Poll: Which party will get your vote in the General Election?

[meghatronic]

This from the party that has punished the low paid like no other, reduced opportunity and generally made everyone's lives top to bottom crap...

Indeed.

I liked this bit:

Labour has been involved in year-long talks with US President Barack Obama's team which have influenced Labour's campaigning tactics. The party has been using its members to call thousands of voters in marginal seats.
The full Labour manifesto will be launched at a later date.

As Obama wasn't all fur coat and no knickers at all was he... "Change". My butt.

A Conservative Party statement said the Labour slogan showed "everything about where Labour themselves know they have failed".

I have to agree.

 

[Hatter The Mad]

Labour's new party slogan is an admission of failure.

It reminds me of Gordon's debut speech - essentially a copy and paste of Tony's 1997 speech - "Tough on crime, tough on the causes", blah blah.

 

[meghatronic]

It reminds me of Gordon's debut speech - essentially a copy and paste of Tony's 1997 speech - "Tough on crime, tough on the causes", blah blah.

It's a good read, actually (for comedy):

So this is my pledge to the British people:

I will not let you down.

I will stand up for our schools and our hospitals.

I will stand up for British values.

I will stand up for a strong Britain.

And I will always stand up for you.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7010664.stm

Almost like:

Never gonna give you up, never gonna let you down
Never gonna run around and desert you
Never gonna make you cry, never gonna say goodbye
Never gonna tell a lie and hurt you

 

[Hatter The Mad]

 

[Hatter The Mad]

We are into "you couldn't make it up" territory.

Labour's election slogan, officially being unveiled today but revealed last night as "A Future Fair For All", is far from original.

Here is the second paragraph of Gordon Brown's speech to the 2003 Labour Party conference:

"A future fair for all is the theme not just of this conference, but of our government because whatever the success of the New Deal we cannot relax or rest or be satisfied. For today in Britain in 2003 too many of our citizens are still denied work, too many are low paid in their work, too many face poverty in retirement and our promise must be that for them too there will be social justice."

(NB He said that in 2003 too many people were denied work; does he need reminding that this very week the number of people claiming Job Seeker's Allowance hit a thirteen-year high??)

Blair also referred to the Future Fair For All theme in his own 2003 conference speech and, as in the picture above, the slogan was still being used towards the end of 2003 by Labour in promoting its Big Conversation initiative, whilst Tony Blair returned to the theme in a speech he gave in February 2004 on public services.

In fact, Blair even used it in the peroration of this pre-election speech during the 2005 campaign:

"We have never won a third term before. I ask you now for a mandate to do it, for our country and our party. For a future fair for all."

 

[Naffa]

snip

All interesting reading, but I can't see any economists saying the 'cut public spending regardless of the state of the economy' approach is good policy.

 

[Dolph]

All interesting reading, but I can't see any economists saying the 'cut public spending regardless of the state of the economy' approach is good policy.

No, they are saying that the biggest risk to our economy is the excessive and unaffordable state spending, and therefore there is a need to curtail it.

Public spending is not needing to be cut in spite of the state of the economy, but because of it.

 

[Scania]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8525987.stm

The prime minister urged the British people ''to take a second look at Labour'' and ''a long hard look'' at the Conservatives.

What the halfwit fails to appreciate is the majority of the Electorate (imo) has had a very "long hard look" at Labour over the past 13 years and needs little more than a "second look" at the Conservatives to see who should be forming the next Government.

The sooner we have a chance to vote Labour out, the better.

 

[Dolph]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8525987.stm



What the halfwit fails to appreciate is the majority of the Electorate (imo) has had a very "long hard look" at Labour over the past 13 years and needs little more than a "second look" at the Conservatives to see who should be forming the next Government.

The sooner we have a chance to vote Labour out, the better.

