The United Kingdom Elections 2010

Aye the tories are buggering up big time. Good.

As for who will win the election, perhaps if someone could answer this question.

I want Brown as PM for five more years because....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JAG

Tories - we are coming to get youuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu!

Ave poll lead down to 9, some put it closer. All Labour need is to lose by 5 points and we stay in power as the biggest party in a hung parliament.... It is gonna happen, I have been saying it for a couple years now. The wheels are coming off Cameron's bus, now it is getting closer to the election, the polls will always close up, not only that but he will be under more scrutiny and when people look at what he has to say, they will realise it is the same old Tories. Labour people will not move away from us to the Tories en masse, this is no '97 for the Tories. Plus we get the added advantage of when the polls narrow, the crack pot tory back benchers start to rear their ugly head. :)

---

lol, if that happens then this country is collectively even more stupid than even i give it credit for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

lol, if that happens then this country is collectively even more stupid than even i give it credit for.

---

I thought you felt quite positively about the "will of the British people".:wink3:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

I want Brown as PM for five more years because....

---

He's a PM, rather than a PR man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

I thought you felt quite positively about the "will of the British people".:wink3:

---

i do, never doubt it. but that does not preclude the acceptance that the electorate might be idiots.

it would be foolish to place so much trust and responsibility in the hands of the electorate without recognising their many failings and foibles i'm sure you will agree?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

He's a PM, rather than a PR man.

---

indeed he is:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle7014275.ece

Gordon Brown ‘demanded immediate defence cuts’ when Chancellor
February 4, 2010

Francis Elliott, Deborah Haynes and Tom Coghlan

Gordon Brown demanded immediate and deep cuts to military spending only six months after the invasion of Iraq, a letter seen by The Times reveals.

Then the Chancellor, Mr Brown wrote to Tony Blair on September 26, 2003, forbidding the Ministry of Defence from switching resources to the front line. His guillotine forced defence chiefs to slash £800 million from their budgets, including future spending on helicopters, which they claim is hampering operations in Afghanistan. A bitter dispute over Mr Brown’s record on defence funding overshadowed yesterday’s launch of government proposals on the future of the military.

Armed Forces chiefs issued a stark warning that Britain risks losing the ability to fight overseas, to the detriment of its world power status. In a bleak assessment of the pressures on the military, they stated in the Government’s Green Paper: “We cannot proceed with all the activities and programmes we currently aspire to, while simultaneously supporting our current operations, and investing in the new capabilities we need.”

The report warned that the Strategic Defence Review, which will follow the general election, “must be able to drive radical change” within the Forces.Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, the Chief of the Defence Staff, even cast doubt on whether the Army, Royal Navy and RAF would exist as separate entities in ten years.
Related Links

Bob Ainsworth, the Defence Secretary, told the Commons: “Tough choices will lie ahead, and we need to rebalance our budget to better reflect our priorities.” However, he confirmed that Labour would keep its commitment to build two aircraft carriers at a cost of £8 billion. “The Strategic Defence Review will have to take a pretty radical direction not foreseen by me in order to suggest that those capabilities will not be required,” said Mr Ainsworth.

David Cameron seized on evidence yesterday to the Iraq inquiry from Sir Kevin Tebbit, the MoD’s top civil servant during the war, that Mr Brown “arbitrarily” ordered cuts. He said he was only the latest witness to show that Mr Brown’s decisions meant troops were “not equipped properly when they were sent into harm’s way”.

In angry exchanges in Prime Minister’s Questions, Mr Brown insisted that defence spending had “risen in every year” he was Chancellor.

Mr Brown is certain to be questioned about his decision to rein back spending when he gives evidence to the inquiry later this month.

The Green Paper posed questions about whether the public is prepared to pay for Britain to remain a power with global reach: “We must determine the global role we wish to play, the relative role of the Armed Forces and the resources we are willing to dedicate to them.” The 52-page document reveals an increasingly fractured and unpredictable world in which “cluttered” wars will see “hard and dangerous combat” in urban areas, coastal waters and low airspace.

