Who are you going to vote for?

in reality, all of this has been a total load of old bollocks

Vote now!

Labour
24
41%
Conservative
6
10%
Lib/Dem
14
24%
Green
5
8%
Other
10
17%
 
Total votes: 59

User avatar
Deebank
Resonator
Posts: 23732
Joined: 10 Oct 2003, 13:47
Location: In a beautiful place out in the country

Re: Who are you going to vote for?

Postby Deebank » 02 Mar 2010, 18:42

yomptepi wrote:
River Man wrote:
yomptepi wrote:The Tories would not have gone to war based the evidence that was available.


The Tory party I remember seemed to have a love affair with the US and all ideas coming from there. I really find this version of a possible past hard to believe.



But we were duped into that war by Blair.


Speak for yourself, I wasn't duped into anything by anyone. I said it was wrong from the start - WMDs or no WMDs.
I've been talking about writing a book - 25 years of TEFL - for a few years now. I've got it in me.

Paid anghofio fod dy galon yn y chwyldro

User avatar
River Man
Beyond Help
Posts: 11813
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 20:13
Location: Nothing-ham
Contact:

Re: Who are you going to vote for?

Postby River Man » 02 Mar 2010, 20:42

yomptepi wrote:
River Man wrote:
yomptepi wrote:The Tories would not have gone to war based the evidence that was available.


The Tory party I remember seemed to have a love affair with the US and all ideas coming from there. I really find this version of a possible past hard to believe.



But we were duped into that war by Blair.

Or have you all forgotten.

I am confused by how the modern New Labour Party still has the hearts and minds of the old labour voters, even tho they have almost nothing in common. All I am seeing here is that people are saying there is no difference between the Torys and New Labour.. If that is the case, then why would it be so terrible to vote to oust the cunts. Do we really want another five years of Hazel Blears and Jack Straw??


Firstly no one knows how it would have played out but what I saw in Labour was a party whose leader had fallen in love with the US. What I saw in the Tories was a party who had fallen in love with the US (and in opposition to Europe) and I suspect the only difference between the parties (following the outpouring of support for the US after 9/11) would have been the lack of resignations following the invasion and the absence of any investigation no matter how flawed.

As for the difference between the two main parties I think you've missed a few posts. What I've read is not an ascertain that both are equally bad but rather a belief that the Tories would have gone further. it seems to me that in the hearts of most posters the fear of a Tory government (based upon the damage they did to the country last time around) is considered to be more of a risk than sticking with a flawed Labour. I resent the fact that this is what the election has become about, who do you fear the least. Yeah Labour win that contest but it's hardly what an election should be about. Makes me depressed.
BCB fop

User avatar
the hanging monkey
can't be arsed
Posts: 16721
Joined: 15 Sep 2003, 17:05
Location: The cultural mecca that is Huddersfield

Re: Who are you going to vote for?

Postby the hanging monkey » 02 Mar 2010, 20:44

Voting in general elections is always an exercise in damage limitation.
The Dríver wrote:We even have village idiots.

User avatar
Chuck [Bot]
Posts: 1797
Joined: 05 Feb 2010, 20:28
Location: a nation of Eeyores

Re: Who are you going to vote for?

Postby Chuck [Bot] » 02 Mar 2010, 20:49

The Prof wrote:
django wrote:I doubt I'll vote. None of these people have done or said anything to make me feel like they deserve my vote.


Who gave you the vote in the first place?

Politicians - that's who!


What, the current crop? Bollocks, they'd take it away if they could! Voting was given to common people because they insisted on it.

Having said that, why bother?

i) It's safe Tory around here, and

ii) I don't like anything that's on offer anyway. :cry:
Blah

Beebsy

Re: Who are you going to vote for?

Postby Beebsy » 02 Mar 2010, 21:26

Well at least it'll not be Ian Paisley.

HURRAY!!!!!!!

Johnny Dumfries

Re: Who are you going to vote for?

Postby Johnny Dumfries » 02 Mar 2010, 22:01

Am I the only one to find THIS can of worms an absolute fucking disgrace?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/mar/02/honours-committee-ashcroft-tax-assurances
Surely not.
Hundreds of Millions of tax - not paid.
By the same fellow who is directly conniving (bunging the Tories millions) to overturn scores of key marginal seats.
Unaccountable, unanswerable - to no one.

That the likes of him - and News International (headed by another Tax dodger) are going full-pelt for the Tories says all you need to know.
...these despicable, selfish people shouldnt even have an opinion on the UK election.

If I were Clegg or Mandelson or Brown damn right I'd go on and on about this until the penny truly drops

User avatar
yomptepi
BCB thumbscrew of Justice
Posts: 36025
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 17:57
Location: well

Re: Who are you going to vote for?

