He seems a lot less smarmy and arrogant than Davey C. Not that the mannerisms of one person should matter in a general election. I'm kind of against the idea of even having a leader, the future of nations shouldn't be decided by some X Factor personality contest. Worries me how many people won't vote for Ed cos he looks like Squidward Tentacles or Dave cos he sounds like a toff.
UK General Election 2015 | Conservatives win with an overall majority
- Thread starter langster
- Start date
He seems a lot less smarmy and arrogant than Davey C. Not that the mannerisms of one person should matter in a general election. I'm kind of against the idea of even having a leader, the future of nations shouldn't be decided by some X Factor personality contest. Worries me how many people won't vote for Ed cos he looks like Squidward Tentacles or Dave cos he sounds like a toff.
Worries me too. Not long ago I was speaking to my mum about the election and she was saying how she would struggle to vote Labour because of how she thinks Ed is a bit awkward to look at and listen to. She has other reasons to and I don't think that will be a deciding factor but I know plenty of people that won't vote for Ed or Dave, simply because of how they look or speak.
Which is strange really, considering the established alternative is a fork-tongued, slippery eel of a man whose totally out of proportion head makes him seem like a human-sized bobbing head toy.
But he's a normal bloke. I know because I saw him drinking a pint in a pub.
Just get this from the LibDems. Not sure who is 'match funding' the donations?
EDIT: It's a group of donors that are matching donations. Bit sad they have to go two leaders back to find someone with sufficient appeal that might encourage people to give.
EDIT: It's a group of donors that are matching donations. Bit sad they have to go two leaders back to find someone with sufficient appeal that might encourage people to give.
Leaving a corrupt club would spell economic disaster? Whether it be health or Europe you Labour types do love a spot of scaremongering.
A political party which purports to uphold democratic values, repeatedly runs in fear of democratic processes. Sounds mighty awkward to me. If all that stands in Miliband's way are a few UKIP voters and a scattering of other right-wingers, why not hold the referendum and engage on the issue?
That's bullshit, if they made the remarks in the public domain and they're correctly printed then what are they complaining about? They aren't endorsing the party, they're endorsing a position on the EU.Labour are quite clear, they want to stay in the EEC and have no need for a referendum, because if you vote Labour you know we will stay in.
It is the Conservatives who are so split on Europe that they cannot have an in or out policy of their own, they need a referendum to hide the division. I would quite like a referendum myself purely to watch them implode.
The advert has backfired somewhat, but the message from Business leaders hasn't been denied, the great majority want to stay in.
Last edited:
Our Dave is giving two fingers to the foreigners.
Not sure that graph is in proportion, but hey ho.
Revealed: The number of immigrants who came to Britain FELL by more than 100,000 under the Coalition
By TOM MCTAGUE, DEPUTY POLITICAL EDITOR FOR MAILONLINE
- Between 2010 and 2014 608,000 foreigners came to work in the UK
- This is compared to 725,000 migrants who came to work under Labour
- Figures published by the respected Oxford-based Migration Observatory
The number of immigrants coming to Britain to work has fallen by 100,000 under the Coalition, new figures have revealed.
Between 2010 and 2014 just over 600,000 foreigners came to work in the UK, down from 725,000 between 2005 and 2009 under Labour.
The revelation, from the respected Oxford-based Migration Observatory, comes despite a recent surge in migration which has blown apart David Cameron's election pledge to slash the number of immigrants coming to Britain.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ain-FELL-100-000-Coalition.html#ixzz3VsQgbQIG
Not sure that graph is in proportion, but hey ho.
Last edited:
That's straight from the Fox news school of misleading graphs
As we saw with Prescott and his regions project, referenda and need are rarely matters of particular concern to Labour. Rather it is that they are on the wrong side of the argument, they fear defeat and the consequences therein
You often speak of how the Tories will fracture in the even a referendum yet i wonder how much of this is based on the past, what percentage of the parliamentary party do you hold vehemently pro-EU opinions?
Naturally i believe that a vote would be quite beneficial for both Britain and Europe, albeit for quite different reasons.
Some business leaders are wary of that uncertainty that might ensue, whilst others simply don't want to see their source of cheap/exploitable labour dry up; best to handle vested interests with care.
that graph is hilarious, horribly out of proportion.The graph is superb.
Not many but the issue is that the ones in charge think we should stay in and the majority of the rest don't.
