Tory dirty tricks & smears . . .

drunkenmaster said:
I'm missing where that qoute is from, and where the "smears" were untrue, or what makes it dirty tricks? They found out Clegg got payments into his private account, which is very strange, papers ask about it, it gets cleared up......... oooo how devestatingly terrible.

Seriously, wheres the bad part of this exactly?
Click to expand...

Regardless of whether it was cleared up in Cleggs favour or not, just by having the story in the papers gives people doubt over his honesty. It's all mind games.
 
I noticed today that Murdoch's Sun newspaper persisted with Murdoch's Sky's fabrication about Cameron being voted the winner of last night's debate (LINK) . . . at least they admitted that it was only in "their" poll of "their" droolers :rolleyes:

They also claimed that Cameron would bring about "change" . . . yeah, the spelling would change from "New Labour" to "Tory" :rolleyes:

You aren't going to see change as a result of voting for one of the two old, tired bunches of greedy pigs.
 
skippi90 said:
Regardless of whether it was cleared up in Cleggs favour or not, just by having the story in the papers gives people doubt over his honesty. It's all mind games.
Click to expand...

Yes but what makes it a dirty trick? They all "smear" each other, theres nothing dirty about it, and they didn't know it would be cleared up because the details weren't obvious only that he was receiving payments into his bank account which does look decided dodgey.

AS said though where does the quote come from, the information was obtained from his expense reports, the quote is smearing Cameron by saying he got together to give them a story....... they already had but weren't looking into.

Is it not more likely, as several people suggested in Have I got news for you last night, that simply before the first debate no one was really digging into Clegg because the papers didn't give a crap, then after he suddenly emerged as a real possibility reporters all over the country were suddenly digging into everything he said.

The point is, theres no proof AT ALL, that its a Tory "smear" or "dirty tactics" campaign. Even if they did let the press know about the payments, I still fail to see anything dirty about it, and a quote with no source trying to smear the tories with accusations of dirty tactics, seems like the exact same level of "smearing" as what the tories are accused of.

Infact the only link in the OP goes to a page where they are suggesting Mandelson of smearing the Tories by trying to put the blame at their feet for the whole thing.

Theres dirty tactics, smearing, and just plain old news and things that SHOULD be looked into.



If Clegg was guilty of taking party money for himself rather than using his account to pay several people, it wouldn't be seen as smearing, or dirty, but uncovering Clegg's secret's and would be fine. NO matter the outcome, giving the press some info to look into just isn't a dirty tactic and as my original question asked, what about it makes it dirty tactics? A conversation with press people, thats not proven to have taken place? All three candidates talk with reporters, press, editors all day long, who cares.
 
drunkenmaster said:
... If Clegg was guilty of taking party money for himself rather than using his account to pay several people, it wouldn't be seen as smearing, or dirty ...
Click to expand...
Yes, quite so; if Cameron was guilty of child abuse, then publishing details wouldn't be smearing.

Of course if it wasn't true, it WOULD be smearing . . . just like the Torygraph's smearing of Clegg :rolleyes:


Von Smallhausen said:
Get Cameron

Get Cameron 2
Click to expand...
Got any other entertaining links that don't work? How about some B&Q links, or Tesco, LAPD, House & Garden perhaps :confused:
 
krooton said:
It is a bit more complicated than that. I see his point in that we don't actually know who and where all the almost 1 million of them are. The amnesty is a one-off to basically get them out of hiding so they can be accounted for. It won't be applied to any new immigrants moving forward, and isn't applicable if the person committed a crime.

.
Click to expand...

such as offences under the immigration act ;)

ah I see the real plan now :p
 
PMKeates said:
Let me give you a comparison. If an Astute submarine equipped with nuclear tipped cruise missiles is in the South Atlantic and we need to destroy a military installation in North Korea that our intelligence says is going to mount a nuclear attack in an hour, it will take 4 days to deliver the warhead.

The Trident system could deliver it in 15-20 minutes.

The Astute proposal would render us a nuclear non-entity.
Click to expand...

There will never be a first strike by the UK - it's pointless even considering it.

Whether your second strike capability is 20 minutes or 20 days away, so long as you can rely on the subs to survive to deploy their missiles the deterrent is still real and potent.

The speed of a cruise missile (quoted here as 550mph, I don't know) would be a bigger problem as I would imagine defence systems could shoot it down.
 
Telescopi said:
There will never be a first strike by the UK - it's pointless even considering it.

Whether your second strike capability is 20 minutes or 20 days away, so long as you can rely on the subs to survive to deploy their missiles the deterrent is still real and potent.

The speed of a cruise missile (quoted here as 550mph, I don't know) would be a bigger problem as I would imagine defence systems could shoot it down.
Click to expand...

Wiki says 550mph if Tomahawk missiles are what is being proposed. They were sold to the Royal Navy by the US. I am not sure if any of them have nuclear capability though.
 
jack_008 said:
I dont want to live in a country that lets illegal immigrants stay, !
Click to expand...

What on earth do you think happens currently?
They stay here illegally.
They work here illegally.
They don't get caught.
They don't pay tax.
The few that are caught spend months if not years in denttion paid for by your taxes, before you pay to ship them home.

This way, you draw a line under it.
A deadline, then you actively hunt new ones, with an effective agency.
All the current ones start getting charge taxes, as they actually work, and don't contribute to the unemployment figures.

One change I would make, would be refusal to allow anyone to access social security until they have 4 or 5 years of full time stamp. It'll stop the dirft of scroungers to the country from other european countries, and get the chavs into work.
 
Hikari Kisugi said:
What on earth do you think happens currently?
They stay here illegally.
They work here illegally.
They don't get caught.
They don't pay tax.
The few that are caught spend months if not years in denttion paid for by your taxes, before you pay to ship them home.

This way, you draw a line under it.
A deadline, then you actively hunt new ones, with an effective agency.
All the current ones start getting charge taxes, as they actually work, and don't contribute to the unemployment figures.

One change I would make, would be refusal to allow anyone to access social security until they have 4 or 5 years of full time stamp. It'll stop the dirft of scroungers to the country from other european countries, and get the chavs into work.
Click to expand...

I agree with you, thats why im not voting labour either ;)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom