The United Kingdom Elections 2010

**Furunculus** · 04-22-2010, 15:12

Originally Posted by Beskar

Not exactly, it is pretty true. What is even more funny, the English keep going "1966!!!" to the Germans, and the Germans are like "What? Who cares?"

still utter bobbins, please define 'the english'?

Originally Posted by Subotan

The phenomenon which I and Clegg are talking about has nothing in common with the far-right. The far-right is a minority group of mentally challenged extrremists. Anti-German sentiment in the UK is something which is far deeper and more insitutionalised.

80 per cent of British schoolchildren, when asked what they associated with Germany, mentioned the Second World War, and 50 per cent mentioned Hitler. Even John Cleese hates it, saying at a competition at the German Embassy ""I’m delighted to help with trying to break down the ridiculous anti-German prejudices of the tabloids and clowns like Basil Fawlty, who are pathetically stuck in a world view that’s more than half a century out of date...I think the German contribution to literature and philosophy is extraordinary, and to music and science is enormous.". To say that this a "strawman" argument is to say that we live in a nation of scarecrows.

yes, some people are idiots, but obey the laws of the land and you can think whatever you want as i have no truck with the thought police mentality, and the last time i checked aggressive english nationalism has not caused any atrocities genocides or invasions.

So What?

**Beskar** · 04-22-2010, 22:04

Originally Posted by Furunculus

still utter bobbins, please define 'the english'?

For some reason, I doubt it is the Scottish, the Welsh or the Northern Irish will keep going "1966 to you, Germans!".

**Furunculus** · 04-22-2010, 22:10

Originally Posted by Beskar

For some reason, I doubt it is the Scottish, the Welsh or the Northern Irish will keep going "1966 to you, Germans!".

and i somehow doubt it is any great proportion of the english too. straw man. utter bobbins.

**Myrddraal** · 04-22-2010, 22:14

Watching snippets on youtube now. Brown certainly doesn't come across very well. So far every statement has revolved around the words "I have to do this all the time, every day, I have to get on with the job", which doesn't tell us very much other than that he's the current prime minister.

**Furunculus** · 04-22-2010, 22:17

Cameron: I'm really totally different from these two, d00ds.

Brown: I'm a statesman, and the other guys are dangerous.

Clegg: I'm new, and i'll interrupt people a lot.

**Banquo's Ghost** · 04-23-2010, 07:41

I thought the debate went well for Clegg. Cameron was much improved, but still strangely uncomfortable. Brown didn't seem to be in the same room - he felt irrelevant.

I was surprised that barely a glove was laid on Nick Clegg about Europe. He did very well explaining his position, and perhaps his weakest policy area (in the electorate's eyes) was defended easily and with charm. In fact, it was Cameron who got completely skewered on European policy and looked isolated. In any country which wasn't paranoid about Europe, he would have lost the election there and then, but in the UK it will be a minor blip. His decision to join the fringe of EU politics won him the Tory leadership, but looks like losing him the premiership.

Clegg also did well enough on Trident, and once the debate got back to domestic policy, he shone again, even if one didn't agree with his policies. He was a bit more bullish (hence Furunculus' 'interrupting' observation) but this showed confidence and reflected, I feel, the audience's irritation with some of the baloney being peddled by the others. Cameron failed to explain his main policy idea, the Big Society, and barely even mentioned it. He sounds more like the leader of a tired government than Brown does.

The biggest surprise to me was the rather blatant interference from Murdoch's Sky News editorial team. They chose a question on Europe first, hoping that this would nail Clegg right from the off and give their man (Cameron) the opportunity to shine. Amazingly, later on, Adam Boulton the moderator, actually attacked Clegg and only Clegg by asking him directly about the morning's Telegraph story. I thought Clegg (who has dealt with the lies and slanders with some dignity) put him down like a mad dog, but the fact remains, the Sky News moderator deliberately broke the rules and tried to influence the debate. Shameful, especially alongside the Tory press gang attack earlier in the day. Mercifully, the British electorate don't seem to agree with the Mail and Murdoch that they are bought and paid for.

**Idaho** · 04-23-2010, 10:25

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

The biggest surprise to me was the rather blatant interference from Murdoch's Sky News editorial team. They chose a question on Europe first, hoping that this would nail Clegg right from the off and give their man (Cameron) the opportunity to shine. Amazingly, later on, Adam Boulton the moderator, actually attacked Clegg and only Clegg by asking him directly about the morning's Telegraph story. I thought Clegg (who has dealt with the lies and slanders with some dignity) put him down like a mad dog, but the fact remains, the Sky News moderator deliberately broke the rules and tried to influence the debate. Shameful, especially alongside the Tory press gang attack earlier in the day. Mercifully, the British electorate don't seem to agree with the Mail and Murdoch that they are bought and paid for.

It's dodgy as flip, that's for sure.

The Times today has produced a poll based on a wide survey of Rupert Murdoch and his editorial team:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle7105727.ece

I found the whole thing a total yawn. But Clag was a bit better than Brown, who did the wise old statesman act about as best as he could. Cameron tried to hit the right notes, and no doubt did with the already converted. But I don't think he'll win over anyone.

I still think that Labour will sneak it. Majority of 10.