Re: The graph.
Even assuming those figures to be accurate, the "revelation" is shown to be of little importance as early as the third paragraph. The Daily Mail coming across as completely daft.
Cameron styles himself as a pragmatist, the same quality that might see him lead for two terms (quite an uphill battle presently) would likewise push him to side with the party.
Even assuming those figures to be accurate, the "revelation" is shown to be of little importance as early as the third paragraph. The Daily Mail coming across as completely daft.
Cameron styles himself as a pragmatist, the same quality that might see him lead for two terms (quite an uphill battle presently) would likewise push him to side with the party.
Last edited:
Do we have any provisional dates for publication of the various manifestos?
Whilst these TV debates can provide the odd sound bite or gaffe, the devil is often in the detail. For instance, is the government re-announcing an earlier policy but dressing it up as fresh investment.
Whilst these TV debates can provide the odd sound bite or gaffe, the devil is often in the detail. For instance, is the government re-announcing an earlier policy but dressing it up as fresh investment.
Last edited:
That's straight from the Fox news school of misleading graphs
Freshmen at uni would be personally bitchslapped by the professor if they submitted a graph like that
My reply was to the allegation of Labour dishonesty, which on this subject is simply wrong, they are quite clear. If they 'fear defeat' then it seems a bit strange that they are so keen to make an issue of it in the election, don't you think?
As for the Tories, if they called for more referendums in general then you would have a point. As it is they only want one, on the subject they are most divided on, of course.
I agree that they may be less divided than in the past though. I'm not clever enough to offer percentages, but I do wonder how they will manage to explain to Business why they want to leave.
I've wondered this, the debates seem meaningless without them. Perhaps parliament should set a date for all manifestos to be published simultaneously?
Also, not party-political I hope, it is disgraceful that parties can claim they will reduce spending by huge amounts and yet simply refuse to tell us how before they are elected. Both as bad on this one, as far as I am aware.
Good start by Milly and the gang building on last week's TV.
Great opening card on EU. Major balls up by Gideon with his £3000 nonsense. Dave's determination to play the man rather than the ball already looking shitty and irrelevant.
Labour plus 1
Tories -2.
Great opening card on EU. Major balls up by Gideon with his £3000 nonsense. Dave's determination to play the man rather than the ball already looking shitty and irrelevant.
Labour plus 1
Tories -2.
Sod-ex(cons)-o.
That kind of stuff is inevitable, technology is just more efficient than we are. We're going to be telling our grandkids about a time when people needed jobs to live.
This is not 3d printing a widget, there is no technology out there that can replace a probation officer
You say that but if I was on probation I wouldn't mind the extra flexibility that call centres and kiosks offer. Someone who gets a job with a ton of hours would certainly benefit from it. I'd be with you if you just complaining about so many people losing their job because of an untested system but I don't think there's much wrong with using technology to make things more efficient.
Last edited:
Can someone shed any light on my question:
Supposing Conservatives don't win a majority but have just a few more seats that Labour but cannot form a coalition Govt needed for the majority,
can Labour immediately step in and demand a try to form a coalition, or do the Conservatives have a right to try with a minority Govt and block any Labour attempts to form a coalition?
Supposing Conservatives don't win a majority but have just a few more seats that Labour but cannot form a coalition Govt needed for the majority,
can Labour immediately step in and demand a try to form a coalition, or do the Conservatives have a right to try with a minority Govt and block any Labour attempts to form a coalition?
I think that they could form a government but there would quickly be a motion of no confidence which they would lose.
Then a new election, or can labour give it a go thereafter?
It's certainly not mostly due to zero hours contracts.
They wouldn't go for it in the first place so Labour could try 'confidence and supply' with SNP/Lib Dems/Greens/Plaid. If no-one thinks they can make a workable solution then back to the polls.
Bet mozza's great-great grandad used to go around smashing up spinning jennys.
In terms of coalition/minority government forming, it's basically the first that can put together enough MPs to command a majority that would pass a budget. If Tories can't get that they can't stop Labour trying to do it.
Parliamentary democracy does not mean holding a public referendum on every individual issue. Labour have made their line quite clear - no referendum unless there's a significant transfer of power. If the electorate are really that concerned about leaving the EU, they won't vote Labour.
