The General Election Thread

[blue cigar]

Hey blue cigar, found a link to a racist Rozanne Duncan statement from the 20 years she was in the Conservatives yet? No you haven't have you? How odd that her 20 years in the Conservatives produced no national news coverage, whereas the 6 months in which she joined UKIP before being kicked out because of her racist views saw a concerted, coordinated campaign involving every single national newspaper and TV channel.

20 years.... Complete media silence. 6 months... Can't move for coverage of her story. What changed?

You still haven't addressed the Racist Conservative, Racist Lib Dem and Racist Labour Party's blatantly racist immigratin policy by the way. If you're as bothered about racism as you say you are, why spend your time criticisising one of only two major parties in the UK without a racist stance on Immigration.

I havent found it because i havent looked for it. Maybe there isnt a lot to find??
So every paper and every tv news channel waged or are waging a concerted effort to expose racism in ukip?why do you think they would do that and how hard would they have to work to find anything? No,in my veiw there is too much racism linked to ukip,too many quotes and ccomments in a short space of time to dismiss it as a media whitewash..of course there are instances from other parties but i stand by my veiw that ukip is a racist party and they do not stand up to media scrutiny which is why they will barely win a seat...lets see in may shall we.

 

[Ancient Citizen]

I think I can read Cameron pretty well. I find the notion that he won't engage in the TV debates to be a fanciful one. He's generally pretty good in that type of arena and he has a good political antennae and a strong instinct for survival.

Failing to take part, on the comical pretense of more representation for the likes of the Green Party, is replete with political risk. He fears UKIP at his peril.

The economy is gathering momentum and the British electorate are usually pretty conservative in such circumstances, unless a government is trying for a third or fourth term. He's the only leader with a realistic chance of forming a government as things stand, but it's still an outside chance. If he's going to seize that oportunity he need to dieplay more self-confidence than presently. His best interests are served in being bold and confident, rather than effete and dissembling. Appearing to be spineless and hypocritical, as he currently is on this matter, will diminish his electoral chances imo.

If the Tories were several points ahead in the polls then a more reticent approach would be understandable, but they're not.

I firmly believe he will agree a deal and engage in the TV debates.

Bang on Gord, I have expressed my mystification as to why he won't, and can only assume it's Nige who is the main reason, as he is a forceful and charismatic debater. Miliband has neither of these qualities, and Labour voters I've spoken to are voting labour despite him, they also see he is weak and ineffectual, and Cameron regularly disposes of him in PMQ's. This nonsense about including the Greens, a party with a manifesto that, to me, borders on insanity, is disingenuous and is not helping his cause.
I too, think he will bow to pressure and engage.

 

[cibaman]

I think I can read Cameron pretty well. I find the notion that he won't engage in the TV debates to be a fanciful one. He's generally pretty good in that type of arena and he has a good political antennae and a strong instinct for survival.

Failing to take part, on the comical pretense of more representation for the likes of the Green Party, is replete with political risk. He fears UKIP at his peril.

The economy is gathering momentum and the British electorate are usually pretty conservative in such circumstances, unless a government is trying for a third or fourth term. He's the only leader with a realistic chance of forming a government as things stand, but it's still an outside chance. If he's going to seize that oportunity he need to dieplay more self-confidence than presently. His best interests are served in being bold and confident, rather than effete and dissembling. Appearing to be spineless and hypocritical, as he currently is on this matter, will diminish his electoral chances imo.

If the Tories were several points ahead in the polls then a more reticent approach would be understandable, but they're not.

I firmly believe he will agree a deal and engage in the TV debates.

Bang on Gord, I have expressed my mystification as to why he won't, and can only assume it's Nige who is the main reason, as he is a forceful and charismatic debater. Miliband has neither of these qualities, and Labour voters I've spoken to are voting labour despite him, they also see he is weak and ineffectual, and Cameron regularly disposes of him in PMQ's. This nonsense about including the Greens, a party with a manifesto that, to me, borders on insanity, is disingenuous and is not helping his cause.
I too, think he will bow to pressure and engage.

I think Cameron has been badly advised. The conventional wisdom is that refusing to debate might create a storm in a tea cup but doesn't cause any lasting damage, Blair and Thatcher both refused to debate (on the grounds of never give a sucker an even break) and it didnt do them any harm.

But the genie is out of the bottle now. The precedent has been set and there is an expectation that debates will take place. The "chicken" insult will stick, especially if the debates go ahead without him. Its difficult to see how he can backtrack now without still losing face. Although I did read a suggestion that ITV might break ranks and bring forward their debate to March, which might be his way back in.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I think I can read Cameron pretty well. I find the notion that he won't engage in the TV debates to be a fanciful one. He's generally pretty good in that type of arena and he has a good political antennae and a strong instinct for survival.

