Bare Knuckle Pickups Forum
At The Back => The Dressing Room => Topic started by: gwEm on April 29, 2010, 06:52:36 PM
-
I'm not big in to politics to be honest, but I found that whole story thoroughly amusing - its the way the whole British media hyped the thing!
-
Whether Mrs Whatever-her-name-is is a bigot or not, and regardless of what Brown said, it's pissing me off that it's suddenly become the biggest issue in the whole campaign. Or at least the media seem determined that it should be.
Was British politics and political coverage always this superficial? I don't remember it being this bad, but maybe I have rose-tinted glasses.
-
Prescott punching someone only lasted a couple days in the press, and actually did him favours in the long run, same with John Major and the "bastards". We'll see about this in the long run.
I have to wonder whether we'd have even heard about it had it been David Cameron, given it was caught on a Sky News mic.
Frankly, as much as I'm a long way from being a voter for ANY of the three major UK parties, I think it's smashing to see (ok, hear) a politician being a person. Getting irate about somebody expressing a candid opinion to a colleague in private is daft.
-
Bigot.
Apparently it stands for:
Brown Is Gone On Thursday...
Apparently...
So much apathy in politics in the UK. And I also hate the fact that this issue will probably have more influence than it's due.
But I do like the leaders debates - I think that they've enlivened things, and maybe Joe Public will start to think a little more about the political process and whether it's right for this country or not...
-
Bigot.
Apparently it stands for:
Brown Is Gone On Thursday...
Apparently...
So much apathy in politics in the UK. And I also hate the fact that this issue will probably have more influence than it's due.
But I do like the leaders debates - I think that they've enlivened things, and maybe Joe Public will start to think a little more about the political process and whether it's right for this country or not...
Or maybe they just encourage people to only consider voting for three parties.
I like the idea of the debates, but I really think they should be regular and feature all parties with even one MP at some point. Like a Question Time with a less biased chair, less shouting and less comedians with nowt to say.
-
I think it's an insight in to his mind and goes to show that he doesn't like people to have an opinion that differs with his. I thought the word bigot was used in context with the far right, not life long Labour voters and local council workers. This incident is great TV, very bad for GB and the Labour party. Which is just fine by me as I'm sick to death of them.
-
Storm in a tea cup, as is much of the political focus in the UK :? Seriously, what he said could have been so much worse. I get frustrated, lose my temper and say something I regret most days, maybe it's a Scottish thing :wink:
In my last job I used to do some over-the-phone tech support. I'm glad no one had a mic recording what I was saying immediately after putting the reciever down :oops:
-
OK, I'm going to dissent from the majority view & say that I think this is a big deal because of what it says about Brown's character:
Firstly, the casual dismissal of one of his own voters (she was a lifelong Labour supporter) as "bigoted" simply because she mentioned immigration
Secondly, the lack of perspective: the encounter he was reacting to had actually gone well. This wasn't an ambush with some frothing Bufton-Tufton Tory squire berating him, it was a civil conversation that Brown handled easily & competently. How by any measure was it "a disaster"?
Thirdly, the thin skin & over sensitivity. A good politician needs a thick skin - even when something has gone disastrously wrong (which this hadn't) - & any good one would have already chalked it up to a job well done & be reading the next briefing paper before the Jag was even in first gear.
Finally, the obvious fear of unscripted contact. This was the first time on this campaign that Brown has appeared in front of anyone but hand-picked labour supporters. If he finds such an easy encounter so stressful, what does it say about his suitability to lead the country?
I'd have given anything to have been a fly on the wall when he crawled into her living room to apologise. "Penitent sinner" indeed :lol:
-
I had to look up the word "bigot" for this. :(
-
Antag - You've said it all. I agree completely.
-
at least you lot get politicians, however corrupt and slimy, to vote for. over here we just have various flavours of bigot!! and a lot of them manage to be slimy and corrupt while they're at it! we're voting in the same election as you, but our votes have absolutely no influence on the outcome of the actual gobvernment election.
-
To be fair to the son of the manse (TM) - scummy English lumpen proletariat are often bigots - However, it was his stupid fault for visiting a person who represents people who don't bother to vote most of the time - maybe he should have gone to a nice middle class person in Edinburgh or somewhere closer to his home (except they all vote SNP).
-
OK, I'm going to dissent from the majority view & say that I think this is a big deal because of what it says about Brown's character:
Firstly, the casual dismissal of one of his own voters (she was a lifelong Labour supporter) as "bigoted" simply because she mentioned immigration
Secondly, the lack of perspective: the encounter he was reacting to had actually gone well. This wasn't an ambush with some frothing Bufton-Tufton Tory squire berating him, it was a civil conversation that Brown handled easily & competently. How by any measure was it "a disaster"?
Thirdly, the thin skin & over sensitivity. A good politician needs a thick skin - even when something has gone disastrously wrong (which this hadn't) - & any good one would have already chalked it up to a job well done & be reading the next briefing paper before the Jag was even in first gear.