It predicted that British troops can expect to see casualty rates that “increase markedly” as developing areas of the world close the gap on the West’s technological advantages.

Service chiefs are expected to argue for a new focus on alliance building, particularly in Nato and with the US, to compensate for the rising costs of defence. Britain is expected to co-operate with France, the only other large military power in the EU.

The Green Paper is frequently self-critical, acknowledging that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have forced a fundamental rethink of the way the Army is configured.

Professor Michael Clarke, director of the Royal United Services Institute, welcomed the report: “The paper is a realistic take on the situation we are going to find ourselves in. We haven’t had these sort of big strategic choices since the early 1930s.”

[edit]

The Times is providing really good coverage of the Defence debate, essential reading for Brits:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle7010497.ece
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle7011651.ece
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle7012792.ece
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle7014270.ece

[/edit]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Aye the tories are buggering up big time. Good.

As for who will win the election, perhaps if someone could answer this question.

I want Brown as PM for five more years because....

---

....he's weak?

i want Brown and Labour out, out, out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

i do, never doubt it. but that does not preclude the acceptance that the electorate might be idiots.

it would be foolish to place so much trust and responsibility in the hands of the electorate without recognising their many failings and foibles i'm sure you will agree?

---

Quite so. However we differ on the perception of stupidity, where our respective visions are perhaps directly opposed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Aye the tories are buggering up big time. Good.

As for who will win the election, perhaps if someone could answer this question.

I want Brown as PM for five more years because....

---

.... a social democratic government, however many stupid, infuriating and authoritarian policies they can come out with, is a much better alternative than a narrow minded, regressive and unegalitarian Conservative party.

But then again, that is just me.

Quote:

---

lol, if that happens then this country is collectively even more stupid than even i give it credit for.

---

It was always gonna be the case, as long as the economy does not get significantly worse and Labour can throw enough :daisy: on Cameron's shoes, it is ognna happen. The Labour party and the Tory party numbers, support / approval wise are very similar, it is Cameron's edge over both Brown and his party which if dented, pulls the Tories back down to earth. It has already started happening and into the election campaign will happen even more, get used to it! :)

Hey guys, if you want a good laugh, read the 1997 Labour manifesto.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/election97/back...abmanecon.html

Some great ones....

Quote:

---

We will clean up politics, decentralise political power throughout the United Kingdom and put the funding of political parties on a proper and accountable basis

---

Quote:

---

We will increase the powers and responsibilities of parents.

---

Quote:

---

There has been a fundamental failure to tackle the underlying causes of inflation, of low growth and of unemployment. These are:

too much economic instability, with wild swings from boom to bust

---

Hilarious stuff. Better than reading the Beano. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Hey guys, if you want a good laugh, read the 1997 Labour manifesto.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/election97/back...abmanecon.html

Some great ones....
Hilarious stuff. Better than reading the Beano. :laugh4:

---

Well they did deliver on devolution, on the second point -the entrenchment of the middle class is exactly what increased "choice" has given. And lastly, they did have a good run with the economy, so much as to inflate Brown's sense of self worth to the point of him declaring the end of boom and bust.

Whether the recession was avoidable is another matter, more devisive is the response to it and where the UK's economy is now. Whether the levels of debt could actually have been avoided and how is again another matter. Doesn't seem like anyone had any better ideas, although some of HMG's were very silly (VAT reduction).

Sorry, but anyone can have a briefly good economy whilst in a bubble. You just need to run a deficit, pump money into the system, deregulate to make it easier for speculators and remember to take all the credit before the credit runs out.

Education is a difficult one to quantify as most independent parties state that standards are dropping which includes the better universities; I would also state that since the grades are supposed to help differentiate the good, bad and excellent students, giving everyone As helps no one in the longer term.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Sorry, but anyone can have a briefly good economy whilst in a bubble. You just need to run a deficit, pump money into the system, deregulate to make it easier for speculators and remember to take all the credit before the credit runs out.