If Cameron wishes to achieve even a sizeable fraction of these pledged job creation numbers, he's going to need to accept the role of the state in such an endeavour. One HS2 white elephant certainly doesn't cut the mustard, on the contrary in fact considering the expense and disruption. The eagerness with which DEFRA cut jobs via the abolition of the solar panel subsidy also looks rather ill-thought-out.
I suppose by honest, i was alluding to the fact that the Greens are supportive of an EU referendum on democratic grounds, and this in spite of any qualms which they might have about leaving.
To be fair to the Tories, they did actually have a policy in their 2010 manifesto which would have seen the country hold more referenda in this country. Although given the absence of those localism proposals in the years since, i have to wonder if the Lib Dems precluded them from being part of the coalition agreement. The idea could have done much to strengthen local politics and re-engage with the electorate generally so it's a great pity. Instead we've had even more deregulation of planning laws.
That we might have all of the debates without any means by which to measure their words, well it does agree dilute their value. Entertainment over information or some such. If you present most politicians with the opportunity to be ambiguous more often than not they'll take it, however from the PoV of a voter manifestos remains our best resource for data.
I suppose by honest, i was alluding to the fact that the Greens are supportive of an EU referendum on democratic grounds, and this in spite of any qualms which they might have about leaving.
To be fair to the Tories, they did actually have a policy in their 2010 manifesto which would have seen the country hold more referenda in this country. Although given the absence of those localism proposals in the years since, i have to wonder if the Lib Dems precluded them from being part of the coalition agreement. The idea could have done much to strengthen local politics and re-engage with the electorate generally so it's a great pity. Instead we've had even more deregulation of planning laws.
That we might have all of the debates without any means by which to measure their words, well it does agree dilute their value. Entertainment over information or some such. If you present most politicians with the opportunity to be ambiguous more often than not they'll take it, however from the PoV of a voter manifestos remains our best resource for data.
Most don't.
With the EU heading down a decidedly two-tier path, it is as much the times as the weight of public opinion which makes the case for a referendum. And of course Labour has lied about such things in the past whilst advocating other needless elections, so it is only natural that people will look upon them with a cynical eye.
Nicola Sturgeon: Labour 'would have to ditch Trident for our support'
By Emily Gosden
31 Mar 2015
Ed Miliband could not lead a minority government which is supported by the SNP unless he agrees to abandon Britain's nuclear defence programme, Nicola Sturgeon has said.
The Scottish First Minister said that any “confidence and supply” arrangement could only proceed if Labour ruled out renewing Trident.
Labour has already ruled out a coalition with the SNP but not a confidence and supply arrangement, in which the SNP would agree to back Labour on the Budget and other key votes to support the Government.
Ms Sturgeon told the BBC: "We could have a less formal but still fairly formal agreement of confidence and supply. In those circumstances we would need an agreement that the renewal of Trident wasn’t proceeding.
"In terms of any formal arrangement with Labour, I can’t make clearer, Trident is a red line."
Labour is committed to renewing Trident but has suggested it could cut the number of submarines.
Ms Sturgeon said: "I think they would be under a great deal of pressure from their own supporters and backbenchers to take the opportunity not to renew Trident."
Ms Sturgeon's comments will fuel Conservative claims that the SNP wants to use its chance to prop up Labour by making a series of demands over increased borrowing as well as the nuclear deterrent.
Conservative Party poster featuring Ed Miliband in the top pocket of Alex Salmond
Ms Sturgeon said that if Labour refused to agree to ruling out Trident, the SNP might support Labour on an issue by issue basis.
"Under no circumstances would we ever vote for the renewal of Trident or the spending of money on the renewal of Trident," Ms Sturgeon said.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...ld-have-to-ditch-Trident-for-our-support.html
Al Labour minority government supported by two nationalist parties on a case-by-case basis? The country would look back upon the Tory-Lib Dem coalition with nostalgic eyes.
Last edited:
Sturgeon and the SNP will quickly drop the whole trident debate if it means they get any say in this election.
Two nationalist parties? Where does the need for Plaid come from?
And she's set out a "red line" there with a massive great gap in it.
It's a bit more complicated than that i suspect, for Sturgeon and the SNP must consider the consequences of any duplicity with Scottish parliamentary elections only a year away.
You'd want Labour to have all of its eggs in the SNP basket? They're falling over themselves to be a nuisance.
Either course ought to harm Labour's fortunes in England in the long run.