Finally, the obvious fear of unscripted contact. This was the first time on this campaign that Brown has appeared in front of anyone but hand-picked labour supporters. If he finds such an easy encounter so stressful, what does it say about his suitability to lead the country?
+1
at least you lot get politicians, however corrupt and slimy, to vote for. over here we just have various flavours of bigot!! and a lot of them manage to be slimy and corrupt while they're at it! we're voting in the same election as you, but our votes have absolutely no influence on the outcome of the actual gobvernment election.
+ infinity
i'd say clegg for the win, but I can't vote for anyone who would even slightly increase clegg's chance of winning. the only party I can vote for here with even the slightest influence on uk politics is the unionists (who are allied to the tories)- and I would never vote for the tories if i lived in england, scotland or wales, unless it was necessary to keep e.g. the bnp out.
so yeah, before all you guys go complaining about how much your politicians suck (and believe me, I agree with you), spare a thought for people here whose politicians suck even more. we don't even get to vote for political parties based on actual policies, apart from what country we want to remain with or join.
I also thought it was very unfair that the snp and plaid cymru (i hope I've spelt that correctly) didn't get to take part- it's one thing the politicians here not getting to take part, at least the cons, libs and labs aren't standing here. That's surely going to put the snp and PC at a disadvantage. the other smaller english parties should probably also have got to take part too.
-
I thought it interesting that he referred to the encounter as a disaster ( ie I mean before he used the "b" word) because the encounter didn't seem that taxing to me. I don't agree with nfe though about it being disregarded if it had been Mr Cameron. I think we'd have had Tory toff disses voter i.e we may have had just as much publicity in reverse but from different sources. I think it was very bad form on the part of Mr Brown but I'd have said that about any of them in the same situation.
-
I don't agree with nfe though about it being disregarded if it had been Mr Cameron. I think we'd have had Tory toff disses voter i.e we may have had just as much publicity in reverse but from different sources.
It was a Sky microphone Brown was wearing though, I think they'd have hushed it up. Sky and the Murdoch empire are very pro-Tory this election.
-
Honestly, he did something everyone does hundred of times in an average lifetime, even moreso if your job/existence involves large-scale immersion in the General Public(tm). Anyone who denies that they've been pleasant to someone's face for the sake of appearances and called them a bollocks once their back was turned is a liar.
He committed the cardinal sin. He got caught.
-
You are right I suppose Philly. I wonder why he had the mic on him - was it a deal he had with them? Surely he must have agreed to it but forgot about it momentarily. I think it was an overreaction though as the lady didn't give him that hard a time I thought. I wouldn't condemn a man on this one event bearing in mind that we all make mistakes but even so, I'd have expected something a bit better from a public figure seeking the approval of the public and especially those who don't necessarily support him. Rightly or wrongly this will have put a lot of people off him.
-
I have heard that it's common practice that someone provides a radio mic and everyone gets access to the sound feed. It would be difficult (in a walk-about situation) for every News outlet to bring their own soundman + kit. I suspect that may change from now on. I would have though there would have been some agreement over when the feed was switched off though, I would.
I don't think perception of Brown has changed. Those who dislike him will have their believes confirmed. Those who like him will think he's being unfairly treated. A bit like Bush in Fahrenheit 9/11 it didn't change view, just entrenched them.
Once again the focus is on something (nearly) irrelevant, we're in for massive cuts (someone on the TV a couple of days ago predicted 500,000 jobs lost in the public service) and serious tax rises, IMO that's what should be the issue.
Notice that none of the other parties are making any political capital out of it. They know it could have easily been them.
-
at's what should be the issue.
Notice that none of the other parties are making any political capital out of it. They know it could have easily been them.
They're leaving so as not to look like vultures. And because Rupert Murdoch is making sure it's all getting gazillions of press anyway.
-
I have to admit that he went up in my estimation because of this (and the over the televised debates and, and the rest of it, etc) :lol:
He was basically having a go at his people, in a "sheesh... where did you dig that one up? Wot a disaster... why am I doing this walkabout cr@p?"
When his people ask "what was the problem?" in a "did we miss something?" kind of way, he replied "she was just a bigotted woman" in a very calm and end-of-conversation fashion, which in that particular exchange, in that car, considering who they were and what job they were doing at the time, meant "oh, it wasn't a big deal, don't worry boys you did ok... she was just an opinionated woman that I could have done without..."
The big mistake he made was that he had a microphone on...
And moments later a camera crew, with a reporter who admits "I haven't actually heard it", approaches a jolly old pensioner who has a "I just spoke to the pm and said my piece, I'll be on the telly" smile on her face, and asks, in a "not sure I should be doing this" tone of voice - "He just called you a bigot - what do you think of that?"
First, he didn't call her a bigot, he said she was a "bigotted woman", which has a slightly different meaning (I had to look it up too). All across Newsnight etc that night they were saying "bigot" - did anyone else notice that the next night all BBC correspondents had changed the reference to "bigotted woman", the only people still saying "bigot" were interviewees with an anti-Brown bias?