Failing to take part, on the comical pretense of more representation for the likes of the Green Party, is replete with political risk. He fears UKIP at his peril.

The economy is gathering momentum and the British electorate are usually pretty conservative in such circumstances, unless a government is trying for a third or fourth term. He's the only leader with a realistic chance of forming a government as things stand, but it's still an outside chance. If he's going to seize that oportunity he need to dieplay more self-confidence than presently. His best interests are served in being bold and confident, rather than effete and dissembling. Appearing to be spineless and hypocritical, as he currently is on this matter, will diminish his electoral chances imo.

If the Tories were several points ahead in the polls then a more reticent approach would be understandable, but they're not.

I firmly believe he will agree a deal and engage in the TV debates.

Bang on Gord, I have expressed my mystification as to why he won't, and can only assume it's Nige who is the main reason, as he is a forceful and charismatic debater. Miliband has neither of these qualities, and Labour voters I've spoken to are voting labour despite him, they also see he is weak and ineffectual, and Cameron regularly disposes of him in PMQ's. This nonsense about including the Greens, a party with a manifesto that, to me, borders on insanity, is disingenuous and is not helping his cause.
I too, think he will bow to pressure and engage.

There are two ways he can approach this election, safe in the belief that (imo) no other party has any conceivable hope of forming a government without enlisting support from other parties.

That means he could play a cautious game and sit it out. Maybe he's seen Clegg at close quarters and has come to appreciate that his Coalition partner has acquired a taste for office that is best served via a LibCon government Mark II. Certainly, if the Tories were the largest party (which I expect they will be) that would provide the path of least resistance for Clegg in terms of justification to the wider world.

Ultimately, however, politicians crave power - and the more the merrier. If he can make enough UKIP waverers hesitate in the privacy of the ballot box then the prize is a conservative government with a workable majority. He isn't going to secure that by cowering.

It's up to him really. Has he got the bottle? He must have had it to end up where he has, but is it still there or has the power he's acquired made him overly cautious about losing it.

I won't be voting Tory, but if I were him, I know what I'd be doing. No better feeling in this world than taking a calculated risk that pays off, especially where the prize is so great.

 

[cibaman]

Apparently the Tories are counting on the voters looking at Milliband and seeing Kinnock Mark 2. They're not prepared to take the risk that he might put in an inspired performance during the final debate.

It does seem an extremely negative approach. It might result in the Tories winning the most seats, but not an overall majority.

 

[blue cigar]

Apparently the Tories are counting on the voters looking at Milliband and seeing Kinnock Mark 2. They're not prepared to take the risk that he might put in an inspired performance during the final debate.

It does seem an extremely negative approach. It might result in the Tories winning the most seats, but not an overall majority.

The libs wont get enough seats to form a coalition with anyone,the snp will hold sway and they only have labour,that seems the only joint outcome barring a sharp change in voting patterns. The kinnock comparison is a fair point but is a big gamble on camerons part,its his to lose and hes duly obliging.

 

[blueonblue]

Funny how the SNP are not viewed as a racist party , do not a large % of their members openly admit to hate the English ?.

So where are the little lefties frothing at the mouth when there is talk of labour doing deals with racists, could it be that left wing racism and nationalism is acceptable ?.

How about the number of communists and ex communists in the labour party, if there is a fuss because people belonged to the National Front* in their past, where is the outrage about belonging to a party that has murdered millions and is still at it ?

You can go on the BBC with a Joe Stalin (Sixty million) shirt no, no problem, try it with Adolf (Six million) on the front an listen to the uproar.

*For those to young to remember, the NF was the fore runner to the BNP, a bunch of barmpots spray painting slogans and beating the odd poor bugger up, the cry from the left was they were "Nazi`s", who as you should know gassed six million, what you may not be aware of was that the communists killed sixty million in camps, and countless more around the world since.

 

[Chancy Termites]

Hey blue cigar, found a link to a racist Rozanne Duncan statement from the 20 years she was in the Conservatives yet? No you haven't have you? How odd that her 20 years in the Conservatives produced no national news coverage, whereas the 6 months in which she joined UKIP before being kicked out because of her racist views saw a concerted, coordinated campaign involving every single national newspaper and TV channel.

20 years.... Complete media silence. 6 months... Can't move for coverage of her story. What changed?

You still haven't addressed the Racist Conservative, Racist Lib Dem and Racist Labour Party's blatantly racist immigratin policy by the way. If you're as bothered about racism as you say you are, why spend your time criticisising one of only two major parties in the UK without a racist stance on Immigration.