Postby yomptepi » 02 Mar 2010, 22:10

Common Sense Checklist wrote:Am I the only one to find THIS can of worms an absolute fucking disgrace?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/mar/02/honours-committee-ashcroft-tax-assurances
Surely not.
Hundreds of Millions of tax - not paid.
By the same fellow who is directly conniving (bunging the Tories millions) to overturn scores of key marginal seats.
Unaccountable, unanswerable - to no one.

That the likes of him - and News International (headed by another Tax dodger) are going full-pelt for the Tories says all you need to know.
...these despicable, selfish people shouldnt even have an opinion on the UK election.

If I were Clegg or Mandelson or Brown damn right I'd go on and on about this until the penny truly drops


Let he who is without blame cast the first stone.

Mandleson eh...

Not a name I'd drop casually wolfie...
You don't like me...do you?

Johnny Dumfries

Re: Who are you going to vote for?

Postby Johnny Dumfries » 02 Mar 2010, 22:20

yomptepi wrote:Mandleson eh...

Not a name I'd drop casually wolfie...


;)
Not a fan - by any stretch - but he's about the only one left with any fight left in him. And your mate Prezza :lol:

Back to the subject Yompy - as a law-abiding tax-payer - with a difficult couple of years behind you, and indefinite tough times ahead - how do you feel about the likes of Ashcroft, Murdoch and Goldsmith's lad shamelessly avoiding their basic civil responsibility? You and I don't have any opt out - why the fuck should they? And they want us to divvy up the BBC - to suit their purposes?

Who the fuck do they think they are?

User avatar
yomptepi
BCB thumbscrew of Justice
Posts: 36025
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 17:57
Location: well

Re: Who are you going to vote for?

Postby yomptepi » 02 Mar 2010, 22:23

Common Sense Checklist wrote:
yomptepi wrote:Mandleson eh...

Not a name I'd drop casually wolfie...


;)
Not a fan - by any stretch - but he's about the only one left with any fight left in him. And your mate Prezza :lol:

Back to the subject Yompy - as a law-abiding tax-payer - with a difficult couple of years behind you, and indefinite tough times ahead - how do you feel about the likes of Ashcroft, Murdoch and Goldsmith's lad?



The same way I feel about the Mittals, and the rest of labours non dom contributors. They should be cut loose.

The problem is that the parties are all broke. They have to stretch the rules to survive. Brown knows he cannot go for the kill , because the baby goes out with the bathwater, and Labour are really really broke at the moment...
You don't like me...do you?

Johnny Dumfries

Re: Who are you going to vote for?

Postby Johnny Dumfries » 02 Mar 2010, 22:27

yomptepi wrote:...the rest of labours non dom contributors. They should be cut loose.

The problem is that the parties are all broke. They have to stretch the rules to survive. Brown knows he cannot go for the kill , because the baby goes out with the bathwater, and Labour are really really broke at the moment...


The Tory rebuttal "look at Labour - theyve got non-Doms too" is bogus - they are legitimately registered and pay UK corporation tax in full.
All of which was in the public remit, without the need for a Freedom of Information intervention to uncover the truth.

The peerage was expressly given to Ashcroft 10 years ago on the specific understanding that he would change his non-dom status within 12 months.
Your mate Hague gave his guarantee.

Anyway - do any of the Labour "non-Doms" act as Party Chairman?
Last edited by Johnny Dumfries on 02 Mar 2010, 22:30, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
yomptepi
BCB thumbscrew of Justice
Posts: 36025
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 17:57
Location: well

Re: Who are you going to vote for?

Postby yomptepi » 02 Mar 2010, 22:29

But it is not new news , is it?? We all knew about Ashcroft. It is just the BBC doing its job, and trying to keep labour looking clean and shiny. After all, did Blair not hand pick Thomson to lead the bbc after the Kelly dabacle??
You don't like me...do you?

Johnny Dumfries

Re: Who are you going to vote for?

Postby Johnny Dumfries » 02 Mar 2010, 22:35

yomptepi wrote:But it is not new news , is it?? We all knew about Ashcroft. It is just the BBC doing its job, and trying to keep labour looking clean and shiny. After all, did Blair not hand pick Thomson to lead the bbc after the Kelly dabacle??


Disagree - the fact that Ashcroft was made a Peer on the strict undertaking that he would be domiciled in the UK within 12 months is startling (new) news to me.

Blair picked Dyke, did he not? He's now working for the Tories too, I see. No idea about Thompson

User avatar
the hanging monkey
can't be arsed
Posts: 16721
Joined: 15 Sep 2003, 17:05
Location: The cultural mecca that is Huddersfield

Re: Who are you going to vote for?

Postby the hanging monkey » 02 Mar 2010, 22:37

Do you expect us to swallow that horseshit?
The Dríver wrote:We even have village idiots.

User avatar
yomptepi
BCB thumbscrew of Justice
Posts: 36025
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 17:57
Location: well

Re: Who are you going to vote for?