Second, they initially gave this woman the impression that he had made some sort of public statement condemning her - that's what made the story so big. He didn't, he said it in private. He and his team c--ked up in that they didn't get the mic removed. The reporter that put the question to her knew this and felt embarrassed doing it...
Thirdly, he can deal with this kind of sh1t - it's part of the bluddy job description. But look what they've done to her just to get a story?!! Complete F U C K E RS, I hate them (the media), and us for wanting and supporting this sort of bullsh1t...
Mebbe she is bigotted (not a "bigot", which can only be a perjorative term the way most of us use the language). I know of some ordinary people who've also heard what she said and whose reactions have been "of course she bluddy is!!"... BUT, then so is Mr Brown, so am I, ... we are ALL bigotted to some extent (= opinionated to the extent of sometimes being intolerant of other peoples views, esp religion, politics, etc)
Anywhooo - I was seriously considering not voting this time... It probably is time for a change, but I am still not ready to go back to the Conservatives, especially with the people they have at the top... I don't trust Saint Clegg at all (and I actually disagree with some of his apparent policies) - and because of the developments of the last few weeks I cannot safely vote LibDem as a protest/wotever, because there's a real danger he might get in now if too many people do that!
So who can I vote for?? Enter the media circus with people dissing Gordon Brown because he can't relate to the public with his eye contact and body language, telling me he's doomed, etc... - I'm watching the same sh1t they are, to me he seems a bloke so passionate about getting the job done and so scared of what he believes the others are going to do, that he forgets what his bluddy spin-doctors and media-fukwits keep trying to train him to do... I LOVE IT! That's what i'm like... the other two are just... I dunno what what... mebbe they could do the job, but I can't hear any better solutions, Mr Clegg, especially, just sounds like the media I hate so much...
The bottom line, as far as I can make out for my own decision making, is that whoever gets in is f@cked. Overall tax is going to have to go back to levels of the mid-80s, the housing-market is going to have to crash properly, there are going to be strikes, unemployment, etc, etc, it's going to be a complete and utter fukfest... SO, whoever it is, they're unlikely to last a full term, and they will go down in flames, and in 10-20 years they will be marked as one of the failures in the history of UK politics...
I've been through what we're about to face before, though this one might be worse. All we have to do is survive it, and we need some sort of management team up the top... personally I'd rather have the dour b@stard who wants to get on with the job, doesn't know how to charm me, and who isn't promising me a load of stuff that I don't think we can afford on top of telling me that we have to cut it all back at the same time...
I was open to suggestions, but over the last few weeks:
* Conservatives and Libdems have lost me through their own utterances
* Gordon Brown - who I didn't have an opinion on or know much about - turns out not to be some sort of sickly media whore
* Things like this "bigot" issue have convinced me to vote Labour
I'll take whatever we get lumbered with after May 6th.
(I was REAL wary about posting this - rip it apart like you want folks :lol:.
Any actual "political" content is all my own opinion, obviously, and I've only left it in to illustrate how there might be some people, like me, who will actually be helped to decide "Labour" because of things like what the media did the other night... I'd already decided a day or two before bigot-thang, but all it did was confirm my opinion that, for the present, Brown/Darling is who I want in charge...)
-
You've almost convinced me Andy, but could you condense it into a series of nice simple little bullet points? :wink:
-
You've almost convinced me Andy, but could you condense it into a series of nice simple little bullet points? :wink:
+ 1 Andy I clicked away, I don't have the time to read that much let alone write it!
-
Andy, I completely disagree with your re-interpretation of Brown's comments as "oh, it wasn't a big deal, don't worry boys you did ok... she was just an opinionated woman that I could have done without..."
But
Would you really say that even with this most rose tinted view of his actions you would be persuaded to vote in the rest of the labour govt who have run this country into the ground for the last 13 years?
Illegal Wars / bankruptcy / expenses scandal / no promised vote on EU constitution?
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results...
-
bigoted is the adjective coming from the noun bigot. I don't see your point.
"John is a bigot" means the same thing as "John is a bigoted person".
Am I missing something?
I agree he's being crucified, and I think it's daft if you change who you're going to vote for based on it (I'd love to see what mics placed in the bullingdon club, sorry tory headquarters, would pick up), but it doesn't exactly reflect on him well. I agree wholeheartedly, though, that they're all saying stuff like that and the others just weren't caught.
I'm not sure how that makes gordon not a media whore- he was all smiles on camera, and then completely different off it. I agree that he's no good at the slick politician thing (and I would also agree that that makes next to no difference as to whether he should get elected, as long as he's not so bad that he's causing international incidents :lol: ), but he's still trying to do it.
regarding whom to vote for... I disagree with some things they're all saying. However, I disagree least with the lib dems. At least now (maybe... probably not if the media gets its way) it's the least of 3 evils rather than the lesser of two.
interesting thought- if whoever gets in next will be unelectable for the next generation (as I've heard some people in the media saying), would that be a reason to vote for the tories?
