparent payments to Equitable Life policy holders, through an independent payment scheme, for their relative loss as a consequence of regulatory failure.

Liberal Democrat

Legislate to end unfair bank and financial transaction charges, so that the consumer cannot be charged more than the costs incurred.

Impose maximum interest rates for credit cards and store cards, following consultation with the financial industry and consumer groups.

Introduce a Universal Service Code to secure high-quality customer service in the private and public sectors.

Improve access to banking and help secure the future of the Post Office through a PostBank.

Support for mutuals, co-ops and social enterprises (see above).

Introducing ‘easy giving accounts’ at publicly-owned banks to allow people to operate charitable giving accounts alongside their current accounts.