Education is a difficult one to quantify as most independent parties state that standards are dropping which includes the better universities; I would also state that since the grades are supposed to help differentiate the good, bad and excellent students, giving everyone As helps no one in the longer term.

~:smoking:

---

Quite.

The question is not whether the recession was avoidable, but managable.

Edit:

Oh, and as someone who works in Higher Education.....

Yeah.

did labour pursue mass immigration in order to achieve the social engineering objective of making Britain a truly 'multi-cultural' country?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...-migrants.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

did labour pursue mass immigration in order to achieve the social engineering objective of making Britain a truly 'multi-cultural' country?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...-migrants.html

---

I doubt it is sololy based on that, as that would simply be a very bad idea. It is over-simplistication with an obviously intended bias to suggest that.

I just read that on Labourhome, (yes I do follow what the 'like minded' say and think), and it was just post after post of emnity and disgust.

New Labour. New Britain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

I doubt it is sololy based on that, as that would simply be a very bad idea. It is over-simplistication with an obviously intended bias to suggest that.

---

The policy document indicates that social engineering was a driving force, though.

Deeply disturbing.

OK, balls out and damn the consequences:

Personaly, i would have supported (and do now) a policy of immigration, diversity and a multicultural society. I believe that those who are complaining about this issue are primarily doing so because they dislike immigration and diversity.

I live in an area with a great mix of people and backgrounds: Afro carribean, middle eastern, portugese/brazilian and white British. I love it, there's so much to sample and learn in diverse culture, food and ways of seeing things. I work in an establishment with a huge diversity of people from all sorts of backgrounds and sexuality and frankly its great, I've never found anywhere so interesting and invigorating to work in.

That said, what I don't like is that this, if actually "stealth social engineering", wasn't overt and public. Clearly, not everyone is as overjoyed by diversity as I am but that is further cause for all to have had a say/vote on it. It should simply have been a part of Labour's manifesto.

Otherwise its just the Telegraph dipping-in to the daily-mail's line of paranoid scare-mongering: LABOUR WILL SNEAK UP BEHIND YOU AND MAKE YOUR FAMILY BLACK ONE BY ONE. THE END IS NIGH.

Quote:

---

LABOUR WILL SNEAK UP BEHIND YOU AND MAKE YOUR FAMILY BLACK ONE BY ONE. THE END IS NIGH.

---

:laugh4:

The long descent of the Daily Mailograph continues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

lol, if that happens then this country is collectively even more stupid than even i give it credit for.

---

They aren't smart enough to do the right thing and enmass to liberal democrats.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

Personaly, i would have supported (and do now) a policy of immigration, diversity and a multicultural society. I believe that those who are complaining about this issue are primarily doing so because they dislike immigration and diversity.

That said, what I don't like is that this, if actually "stealth social engineering", wasn't overt and public. Clearly, not everyone is as overjoyed by diversity as I am but that is further cause for all to have had a say/vote on it. It should simply have been a part of Labour's manifesto.

---

it is quite possible to hold diversity and multi-culturalism as distinct and separate things, and support one but not the other.

valid point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

They aren't smart enough to do the right thing and enmass to liberal democrats.

---

they have to stand on a coherent platform first, and that's before you even get to assessing the worth of that platform.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

it is quite possible to hold diversity and multi-culturalism as distinct and separate things, and support one but not the other.

---

Indeed. However those who might support multiculturalism and not diversity could (at best) be tipified as a tolerant but with an "each to their own" mentality.

I'm less clear on how one could support diversity without multiculturalism. In any case this is not the sense which you are refering too, and certainly not that which best describes your average incensed telegraph/daily mail reader.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

OK, balls out and damn the consequences:

Personaly, i would have supported (and do now) a policy of immigration, diversity and a multicultural society. I believe that those who are complaining about this issue are primarily doing so because they dislike immigration and diversity.

I live in an area with a great mix of people and backgrounds: Afro carribean, middle eastern, portugese/brazilian and white British. I love it, there's so much to sample and learn in diverse culture, food and ways of seeing things. I work in an establishment with a huge diversity of people from all sorts of backgrounds and sexuality and frankly its great, I've never found anywhere so interesting and invigorating to work in.