-
You've almost convinced me Andy, but could you condense it into a series of nice simple little bullet points? :wink:
+ 1 Andy I clicked away, I don't have the time to read that much let alone write it!
:lol:
Condensed version:
I have heard that it's common practice that someone provides a radio mic and everyone gets access to the sound feed. It would be difficult (in a walk-about situation) for every News outlet to bring their own soundman + kit. I suspect that may change from now on. I would have though there would have been some agreement over when the feed was switched off though, I would.
I don't think perception of Brown has changed. Those who dislike him will have their believes confirmed. Those who like him will think he's being unfairly treated. A bit like Bush in Fahrenheit 9/11 it didn't change view, just entrenched them.
Once again the focus is on something (nearly) irrelevant, we're in for massive cuts (someone on the TV a couple of days ago predicted 500,000 jobs lost in the public service) and serious tax rises, IMO that's what should be the issue.
Notice that none of the other parties are making any political capital out of it. They know it could have easily been them.
Thanks Ken - you posted it while I was typing mine...
My only main addition is my utter contempt for the "news" media ... hope that came through :lol:
Sadly, we all need it and rely on it, but it is fatally flawed...
Anyone familiar with the HBO mini-series "From The Earth To The Moon" about the Apollo moon-landings? I love this series and have watched it many times... but I cannot watch the Apollo 13 episode because it makes me SO angry... (luckily there's a film to insert at that point in the story :lol:)
We need free speech, etc, etc... but it means that the media is prey to sometimes unfeeling and ambitious individuals who make snap and sometimes rash decisions (because speed is of the essence), motivated entirely by furthering their own careers, and not by the "public interest", whatever that might be...
I'm fairly certain that the journalist who collared the "bigotted woman" knew she might be doing the wrong thing, and that she was almost certainly going to seriously upset a member of the public, in public... just to generate a better story from an initial story that had perhaps been obtained dishonestly first place...
That girl might have been under orders, and not able to say "no I'm not doing it" - her career would go nowhere bluddy fast if she had. The way she was talking suggests she might have been under orders, but she might also have been just excited and nervous at the prospect of being involved in this scoop.... But what sort of industry is it that you have to be prepared, and even expect, to do, at best, "morally ambiguous" things in order to succeed...???
Yeah, yeah.... I know :lol:
-
Andy, you are the KING of the extended post!!!
I think I agree with what you're saying (and disagree with Sir Afghan of Dave...)
This country HASN'T been run into the ground. At the end of any long tenure in power, there are always comments and opinions like these; but life goes on.
I HATED the Tory govenments of the 1980's and 1990's, but that was ideological rather than from anything substantive. And I don't like some of the things that have happened under Labour, but I would much rather align myself with Brown than Cameron.
And I like Clegg. Because he's in favour of voting reform which the Tories (and more importantly, Murdoch) are fundamentally opposed to, because it would make for a fairer system.
Mark.
-
oh yeah, i also agree that it was disgusting how they were camped outside the woman's house etc., destroying her life to get a story.
EDIT: ^ the country isn't great. And at the end of any tenure there isn't normally the worst financial crash in 80 years. the financial crash happened on labour's watch; they didn't cause it, but they sure as heck didn't prevent it either. The FSA etc. should have been keeping a much closer eye on the ball, and if labour weren't so pally with the big guns in finance, industry etc., maybe they'd have stopped it. It didn't help that gordy claimed it was the end of boom and bust... irony alert. The argument that labour keeps bringing out that "nobody saw it coming" is offensive (I know for a fact that people saw it coming- I certainly did, and I read plenty of economists etc. who also said it was coming, and this was before the fact), as is the fact that they claimed it was unavoidable. Australia avoided it (as far as i'm aware). Most countries which didn't have a gigantic housing bubble avoided it.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think the tories would have done anything differently, so it's pretty rich for them to claim it's all labour's fault.
I really don't understand the logic in claiming to want labour out because of all it's done, and then thinking of voting for the tories who would have done everything labour did (they supported the war; are more in favour of business than labour is so there'd still have been a financial crash etc.), and probably a bunch of other cr@ppy things too.
lib dems were the only ones even slightly questioning the financial system. they were also against the war.
-
I'm a "classical liberal" and a pragmatist.
A Lib Dem vote is a wasted vote if you want change - that's the reality of the current system even if you don't like it.
If you want to vote Lib Dem in protest - great that's a fine and justifiable use of your political voice but you won't get change only a fleeting recognition.
The Economics are a reality and we have no money. Britain has been run into the ground by Labour and that's quantifiable.
Worse still the gap between rich and poor has greatly increased, so don't believe outdated ideas of Labour social values.
As for Cameron...
My enemy's enemy is my friend and I want Brown and THE LABOUR PARTY out.