I havent found it because i havent looked for it.

Translation: "When making up my mind on a given subject, one thing I absolutely refuse to take into account is evidence."

 

[Rascal]

Funny how the SNP are not viewed as a racist party , do not a large % of their members openly admit to hate the English ?.

So where are the little lefties frothing at the mouth when there is talk of labour doing deals with racists, could it be that left wing racism and nationalism is acceptable ?.

How about the number of communists and ex communists in the labour party, if there is a fuss because people belonged to the National Front* in their past, where is the outrage about belonging to a party that has murdered millions and is still at it ?

You can go on the BBC with a Joe Stalin (Sixty million) shirt no, no problem, try it with Adolf (Six million) on the front an listen to the uproar.

*For those to young to remember, the NF was the fore runner to the BNP, a bunch of barmpots spray painting slogans and beating the odd poor bugger up, the cry from the left was they were "Nazi`s", who as you should know gassed six million, what you may not be aware of was that the communists killed sixty million in camps, and countless more around the world since.

Dearie fucking me.

 

[tidyman]

How about the number of communists and ex communists in the labour party, in their past, where is the outrage about belonging to a party that has murdered millions and is still at it ?

What party are you talking about here specifically?

 

[Rascal]

How about the number of communists and ex communists in the labour party, in their past, where is the outrage about belonging to a party that has murdered millions and is still at it ?

What party are you talking about here specifically?

Ffs Tidy, the fella thinks Stalin was a Communist. What hope of any sense when he thinks that.

 

[law74]

How about the number of communists and ex communists in the labour party, in their past, where is the outrage about belonging to a party that has murdered millions and is still at it ?

What party are you talking about here specifically?

Ffs Tidy, the fella thinks Stalin was a Communist. What hope of any sense when he thinks that.

He probably also thinks labour are a left wing party

 

[DelToro]

How about the number of communists and ex communists in the labour party, in their past, where is the outrage about belonging to a party that has murdered millions and is still at it ?

What party are you talking about here specifically?

Must be the Communist Party of Great Britain.

Butchered millions of innocents.

All covered up by the BBC

 

[101toMR]

How about the number of communists and ex communists in the labour party, in their past, where is the outrage about belonging to a party that has murdered millions and is still at it ?

What party are you talking about here specifically?

Must be the Communist Party of Great Britain.

Butchered millions of innocents.

All covered up by the BBC

That would be like the Socialist Party of little England that the left seem so over concerned about.
The one where anyone who mentions anything right wing gets reminded of Hitler (Godwins law initiation protocol).
EDL are idiots.
UAF are idiots.
The best way to speak to people from the UAF is to just patronise them because they are idiots.
The best way to speak to people from the EDL is to just patronise them because they are idiots.

 

[tidyman]

What party are you talking about here specifically?

Ffs Tidy, the fella thinks Stalin was a Communist. What hope of any sense when he thinks that.

He probably also thinks labour are a left wing party

Now that's too ridiculous for even some of the loons on here to believe.

 

[101toMR]

Ffs Tidy, the fella thinks Stalin was a Communist. What hope of any sense when he thinks that.

He probably also thinks labour are a left wing party

Now that's too ridiculous for even some of the loons on here to believe.

Political genii explaining the definition of left but without any real success.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

What party are you talking about here specifically?

Ffs Tidy, the fella thinks Stalin was a Communist. What hope of any sense when he thinks that.

He probably also thinks labour are a left wing party

Why is what is defined as "left-wing" set in aspic, or for that matter, to be determined by you?

 

[Scottyboi]

Who do you guy's think would be a good party to deal with Putin and a potential cold war?

Serious question.

 

[101toMR]

Ffs Tidy, the fella thinks Stalin was a Communist. What hope of any sense when he thinks that.

He probably also thinks labour are a left wing party

Why is what is defined as "left-wing" set in aspic, or for that matter, to be determined by you?

Nice post and this is exactly where we are going wrong,well done sir.
Someone somewhere defined that talking about immigration even whispering that there could be a problem is a fascist naughty thing to do.
It was defined as right wing and obviously nobody with progressive social reformist tendencies would ever stoop so low as look at someone elses passport.
Labour however moved from their great socialist ideals into a more established 'Look after their mates' ideology, you could separate them from the Tories with a rizzla paper.

 

[aguero93:20]

Who do you guy's think would be a good party to deal with Putin and a potential cold war?

Serious question.

Wartime politics are distinctly different from peacetime, it would be less about parties in that circumstance (opposition parties tend to vote with the government on foreign policy in wartime) and more about the individual leading the government. Fwiw I don't see anyone capable of leading in that style among the main party leaders