He probably thinks he can treat the electorate like he treats those who work with him...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/feb/21/gordon-brown-abusive-treatment-staff

 

[stockhausen]

He probably thinks he can treat the electorate like he treats those who work with him...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/feb/21/gordon-brown-abusive-treatment-staff

Whereas Lord Snooty and his chums will continue to travel First Class in order to avoid coming into contact with "a totally different kind of people"

 

[Dolph]

Whereas Lord Snooty and his chums will continue to travel First Class in order to avoid coming into contact with "a totally different kind of people"

Meh, I take my car to avoid having to mix with stupid annoying people, the politicians are doing one better than me

I also have to love the utterly irrelevant comparison between workplace bullying and travel choices...

 

[Luseac]

Whereas Lord Snooty and his chums will continue to travel First Class in order to avoid coming into contact with "a totally different kind of people"

Lord Snooty? Seriously, listen to yourself. Sadly it's that sort of turd-like attitude which doesn't make this election quite as clear cut as it should be.

It has been explained in the other thread a million times over why it is more productive for MP's to travel first class. But no, why not bring it into this thread where you haven't had your argument completely destoryed quite as much.

 

[OpenToSuggestions]

I have put that I won't vote.

They are all a bunch of liers and I will vote for whom I feel is telling the most truth (it is a sad situation we are in isn't it).
I will only really vote, as then I fell I have the right to moan and complain wabout whoever gets in power.

 

[Dolph]

Lord Snooty? Seriously, listen to yourself. Sadly it's that sort of turd-like attitude which doesn't make this election quite as clear cut as it should be.

It has been explained in the other thread a million times over why it is more productive for MP's to travel first class. But no, why not bring it into this thread where you haven't had your argument completely destoryed quite as much.

Stockhausen genuinely believes that the list of debate fallacies is a guide on how to debate, rather than a guide on how not to.

 

[stockhausen]

Lord Snooty and his coterie are completely out of touch with the majority of the British population; doing anything to increase that isolation has be a bad thing.

The idea that the Tories and their tax-dodging Non-Dom backer will do anything to reduce inequality or to improve the lot of the majority is utterly incredible, they will just act in the greedy, selfish interests of their chums

 

[Dolph]

Lord Snooty and his coterie are completely out of touch with the majority of the British population; doing anything to increase that isolation has be a bad thing.

The idea that the Tories and their tax-dodging Non-Dom backer will do anything to reduce inequality or to improve the lot of the majority is utterly incredible, they will just act in the greedy, selfish interests of their chums

Do you think Labour will? I'd suggest looking at the actions of the last 13 years before replying...

 

[stockhausen]

Do you think Labour will?

They might; frankly anyone is likely to do better than the out-of-touch Tories and their manifest enthusiasm for the benefits of supporting tax dodgers and paying huge bonuses to people who gamble with the public purse

Do you think Labour will? I'd suggest looking at the actions of the last 13 years before replying...

Labour haven't been in power for the past 13 years . . . are you talking about New Labour

 

[Dolph]

They might; frankly anyone is likely to do better than the out-of-touch Tories and their manifest enthusiasm for the benefits of supporting tax dodgers and paying huge bonuses to people who gamble with the public purse

They won't, because things under Labour are far worse for the low paid than they should be due to little things like refusing to increase the tax bands...

Your irrationality on this subject is really quite entertaining though.

Labour haven't been in power for the past 13 years . . . are you talking about New Labour

Tax and spend, massive public deficit, country bordering on bankruptcy, increased state dependency and trapping... Sounds like every labour administration to me.

 

[kibblerok]

"A Future fair for all" an anagram of "Our fearful fat liar"

http://order-order.com/2010/02/20/a-fete-worse-than-death/

 

[Luseac]

Stockhausen genuinely believes that the list of debate fallacies is a guide on how to debate, rather than a guide on how not to.

It would appear so

Lord Snooty and his coterie are completely out of touch with the majority of the British population; doing anything to increase that isolation has be a bad thing.

The idea that the Tories and their tax-dodging Non-Dom backer will do anything to reduce inequality or to improve the lot of the majority is utterly incredible, they will just act in the greedy, selfish interests of their chums

Since when did a Prime Minister have to be 'in touch' with some unemployed, single figure IQ chavs to be a good leader? The things that matter at the moment: cutting the deficit after years of tax and spend and getting the productive part of the economy back on track do not involve Cameron having to 'understand' how some mum of 14 has just had her third child.