-
Do you honestly think that any UK government of any flavour could have prevented the current economic situation?
No.
We're a small country with a relatively loud voice, in an economic maelstrom dictated by China and the US.
Every developed economy is worse off. Brown didn't cause that.
And a LibDem vote isn't a wasted vote, particularly if the resulting coalition puts forward a decent version of proportional representation, like most grown up economies have...
Ready, set, GO!
;)
-
So, I dont really watch the news, for an assortment of excellent reasons, and the first I've heard of this is in this thread, but if I infer correctly -
Brown is wandering round having semi-staged conversations with labour supporters that are supposed to act as a platform for him to say things that make him/labour look good
One of them says something veiled or derogatory about immigrants?
Brown says later, in private, that that conversation didnt behoove the walkabout, since the individual was bigoted.
Press make big hoo hah.
My first question would then have to be
So what?
-
Daves/etc
(answers to as much as I can - I ought to do some work...)
I worried about that bigot vs bigotted thing on the night.
I was wondering "is it just me?"
If you called me a bigotted person, I go "yeah, I guess I am".
If you called me a bigot, I'm be offended.
I think "bigot" comes across as more perjorative... not sure.
I was just interested that on the first night, even immediately after playing the clip, journalists were all going "GB called her a bigot...". I'm sat there going "no he didn't, Jeremy, get it right..."
Whereas the next night they had all strangely changed it to "GB called her a bigoted woman..."
... which kinda fitted with my misgivings?
On my rose-tinted interpretation. Yep, tis my interpretation only, based on hearing the recording while watching it synched in to the footage of them getting into the car and then driving away. The body language and head movements (he turns away from them as he says it) added to me feeling it was "end-of-conversation" "stop-worrying-about-it" stuff. They had the next engagement/faux-pas to go on to remember! :lol:
Oh yeah, and "media whore" - sorry, I meant someone actually good at it!! :lol: He's utterly useless at it... Did you see that AWFUL sickly grin Brown pulled at the end of last night's debate??!
Some backroom johnny obviously said "MAKE SURE YOU SMILE during the last sentence, look right at the camera and beam...". At the very moment he did it, that same Johnny was probably still in the backroom, cringing as his colleagues threw stale buns and empty coffee cups at him :lol:
I'd class Clegg as VERY good at it - he's a natural like Blair was. Cameron is the worst type, for me, he's got all the skills, but just doesn't sound as believable as Clegg... poor chap :lol: (me missus says it's cos his mouth's too small... I'm not so sure)
=====
OK politics...
I'm actually more concerned here about the media thing - if they'd done it to Cameron or Clegg I'd be just as p1ssed off with it.
But the way the we vote is the way we vote - we vote for what we agree most with.
I have to admit I don't personally hold labour responsible for the bankruptcy stuff, all parties are implicated in the expenses sh1t, etc, etc...
I didn't like the reasons that "they" gave for war, I assume we mean uncle Sadam here?, but I do think we had to do it - I just wished, even at the time, that Bush and Blair could have stood up and said "look, there's a nutter in charge of a big proportion of the remaining known oil reserves... what do you think? We don't like "might-is-right" anymore than you do, but we're kinda stuffed in 10-20 years if we let him and his family keep it... shall we go get the b@stard?" - I'm still convinced that was what it was about, and I'm afraid that's my way of thinking too... so we might not ever agree on that one, sorry!
My impression is they've done not a bad job of keeping it together through an absolute global sh1t-storm...
personally, I'd have let the banks fail... and stuff anyone who had savings in them - you took a risk putting it in the account, tough sh1t... but I've come round to the idea that it's possibly a good job I wasn't in charge at the time! :lol:
So, none of these things are things that I'm going to be holding against Labour.
I am also very suspicious of change-for-change-sake, especially when we're only just hanging on at the moment. If Cameron or Clegg had managed to outline to me something new that sounded like it would not make the next year or two more dangerous, then I might have been swayed... but they haven't.
The thing will right itself as much as it can anyway, regardless... There's even bigger sh1t kicking off right now... the EU constitution might not even matter in the next couple of years - we'll be too busy working out which side of the war in Europe to join to worry about it :lol:
Most of the "cr@p" is out of our hands - it's coming down anyway - we just need to figure out how to react to it.
I just happen to prefer the Brown offer of how he thinks he can steer us through what we're looking at at the moment - and I want Darling to continue as Chancellor, he's still got work to do.
I suspect I'm not going to get them though, and I'll accept whatever it is we do get :D
-
I heard the recording...
I thought he said 'big eared' woman, and to be fair, she did have big ears.
-
My enemy's enemy is my friend and I want Brown and THE LABOUR PARTY out.
Hmm, you can end up with some dodgy "friends" that way. :?
-
OK, I'll play :)
Every developed economy is worse off. Brown didn't cause that.