That said, what I don't like is that this, if actually "stealth social engineering", wasn't overt and public. Clearly, not everyone is as overjoyed by diversity as I am but that is further cause for all to have had a say/vote on it. It should simply have been a part of Labour's manifesto.

Otherwise its just the Telegraph dipping-in to the daily-mail's line of paranoid scare-mongering: LABOUR WILL SNEAK UP BEHIND YOU AND MAKE YOUR FAMILY BLACK ONE BY ONE. THE END IS NIGH.

---

The article is really about the deception, and the loss of the working-class vote. The issue is the cynicism, after all immigrants are much more likely to vote Labour.

As far as immigration is concerned: Sorry, no room at the Inn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

The article is really about the deception, and the loss of the working-class vote. The issue is the cynicism, after all immigrants are much more likely to vote Labour.

---

So the purpose of Labour's immigration policy is to "import" votes?? I thought it was meant to be idealistic backstabbing...

I love/hate how the mail/graph attempt to put everything in the light of interests of the "common man" whereas actually they are aimed at the interests of the lower middle class/petty bourgeoisie. Its a big con.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

As far as immigration is concerned: Sorry, no room at the Inn.

---

Well that's a function of economic demand for workforce, at the moment, there is indeed very little surplus demand.

Quote:

---

LABOUR WILL SNEAK UP BEHIND YOU AND MAKE YOUR FAMILY BLACK ONE BY ONE. THE END IS NIGH.

---

Well the sneaky buggers got one in on my family. :laugh4:*

As for immigration, no one asked us. Not one of the parties. You'd think that it would be nice in a liberal democracy that the electorate would be consulted before such changes to society. That this was done with the most cynical of reasons; i.e. most of the immigrants would vote Labour, (or so they assume), is gerrymandering. Folks have gone to prison for that.

Now I wonder who abolished the Treason Act and why? :inquisitive:

*Now 'mom' being an American had to jump through hoops and hurdles and still couldn't get leave to remain indefinitley. Pater, despite being a former Royal Marine, policeman and a serving LGO for 35 years couldn't get entry to the 'Land of the Free' because he couldn't show enough commitment to his country of origin. (the UK) :dizzy2:

The Treason Act? I hope you're joking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myrddraal

The Treason Act? I hope you're joking.

---

Nope.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

Indeed. However those who might support multiculturalism and not diversity could (at best) be tipified as a tolerant but with an "each to their own" mentality.

I'm less clear on how one could support diversity without multiculturalism. In any case this is not the sense which you are refering too, and certainly not that which best describes your average incensed telegraph/daily mail reader.

---

it's quite simple:

Q - do i mind if they wear funny clothes, look a little bit more tanned than the average brit, eat funny food, or don't attend CofE?
A - no, i don't care in the slightest.

Q - do i care if they attempt to justify/advocate; honour killings, jihad or sharia law within the borders of MY country?
A - yes, i do care and would prefer they crawled back to whatever squalid dump they came from.

If you come here with the intention of being British then i welcome you, whatever your colour.
If you come here to work (as many of my friends have) and you intend to accept the laws and mores of the land, then i welcome you too.

But most importantly, i demand that any immigration policy is slow enough that immigrants can be assimilated rather than piling up in giant ethnic ghettoes.
This is, first and foremost, our land and if lots of Brits are uncomfortable being surrounded by those giant ethnic ghettoes, then i am unhappy because, first and foremost, they are my people.

"But what about our own home-grown nut-cases?" you might ask, the answer to that is easy; "they are my problem, but why on earth would i import more who aren't?"

You see the important point here; I care more about my family than i do about yours, and I expect the head of my family to hold as his paramount concern the welfare and happiness of my family!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myrddraal

The Treason Act? I hope you're joking.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Nope.

---

Well I'd like to see if that one would stick! That said, it might be the first proper debate on the issue.