Postby yomptepi » 02 Mar 2010, 22:38

Common Sense Checklist wrote:
yomptepi wrote:But it is not new news , is it?? We all knew about Ashcroft. It is just the BBC doing its job, and trying to keep labour looking clean and shiny. After all, did Blair not hand pick Thomson to lead the bbc after the Kelly dabacle??


Disagree - the fact that Ashcroft was made a Peer on the strict undertaking that he would be domiciled in the UK within 12 months is startling (new) news to me.

Blair picked Dyke, did he not? He's now working for the Tories too, I see. No idea about Thompson



Blair sacked Dyke, and installed his own man. Bbc news was neutered overnight, and is now little more than the official mouthpiece of the Labour Party.
You don't like me...do you?

Johnny Dumfries

Re: Who are you going to vote for?

Postby Johnny Dumfries » 02 Mar 2010, 22:39

the hanging monkey wrote:Do you expect us to swallow that horseshit?


Who? What?
:?

User avatar
yomptepi
BCB thumbscrew of Justice
Posts: 36025
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 17:57
Location: well

Re: Who are you going to vote for?

Postby yomptepi » 02 Mar 2010, 22:41

Not that that justifies the whole ashcroft situation, which is quite clearly criminal. If we did control party funding more tightly, then I suspect the parties would need to get subsidised by the taxpayer. That brings with it the problem of subsidising politically incorrect parties.
You don't like me...do you?

User avatar
the hanging monkey
can't be arsed
Posts: 16721
Joined: 15 Sep 2003, 17:05
Location: The cultural mecca that is Huddersfield

Re: Who are you going to vote for?

Postby the hanging monkey » 02 Mar 2010, 22:42

Common Sense Checklist wrote:
the hanging monkey wrote:Do you expect us to swallow that horseshit?


Who? What?
:?


Not you, I meant our resident reality-denier. In particular this little nugget of comic genius

"It is just the BBC doing its job, and trying to keep labour looking clean and shiny"

:lol:
The Dríver wrote:We even have village idiots.

Johnny Dumfries

Re: Who are you going to vote for?

Postby Johnny Dumfries » 02 Mar 2010, 22:43

yomptepi wrote:
Common Sense Checklist wrote:
yomptepi wrote:But it is not new news , is it?? We all knew about Ashcroft. It is just the BBC doing its job, and trying to keep labour looking clean and shiny. After all, did Blair not hand pick Thomson to lead the bbc after the Kelly dabacle??


Disagree - the fact that Ashcroft was made a Peer on the strict undertaking that he would be domiciled in the UK within 12 months is startling (new) news to me.

Blair picked Dyke, did he not? He's now working for the Tories too, I see. No idea about Thompson



Blair sacked Dyke, and installed his own man. Bbc news was neutered overnight, and is now little more than the official mouthpiece of the Labour Party.


:)
Nick Robinson - ex-Young Conservative chairman?

...have you watched the Andrew Marr show recently Yompy?
Last Sunday - two Tories reviewing the papers, Marr cracking Brown Bullying jokes? The anti-Labour bias is startling, trust me

If it is the official mouthpiece of the Labour Party - why the fuck should they cowtow to the likes of James Murdoch?

User avatar
yomptepi
BCB thumbscrew of Justice
Posts: 36025
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 17:57
Location: well

Re: Who are you going to vote for?

Postby yomptepi » 02 Mar 2010, 22:46

James Murdoch is a bit scary, isn't he? He has even fewer scruples than his father.
As I have said before, Cameron choses his friends very badly. I don't like him at all.
You don't like me...do you?

Johnny Dumfries

Re: Who are you going to vote for?

Postby Johnny Dumfries » 02 Mar 2010, 22:50

yomptepi wrote:James Murdoch is a bit scary, isn't he? He has even fewer scruples than his father.
As I have said before, Cameron choses his friends very badly. I don't like him at all.


As Orwell foretold, to let the state enjoy a near-monopoly of information is to guarantee manipulation and distortion.
We must have a plurality of voices and they must be independent. Yet we have a system in which state-sponsored media - the BBC in particular - grow ever more dominant.

That process has to be reversed.

If we are to have that state sponsorship at all, then it is fundamental to the health of the creative industries, independent production, and professional journalism that it exists on a far, far smaller scale.

Above all we must have genuine independence in news media. Genuine independence is a rare thing. No amount of governance in the form of committees, regulators, trusts or advisory bodies is truly sufficient as a guarantor of independence. In fact, they curb speech.

On the contrary, independence is characterised by the absence of the apparatus of supervision and dependency.
Independence of faction, industrial or political.
Independence of subsidy, gift and patronage.
Independence is sustained by true accountability - the accountability owed to customers. People who buy the newspapers, open the application, decide to take out the television subscription - people who deliberately and willingly choose a service which they value.

And people value honest, fearless, and above all independent news coverage that challenges the consensus.

There is an inescapable conclusion that we must reach if we are to have a better society.

The only reliable, durable, and perpetual guarantor of independence is profit.