Perhaps not, but we're much, much worse off because Brown ran a structural deficit at the top of the economic cycle. That's worse than incompetent, it's wilfully destructive - if you can't pay your way when the cash is rolling in, how can you hope to when times are hard?
proportional representation, like most grown up economies have...
You mean like Italy (100+ changes of government since WWII?) & Belguim (no government at all for last year or so). Consensus politics isn't "grown up", it's just an excuse to divide up the spoils in a backroom deal - simply swapping which party leads the same coalition is a de facto one party state.
My enemy's enemy is my friend and I want Brown and THE LABOUR PARTY out.
Hmm, you can end up with some dodgy "friends" that way. :?
Yes & where would we be had we not been "friends" with Stalin in 1941-45?
-
proportional representation, like most grown up economies have...
You mean like Italy (100+ changes of government since WWII?) & Belguim (no government at all for last year or so). Consensus politics isn't "grown up", it's just an excuse to divide up the spoils in a backroom deal - simply swapping which party leads the same coalition is a de facto one party state.
Yep - always examples of good and bad practice.
But given lack of localised power, a system that pushes into power a party that got fewer votes than another party... well, that's not my idea of a fair democracy.
-
I'm glad all this bullshitee is over on Thursday.
It doesn't matter who wins, nothing's going to change. All three candidates suck. I saw that TV show debate yesterday, hah, now I'm actually glad I don't get to vote in the UK!
-
Would you really say that even with this most rose tinted view of his actions you would be persuaded to vote in the rest of the labour govt who have run this country into the ground for the last 13 years?
Illegal Wars / bankruptcy / expenses scandal / no promised vote on EU constitution?
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results...
Now, I'm far to left wing to vote for any of the three main parties, or even the four main parties in Scotland. But in the last thirteen years, we HAVE gained:
Minimum wage, civil partnerships, pension credits, winter fuel allowance, Surestart, free bus pass and tv licence for those whatever age it is, new schools, huge investment in the NHS with many new hospitals, NHS Direct, more doctors, more nurses, cutting waiting times for treatment dramatically. Devolved power to the Scottish and Welsh Assembly. Paternity Leave, more police, cut real crime (which the Tories insist on lying about), 700,000 children lifted out of child poverty. Added to that, we keep hearing about how we've just seen the worst recession ever ever evers! yet if you look around this doesn't look like a country on the brink of collapse, with less unemployment, business closures and repossessions than any other recession, and managed to keep inflation low.
Now there's undeniably been both good and bad. But none of this would have happened under the other government we could have had.
The illegal wars are unforgivable. Our continued support of horrific regimes is unforgivable Our refusal to legislate against people in the UK selling torture equipment to developing nations and staggering hypocrisy on nuclear arms are unforgivable.
But lets be honest, 99.999% of people in the nation don't really care about those issues come election time. They care about taxes and hospitals and police and schools and what they get paid for how much work. And on those issues Labour have a far better track record than the Tories. And either Gordon Brown or David Cameron will be prime minister on the 7th of May.
Best realistic result at the moment is Labour leading a Lab/Lib coalition government.
A liberal outright in would be better, with their 10K tax cut off and targetting on the income tax loopholes. It's an affront that the poorest earners pay a higher proportion of their income in tax than the wealthiest, which will get worse under Conservatives with income tax drops/inheritance tax cuts and VAT increases. But Liberals aren't winning outright, so ho hum.
-
The 5 Billion Gordon Brown lost on the UK gold sales should see him in Prison IMO, he single handedly lost the equivalent of 6 bearings banks. Nick leeson got 6-and-a-half years for his £827 Million loses. The Bank of England advised him not to sell it but he sold it against the experts advice. That would have paid for a lot of free bus passes!
I don't blame the media for all this, I blame the fat imbecile for forgetting to take his mike off then calling one of his own voters bigoted for just mentioning immigration.
I've always voted Labour and I'm sure I will again but I think we need a change before everybody ends up working in Local Government :D
-
a system that pushes into power a party that got fewer votes than another party... well, that's not my idea of a fair democracy.
That's a fair criticism, but surely a far better answer than PR is to simply fix our heavily gerrymandered electoral map & actually attempt to resolve the constitutional inbalances caused by devolution?
If every consituency actually consisted of as close to the same number of voters as possible (currently there are variations of as much as 50,000!) then winning without getting the largest number of votes would become mathmatically impossible.
In the case of PR, the cure is far worse than the original illness IMHO...
-
^ possibly, but the big problem with FPTP, even if you do what you say, is that if you can win a ton of constituencies by a small margin, even if you get completely wiped in others, you win. Even if you don't have the most votes. That doesn't sit too well with me.
My enemy's enemy is my friend and I want Brown and THE LABOUR PARTY out.
i disagree with that logic when everything you (rightly) blamed brown for would be as bad, most likely worse, under the tories.
Do you honestly think that any UK government of any flavour could have prevented the current economic situation?
No.
We're a small country with a relatively loud voice, in an economic maelstrom dictated by China and the US.
Every developed economy is worse off. Brown didn't cause that.
And a LibDem vote isn't a wasted vote, particularly if the resulting coalition puts forward a decent version of proportional representation, like most grown up economies have...
Ready, set, GO!
;)
not completely, considering the UK banks' exposure to the US housing market, but a decent/on the ball government (rather than one partying on deripaska's yacht) would have separated out merchant banking from retail banking. A decent gov would also not have allowed the banks to get so big that they couldn't be allowed to fail, nor to have such an imbalance in assets to liabilities. Nor to have a business plan based entirely on the glorified ponzi scheme that is the housing market. Even with what has happened, I still hear most politicians saying that we need to get house prices back up. WRONG! That was the problem in the first place. People couldn't afford them, but credit was too cheap and available, pushing the prices higher and higher, and people were willing to pay crazy prices for houses because "oh, in two years it'll be worth £50k more than I paid, so who cares?". It's crazy. Someone will doubtless say that I'm way too harsh and what about all the people who have houses and who are in fear of negative equity, but to that I would answer, "What about all the people who can't afford a house at all?"
could a UK gov have completely avoided this? doubtful (but as i said, australia did).
could it have avoided having to bail out the banks? yes.
I agree about the lib dems. If you vote for someone you don't like that's also a wasted vote.
andy: bigot might sound worse, yeah, i guess you could argue that the noun is being used to define the person, whereas as an adjective it could be one of many traits. my point is just that they mean the same thing.
i agree that the press is ridiculously biased. But it's even more biased against the lib dems, even still a lot of the press is trying to pretend that the lib dems are some strange fringe loony party. heck, they're older than labour!
fwiw, i'd rather see gordy get back in than cameron. no question. But i'd be willing to risk voting for the lib dems (if i lived in an area where I could).
gordy can't smile, no arguments there.
the iraq war was a complete stitch up, and both the tories and labour were in favour. it also vastly increased our exposure to terrorism.
clegg is probably a completely slimy politician too, but he seems less bad than the other two, and actually seems to argue based on policies rather than "if you vote for him you risk getting him!". "We're not as bad as the other guys" is hardly a vote-winner.
antag: belgium is a bit of a red herring there, I fear. It's split based on language etc., it's not really the PR system to blame.
and i don't think we had much choice in being friends with stalin, hitler invaded russia. he'd have invaded russia whether or not we were friends with him. In fact, he invaded russia when we weren't.
pretty much agreed with nfe (apart from the bit about the lib dems not having a chance... i'm still hoping :lol: ).
and yeah, the gold sell-off was daft.
-
Do you guys think Gordon is covered in Teflon?
Micro-Managing Chancellor for 11 years .. Then... Unelected Prime Minister.
He is accountable for his actions nothing more or less.
I wonder how many of you would still mount a chorus to blame Thatcher for X/Y/Z but seem to excuse this cabal of champagne socialists for almost anything.
Seems like a mass case of Stockholm syndrome.
-
Then... Unelected Prime Minister.
He's equally elected as every other British Prime Minister.
He is accountable for his actions nothing more or less.
Course.
My point is simply that the "Running things into the ground" tack just isn't a worthy sentiment, as for at almost every point in the last 13 years we've been in a better postion in almost all regards than at any point under the previous government. And this has only really changed in terms of economy in the last year and the reversing of positive moves in terms on civil liberties since Terror became a real headline grabber.
-
Do you guys think Gordon is covered in Teflon?
Micro-Managing Chancellor for 11 years .. Then... Unelected Prime Minister.
He is accountable for his actions nothing more or less.
I wonder how many of you would still mount a chorus to blame Thatcher for X/Y/Z but seem to excuse this cabal of champagne socialists for almost anything.
Seems like a mass case of Stockholm syndrome.
+1
It's ok for New Labour to $%&# things up most socialists still harp on about the Torys mistakes like they were a million times worse than New Labours.
I got laid off twice last year. That never happened to me before.
I don't read newspapers as I think you just become what whatever political slant the paper is. I also think they're designed to keep you angry. So I take things as I see and hear them, not through the mind of an editorial. All I see and hear from the construction industry is hardship and an uncertain future. So I will never vote for New Labour again. They were supposed to help working class people. What a load of bollocks. They have created more taxes then ever and my employers have to work us even harder to get a profit out of us to cover these extra overheads or the business goes under and we don't have jobs. Blair $%&#ed up our working hours too, thinking he was doing us a favour. All I see in the poxy Labour party is a load over mature students messing up communities, pubs, small businesses, entertainment, education. I could go on but it doesn't make the slightest bit of difference as do the other posts here. People see the world according to where they are in it. Most people won't vote because they gave up giving a $%&# years ago. My Dad was in the Labour party and was always canvassing before elections. He can't get his head around the damage they have done and their motivations for their mental policies. So i guess he won't be voting for them this time around. Lots of my friends have emigrated because of them. I wish I $%&#ing did too. I hate them. :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:
-
Do you guys think Gordon is covered in Teflon?
Micro-Managing Chancellor for 11 years .. Then... Unelected Prime Minister.
He is accountable for his actions nothing more or less.
I wonder how many of you would still mount a chorus to blame Thatcher for X/Y/Z but seem to excuse this cabal of champagne socialists for almost anything.
Seems like a mass case of Stockholm syndrome.
+1
It's ok for New Labour to $%&# things up most socialists still harp on about the Torys mistakes like they were a million times worse than New Labours.
I got laid off twice last year. That never happened to me before.
I don't read newspapers as I think you just become what whatever political slant the paper is. I also think they're designed to keep you angry. So I take things as I see and hear them, not through the mind of an editorial. All I see and hear from the construction industry is hardship and an uncertain future. So I will never vote for New Labour again. They were supposed to help working class people. What a load of bollocks. They have created more taxes then ever and my employers have to work us even harder to get a profit out of us to cover these extra overheads or the business goes under and we don't have jobs. Blair $%&#ed up our working hours too, thinking he was doing us a favour. All I see in the poxy Labour party is a load over mature students messing up communities, pubs, small businesses, entertainment, education. I could go on but it doesn't make the slightest bit of difference as do the other posts here. People see the world according to where they are in it. Most people won't vote because they gave up giving a $%&# years ago. My Dad was in the Labour party and was always canvassing before elections. He can't get his head around the damage they have done and their motivations for their mental policies. So i guess he won't be voting for them this time around. Lots of my friends have emigrated because of them. I wish I $%&#ing did too. I hate them. :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:
Cool, so go vote for a Socialist party and attempt to actually help who gives a shit. :)
-
Do you guys think Gordon is covered in Teflon?
Micro-Managing Chancellor for 11 years .. Then... Unelected Prime Minister.
He is accountable for his actions nothing more or less.
I wonder how many of you would still mount a chorus to blame Thatcher for X/Y/Z but seem to excuse this cabal of champagne socialists for almost anything.
Seems like a mass case of Stockholm syndrome.
+1
It's ok for New Labour to $%&# things up most socialists still harp on about the Torys mistakes like they were a million times worse than New Labours.
I got laid off twice last year. That never happened to me before.
I don't read newspapers as I think you just become what whatever political slant the paper is. I also think they're designed to keep you angry. So I take things as I see and hear them, not through the mind of an editorial. All I see and hear from the construction industry is hardship and an uncertain future. So I will never vote for New Labour again. They were supposed to help working class people. What a load of bollocks. They have created more taxes then ever and my employers have to work us even harder to get a profit out of us to cover these extra overheads or the business goes under and we don't have jobs. Blair $%&#ed up our working hours too, thinking he was doing us a favour. All I see in the poxy Labour party is a load over mature students messing up communities, pubs, small businesses, entertainment, education. I could go on but it doesn't make the slightest bit of difference as do the other posts here. People see the world according to where they are in it. Most people won't vote because they gave up giving a $%&# years ago. My Dad was in the Labour party and was always canvassing before elections. He can't get his head around the damage they have done and their motivations for their mental policies. So i guess he won't be voting for them this time around. Lots of my friends have emigrated because of them. I wish I $%&#ing did too. I hate them. :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:
Cool, so go vote for a Socialist party and attempt to actually help who gives a shit. :)
I'm going to vote. I didn't say I wasn't. I do give a shite. I'm also going down the pub. If its still open for business that is.
Have a good evening and don't let us all fall out over this election!
-
Have a good evening and don't let us all fall out over this election!
I'd never let an erection come between us....
-
^ :lol:
Do you guys think Gordon is covered in Teflon?
Micro-Managing Chancellor for 11 years .. Then... Unelected Prime Minister.
He is accountable for his actions nothing more or less.
I wonder how many of you would still mount a chorus to blame Thatcher for X/Y/Z but seem to excuse this cabal of champagne socialists for almost anything.
Seems like a mass case of Stockholm syndrome.
i said i'm for clegg. :?
-
Have a good evening and don't let us all fall out over this election!
I'd never let an erection come between us....
:lol: I'm drunk already!!
-
Have a good evening and don't let us all fall out over this election!
I'd never let an erection come between us....
:lol: I'm drunk already!!
Good man yerself, Mr Mac!
-
On a lighter note
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdQxDO1lBJc&sns=em
Sent from my iPhone
-
haha. I enjoyed that
-
hehe
so, a car crashed in the middle of mandy's speech. It's ok to laugh because the person wasn't hurt.
also, guardian is backing clegg. awesome. now we just need a paper which people actually read to back him and we have a chance :lol:
-
hehe
so, a car crashed in the middle of mandy's speech. It's ok to laugh because the person wasn't hurt.
also, guardian is backing clegg. awesome. now we just need a paper which people actually read to back him and we have a chance :lol:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKP89Bi8EFM&sns=em
-
:lol: