General Election 2010

[Meenzer 15531]

Does anyone really believe the tories are not the same group of bigotted cunts of old? It'd be interesting if we could leave microphones attached to them 24/7 so we could hear what they really think. All this 'change' they have come to profess is nothing but a shallow facade imo - underneath they are the same bunch of intolerant bastards they always have been who will do nothing for minority groups.

 

Literally everyone I've spoke to who is voting for the Tories has given me an answer about immigrants and that's it. I don't think the majority of people are aware of what they're like.

 

I've just about resigned myself to them winning now but have two reasons to be positive - King's opinion on how much shit is going to hit the fan and a whole new generation of selfish twats are going to be reminded what the Tories are.

 

Yep, this. From a personal perspective, a small Tory majority with a vastly improved Lib Dem position might just be the best result in the long term, even if the next few years are ugly as hell.

[Christmas Tree 4725]

Does anyone really believe the tories are not the same group of bigotted cunts of old? It'd be interesting if we could leave microphones attached to them 24/7 so we could hear what they really think. All this 'change' they have come to profess is nothing but a shallow facade imo - underneath they are the same bunch of intolerant bastards they always have been who will do nothing for minority groups.

 

 

What do you think the filthy rich are

[The Fish 10857]

Does anyone really believe the tories are not the same group of bigotted cunts of old? It'd be interesting if we could leave microphones attached to them 24/7 so we could hear what they really think. All this 'change' they have come to profess is nothing but a shallow facade imo - underneath they are the same bunch of intolerant bastards they always have been who will do nothing for minority groups.

 

 

What do you think the filthy rich are

selfish cocks?

[Papa Lazaru 0]

Does anyone really believe the tories are not the same group of bigotted cunts of old? It'd be interesting if we could leave microphones attached to them 24/7 so we could hear what they really think. All this 'change' they have come to profess is nothing but a shallow facade imo - underneath they are the same bunch of intolerant bastards they always have been who will do nothing for minority groups.

 

Literally everyone I've spoke to who is voting for the Tories has given me an answer about immigrants and that's it. I don't think the majority of people are aware of what they're like.

 

I've just about resigned myself to them winning now but have two reasons to be positive - King's opinion on how much shit is going to hit the fan and a whole new generation of selfish twats are going to be reminded what the Tories are.

 

Yep, this. From a personal perspective, a small Tory majority with a vastly improved Lib Dem position might just be the best result in the long term, even if the next few years are ugly as hell.

 

Don't know how/why anyone is stupid enough to believe the tories have ever or will ever change, they are what they are and always will be. Doesn't mean Labour are any use either, the whole lot of them are a waste of space tbh, but i find it amazing that anyone believes the stuff Cameron and his people have fed them, its embarassing.

[Christmas Tree 4725]

I find it amazing that anyone would want to vote for a party that has once again bankrupted the country, sold off our gold, sold off all the schools and hospitals, taken us into illegal wars and has at it's heart, the biggest Tory of them all, Dark Lord Mandelson.

[The Fish 10857]

I find it amazing that anyone would want to vote for a party that has once again bankrupted the country, sold off our gold, sold off all the schools and hospitals, taken us into illegal wars and has at it's heart, the biggest Tory of them all, Dark Lord Mandelson.

because voting for a pseudo Tory will always bee better than a full on Tory?

 

by the by, I'm sure most people find it astonishing that anyone would vote for a party that morally bankrupt this country twenty odd years ago.

[Problem Child 0]

I find it amazing that anyone would want to vote for a party that has once again bankrupted the country, sold off our gold, sold off all the schools and hospitals, taken us into illegal wars and has at it's heart, the biggest Tory of them all, Dark Lord Mandelson.

Whereas the last Conservative government sold off our telecoms industry, our water, our electricity and our gas to fund regressive tax reductions. Oh, and they also replaced our manufacturing industry with a service sector economy and promoted a society based on greed.

 

It was the banks that bankrupted the country not the current government, guess which party deregulated the banking sector?

[NJS 4386]

I find it amazing that anyone would want to vote for a party that has once again bankrupted the country

 

I remember Lawson admitting on Question Time in about 86 that he'd had to raise funds from foreign source (ie take loans) which were in real terms twice as much as the IMF bailout Healy had to take in the 70s. The media pretty much ignored it because at that time they were all scared of the bitch.

[Matt 0]

I find it amazing that anyone would want to vote for a party that has once again bankrupted the country, sold off our gold, sold off all the schools and hospitals, taken us into illegal wars and has at it's heart, the biggest Tory of them all, Dark Lord Mandelson.

 

Most people don't- but they still see it as a better option than Cameron and chums.

Edited May 2, 2010 by Matt

[Craig 6682]

Does anyone really believe the tories are not the same group of bigotted cunts of old? It'd be interesting if we could leave microphones attached to them 24/7 so we could hear what they really think. All this 'change' they have come to profess is nothing but a shallow facade imo - underneath they are the same bunch of intolerant bastards they always have been who will do nothing for minority groups.

 

Literally everyone I've spoke to who is voting for the Tories has given me an answer about immigrants and that's it. I don't think the majority of people are aware of what they're like.

 

I've just about resigned myself to them winning now but have two reasons to be positive - King's opinion on how much shit is going to hit the fan and a whole new generation of selfish twats are going to be reminded what the Tories are.

 

Yep, this. From a personal perspective, a small Tory majority with a vastly improved Lib Dem position might just be the best result in the long term, even if the next few years are ugly as hell.

 

I agree. Because if it doesn't happen, I fear there'll be a Tory landslide in 5 years time which will almost certainly guarantee them the next two elections after that too.

[LeazesMag 0]

Heckler thrown out of Brown event

 

A 38-year-old man has been thrown out of a Labour Party event after heckling a speech to supporters by Gordon Brown.

 

Julian Borthwick said he had gone to the National Glass Centre in Sunderland for lunch but "felt animated" when he heard the prime minister was there.

 

His complaint was about availability of fast broadband in the North East.

 

He also said he was angry that the PM was not meeting any ordinary people and was instead appearing before "small hand-picked groups"

 

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/ele...010/8656046.stm

 

Labour starting to lose the plot now IMO.

 

Don't see how they've lost the plot at all from that article tbh. Sounds like he's a nutter.

 

agreed.

[Matt 0]

I agree. Because if it doesn't happen, I fear there'll be a Tory landslide in 5 years time which will almost certainly guarantee them the next two elections after that too.

 

Depends if we get PR in place as a result of a hung parliament.

[Craig 6682]

I agree. Because if it doesn't happen, I fear there'll be a Tory landslide in 5 years time which will almost certainly guarantee them the next two elections after that too.

 

Depends if we get PR in place as a result of a hung parliament.

 

True although I think the Tories are going to be the largest party and I can't for the life of me see them agreeing to PR being brought in. I have my doubts about Labour too - they've had 13 years to carry out electoral reform and they've made no inroads on it.

[Renton 21627]

Vote for Change. Real Change.

 

Agree with quite a lot of the lead article of the Independent on Sunday today. If you hate the tories, please consider resorting to tactical voting in this election, more than any other.

 

Four weeks ago, with predictions that turnout in the election then about to be announced would hit a historic low, The Independent on Sunday launched its One of the Above campaign. The aim was two-fold: to persuade those hundreds of thousands of eligible voters who had failed to register to do so, and to suggest that, in spite of any understandable misgivings about politicians, as many of us as possible should use our vote.

 

 

In the first of those aims, hundreds of thousands did register, particularly the young; and on the second, turnout looks likely to climb out of the valley of apathy of the last two elections, buoyed by a close race and perhaps by the television debates. So far, so good.

 

Now though, as polling day approaches, for the logical extension. The underlying principle of the One of the Above campaign is to make sure that the democratic will of everybody is expressed equally, and that, we believe, is impossible under the discredited first-past-the-post system. Never again should the vast majority of votes be deprived of any impact on the outcome.

 

So today we begin our campaign for a fairer system with a plea: in this election of all elections, the opinion polls, in signalling a hung parliament, suggest a historic opportunity for change that, as Nick Clegg suggests to us today, may not recur for a generation. And that compels us to suggest that readers should consider voting tactically on Thursday.

 

What do we mean by that? As the Tories are opposed to electoral reform and are ahead in the polls, we are asking voters in 85 key constituencies to vote for the candidate best placed to frustrate David Cameron. This is all the more urgent as our ComRes poll today suggests that he is poised on the very edge of securing a majority. We publish our guide to the mechanics on page 19.

 

This is not because we dislike Mr Cameron. We may still be unsure whether he stands for the environmental approach that he emphasises to us today, or for the unlovely politics of immigration he trumpeted in the television debate on Thursday. But the reason for opposing him is that this self-professed candidate of change refuses to consider the most vital change of all. From electoral reform flows much else that we believe this country needs: green jobs, a fairer tax system, an urgent defence review and sustained investment in health and education.

 

These values are perhaps best espoused by the Liberal Democrats, and one of the pleasing features of this campaign has been the realisation at large that Nick Clegg is a formidable politician, leading a strong team.

 

Why, then, do we not make it simpler and say: vote Lib Dem? For two reasons. First, one of the anomalies of the present system is that voting Lib Dem could hand scores of Conservative-Labour marginals to Mr Cameron - as Peter Mandelson correctly points out on page 41. Secondly, we do not believe that to reduce the Labour Party's share of the vote to a historic low would be right. Indeed, the best outcome of this election would be a Lib-Lab coalition.

 

This newspaper has long defended Gordon Brown but is not unaware of his failings. He is a radio politician in a television age, and that has cost him dear. He has been around a long time, and that has had its impact in an era when the mantra is for change. And he has not succeeded in persuading voters that his personality defects are irrelevant to the question of effective government. Yet there is a magnificence about Brown and, on the rare occasions when this election campaign has addressed matters of substance, most importantly the economy and the deficit, it is a case of "no time for novices". And Labour has done an impressive job in 13 years, whatever the failings, notably of foreign policy.

 

We debated whether it was right for us to dare to advise our readers. But we think we should be clear. We worried that to ask for an anti-Tory vote in selected constituencies might seem negative. But we are convinced that nothing could be more positive than to secure a change to a fairer voting system. No one should be scared of a hung parliament: it is the key to progress.

 

We called on Britain to register, and we call on you to vote. If you are convinced by the Tories, then please give Mr Cameron your considered support. But if you believe that we are on the cusp of a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, then join with us, and vote for the change that really matters. Use your democratic right to enhance the democratic rights of all. Vote for a hung parliament, and a better, fairer, greener Britain may just be ours.

[luckyluke 2]

People talk about this election like it's one of the most fascinating and invigorating in years. I think it's depressing as fuck.

 

You hear the same mudslinging from the main three parties.

 

"Labour have been rubbish" cry the Conservatives.

 

"Ah but the Conservatives did more rubbish things in the past plus they're a bunch of toffs who don't give two shits about anyone who didn't go to Eton" cry Labour.

 

And the Lib Dems cry a mixture of both. And of course, the validity and relevance of both of the above are debatable, no matter what I would like to believe.

 

My situation is I don't want the Tories to get in as I fundamentally disagree with their entire ethos and I think most of their policies are garbage, unfair or nonsensical, although admittedly I can see some merit in some of the things they suggest. This leaves me with a choice of Labour, who I've always backed before but have looked stale in recent years. I was always against Iraq and for all the good they have done for the NHS, there is so much waste and the growing influence of the private sector and ISTCs does not sit well with me, and the Lib Dems whose way of thinking I feel akin to but I've never been able to take them quite so seriously.

 

Except that it isn't a choice. It's a Labour/Tory split where I live so I'm voting for the Labour incumbent to stop the Conservatives gain another seat. He is apparently the 7th most expensive MP, flipped his home, claimed six fucking grand of taxpayers' money for stationery, although he did vote against the Iraq war. The Conservative candidate seems like an honest bloke who (almost certainly in a coup to topple the Labour man) has declared that he will not claim a penny of expenses inappropriately and chairs a non profit organisation to help the unemployed in Leeds.

 

So far from feeling power at my fingertips with my voting pen, I feel duty bound to vote for a thieving cunt who he represents a party that I still feel an affinity to despite them doing a lot of things I don't like, making a lot of mistakes and have seemingly as a whole fallen short of their principals, instead of a decent man standing for a party that offers the chance of 'change' that I neither trust, not believe, nor want, if what a lot of the stuff I've learnt about them is true. And owing to the makeup of my neighbourhood, there is no other choice.

 

Democracy eh. Int it grand.

Edited May 2, 2010 by luckyluke

[Ketsbaia 0]

People talk about this election like it's one of the most fascinating and invigorating in years. I think it's depressing as fuck.

 

You hear the same mudslinging from the main three parties.

 

"Labour have been rubbish" cry the Conservatives.

 

"Ah but the Conservatives did more rubbish things in the past plus they're a bunch of toffs who don't give two shits about anyone who didn't go to Eton" cry Labour.

 

And the Lib Dems cry a mixture of both. And of course, the validity and relevance of both of the above are debatable, no matter what I would like to believe.

 

My situation is I don't want the Tories to get in as I fundamentally disagree with their entire ethos and I think most of their policies are garbage, unfair or nonsensical, although admittedly I can see some merit in some of the things they suggest. This leaves me with a choice of Labour, who I've always backed before but have looked stale in recent years. I was always against Iraq and for all the good they have done for the NHS, there is so much waste and the growing influence of the private sector and ISTCs does not sit well with me, and the Lib Dems whose way of thinking I feel akin to but I've never been able to take them quite so seriously.

 

Except that it isn't a choice. It's a Labour/Tory split where I live so I'm voting for the Labour incumbent to stop the Conservatives gain another seat. He is apparently the 7th most expensive MP, flipped his home, claimed six fucking grand of taxpayers' money for stationery, although he did vote against the Iraq war. The Conservative candidate seems like an honest bloke who (almost certainly in a coup to topple the Labour man) has declared that he will not claim a penny of expenses inappropriately and chairs a non profit organisation to help the unemployed in Leeds.

 

So far from feeling power at my fingertips with my voting pen, I feel duty bound to vote for a thieving cunt who he represents a party that I still feel an affinity to despite them doing a lot of things I don't like, making a lot of mistakes and have seemingly as a whole fallen short of their principals, instead of a decent man standing for a party that offers the chance of 'change' that I neither trust, not believe, nor want, if what a lot of the stuff I've learnt about them is true. And owing to the makeup of my neighbourhood, there is no other choice.

 

Democracy eh. Int it grand.

 

It's interesting in a "oooh, I wonder what will happen and what the fall out will be" way but you're spot on - it's depressing. Regardless of what happens the immediate future looks bleak.

 

I live in a Labour stronghold, the Lib Dems are the only thing close to opposition and the party I find most agreeable so I've voted for them. It wont make a difference, we'll still be Labour come Friday morning. I don't envy your position though, if I lived in a Lab/Con marginal I'd vote red for the exact reasons you're going to.

[Gemmill 44900]

Charlie Brooker, on the money and funny again.

 

One of the most fascinating sights I've witnessed thus far during the coverage of the 2010 election campaign is Gordon Brown's visit to a branch of Tesco in Hastings on 16 April, which was broadcast live and uninterrupted for about five minutes on Sky News.

 

"Hello, good to see you," says Gordon, shaking someone's hand. "It's great to be here," he continues, waving at a well-wisher. He looks around. "This is a good store, isn't it?" he enquires of no one in particular. He spots a young boy. "How old are you?" he asks. The boy is eight. "That's a good age," Gordon concludes. "Which football team do you support?"

 

As he continues walking through the supermarket, the pictures carry on moving, but the sound appears to be stuck on a loop, because Gordon's repeating the same words. "Hello, good to see you." "It's great to be here." "This is a good store, isn't it?" "How old are you?" "That's a good age." "Which football team do you support?" The same handful of phrases, over and over again, for five minutes.

 

When you watch the footage repeatedly, as I have, distinct patterns start to emerge. Throughout the visit, Brown looks marginally less comfortable than a horse crossing a rope bridge, and his internal dialogue tree is starkly visible. Whenever he meets a boy of eight years old or older, for instance, Gordon briefly asks which football team they support, then chuckles, whatever the answer, before moving on to say "Hello, good to see you" to someone else. That's the way he's been programmed. (He occasionally breaks up his repetitive mantra with brief statements of the obvious: at one point, he glances at a shelf full of produce and says, "There's a lot of produce here." It almost makes you wish he was being shown around an orgy instead. Almost.)

 

The footage is funny, yet somehow heartbreaking. Brown looks clumsy, ungainly and chronically unsure how to behave around everyday shoppers. He reminds me of me. I can scarcely look people in the eye in supermarkets either. But I've learned to survive in demanding public situations – such as standing in front of an audience of expectant strangers – by adopting a babbling, deliberately awkward, vaguely nihilistic persona that is 50% me and 50% comic construct.

 

It's a shield of radioactive bullshit that hopefully provides just enough entertainment value to stop the crowd physically attacking me, and just enough psychological distance to stop me crumpling to the floor and ripping my own face off at the sheer uncomfortable weirdness of it all.

 

Thing is, this performance wouldn't withstand five minutes of serious scrutiny. I could open a supermarket, no problem, but sit me opposite a combative Jeremy Paxman and I'd have a massive nervous breakdown within five minutes. With Brown, it's the other way around. In the supermarket, he looked so anxious I half-expected him to climb inside a freezer compartment and refuse to come out until everyone else had left. In his interview with Paxman, held in the wake of the preposterous Bigotgate storm and a widely criticised final debate, he was frighteningly confident. At times, he even seemed to be enjoying himself. Technical in the social situation, sociable in the technical situation? That's the hallmark of a nerd. And most nerds are simply too gawky – gawky, not aloof – to connect with the general public.

 

So he's not endearing. The press held up Brown's Bigotgate outburst as evidence that he's two-faced and contemptuous of everyday people, especially those who mention immigration, a subject so taboo in modern Britain that even fearless defenders of free speech such as the Mail and the Express only dare mention it in hushed capitals tucked away on the front page of every edition.

 

Two-faced contempt is the basic mode of operation for many newspapers: mindwarping shitsheets filled with selective reporting and audacious bias. The popular press is a shrill, idiotic, bullying echo chamber; a hopelessly poisoned Petri dish in which our politicians seem resigned to grow. Little wonder they develop glaringly artificial public guises. Picking a modern leader boils down to a question of which false persona you prefer. At least Brown's is almost admirably crap. It's easy to see through it and catch hints of something awkwardly, weakly human beneath.

 

Clegg's persona is roughly 50% daytime soap, 40% human, and 10% statesman. Cameron is 100% something. He isn't even a man; more a texture-mapped character model. There's a different kind of software at work here, some advanced alien technology projecting a passable simulation of affability; a straight-to-DVD retread of the Blair ascendancy re-enacted by androids. Like an ostensibly realistic human character in a state-of-the-art CGI cartoon, he's almost convincing – assuming you can ignore the shrieking, cavernous lack of anything approaching a soul. Which you can't.

 

I see the sheen, the electronic calm, those tiny, expressionless eyes . . . I glimpse the outlines of the cloaking device and I instinctively recoil, like a baby tasting mould. Don't get me wrong. I don't see a power-crazed despot either. I almost wish I did. Instead, I see an avatar. A simulated man with a simulated face. A humanoid. A replicant. An Auton. A construct. A Carlton PR man who's arrived to run the country, and currently stands before us, blinking patiently, blank yet alert, quietly awaiting commencement of phase two. At which point, presumably, his real face may finally become visible.

[Christmas Tree 4725]

he's almost convincing – assuming you can ignore the shrieking, cavernous lack of anything approaching a soul. Which you can't.

 

 

Brilliant

[Renton 21627]

Charlie Brooker, on the money and funny again.

 

One of the most fascinating sights I've witnessed thus far during the coverage of the 2010 election campaign is Gordon Brown's visit to a branch of Tesco in Hastings on 16 April, which was broadcast live and uninterrupted for about five minutes on Sky News.

 

"Hello, good to see you," says Gordon, shaking someone's hand. "It's great to be here," he continues, waving at a well-wisher. He looks around. "This is a good store, isn't it?" he enquires of no one in particular. He spots a young boy. "How old are you?" he asks. The boy is eight. "That's a good age," Gordon concludes. "Which football team do you support?"

 

As he continues walking through the supermarket, the pictures carry on moving, but the sound appears to be stuck on a loop, because Gordon's repeating the same words. "Hello, good to see you." "It's great to be here." "This is a good store, isn't it?" "How old are you?" "That's a good age." "Which football team do you support?" The same handful of phrases, over and over again, for five minutes.

 

When you watch the footage repeatedly, as I have, distinct patterns start to emerge. Throughout the visit, Brown looks marginally less comfortable than a horse crossing a rope bridge, and his internal dialogue tree is starkly visible. Whenever he meets a boy of eight years old or older, for instance, Gordon briefly asks which football team they support, then chuckles, whatever the answer, before moving on to say "Hello, good to see you" to someone else. That's the way he's been programmed. (He occasionally breaks up his repetitive mantra with brief statements of the obvious: at one point, he glances at a shelf full of produce and says, "There's a lot of produce here." It almost makes you wish he was being shown around an orgy instead. Almost.)

 

The footage is funny, yet somehow heartbreaking. Brown looks clumsy, ungainly and chronically unsure how to behave around everyday shoppers. He reminds me of me. I can scarcely look people in the eye in supermarkets either. But I've learned to survive in demanding public situations – such as standing in front of an audience of expectant strangers – by adopting a babbling, deliberately awkward, vaguely nihilistic persona that is 50% me and 50% comic construct.

 

It's a shield of radioactive bullshit that hopefully provides just enough entertainment value to stop the crowd physically attacking me, and just enough psychological distance to stop me crumpling to the floor and ripping my own face off at the sheer uncomfortable weirdness of it all.

 

Thing is, this performance wouldn't withstand five minutes of serious scrutiny. I could open a supermarket, no problem, but sit me opposite a combative Jeremy Paxman and I'd have a massive nervous breakdown within five minutes. With Brown, it's the other way around. In the supermarket, he looked so anxious I half-expected him to climb inside a freezer compartment and refuse to come out until everyone else had left. In his interview with Paxman, held in the wake of the preposterous Bigotgate storm and a widely criticised final debate, he was frighteningly confident. At times, he even seemed to be enjoying himself. Technical in the social situation, sociable in the technical situation? That's the hallmark of a nerd. And most nerds are simply too gawky – gawky, not aloof – to connect with the general public.

 

So he's not endearing. The press held up Brown's Bigotgate outburst as evidence that he's two-faced and contemptuous of everyday people, especially those who mention immigration, a subject so taboo in modern Britain that even fearless defenders of free speech such as the Mail and the Express only dare mention it in hushed capitals tucked away on the front page of every edition.

 

Two-faced contempt is the basic mode of operation for many newspapers: mindwarping shitsheets filled with selective reporting and audacious bias. The popular press is a shrill, idiotic, bullying echo chamber; a hopelessly poisoned Petri dish in which our politicians seem resigned to grow. Little wonder they develop glaringly artificial public guises. Picking a modern leader boils down to a question of which false persona you prefer. At least Brown's is almost admirably crap. It's easy to see through it and catch hints of something awkwardly, weakly human beneath.

 

Clegg's persona is roughly 50% daytime soap, 40% human, and 10% statesman. Cameron is 100% something. He isn't even a man; more a texture-mapped character model. There's a different kind of software at work here, some advanced alien technology projecting a passable simulation of affability; a straight-to-DVD retread of the Blair ascendancy re-enacted by androids. Like an ostensibly realistic human character in a state-of-the-art CGI cartoon, he's almost convincing – assuming you can ignore the shrieking, cavernous lack of anything approaching a soul. Which you can't.

 

I see the sheen, the electronic calm, those tiny, expressionless eyes . . . I glimpse the outlines of the cloaking device and I instinctively recoil, like a baby tasting mould. Don't get me wrong. I don't see a power-crazed despot either. I almost wish I did. Instead, I see an avatar. A simulated man with a simulated face. A humanoid. A replicant. An Auton. A construct. A Carlton PR man who's arrived to run the country, and currently stands before us, blinking patiently, blank yet alert, quietly awaiting commencement of phase two. At which point, presumably, his real face may finally become visible.

 

Superb.

[Park Life 71]

Clegg's persona is roughly 50% daytime soap, 40% human, and 10% statesman. Cameron is 100% something. He isn't even a man; more a texture-mapped character model. There's a different kind of software at work here, some advanced alien technology projecting a passable simulation of affability; a straight-to-DVD retread of the Blair ascendancy re-enacted by androids. Like an ostensibly realistic human character in a state-of-the-art CGI cartoon, he's almost convincing – assuming you can ignore the shrieking, cavernous lack of anything approaching a soul. Which you can't."

 

 

Spot on.

 

He's a vacuously smiling drone and no mistake.

[Problem Child 0]

he's almost convincing – assuming you can ignore the shrieking, cavernous lack of anything approaching a soul. Which you can't.

 

 

Brilliant

It’s bullshit. I know somebody with no political bias who knew Brown from his days as a Labour back bencher and they say he was a decent lad who genuinely cared about ‘ordinary’ people. He might not be media friendly but who gives a shit, I want my prime minster to be an intelligent man with good intentions – not a plastic tool who just happens to be comfortable in front of the cameras.

 

This is one of the big problems with our democracy. It has ceased to be about policy and has turned into a vacuous image contest. All style and no substance.

 

I might add that I haven’t voted labour for years and won’t be voting for them this time, as has been said none of the parties really have the guts to do what needs to be done to create a sustainable and healthy society instead of doing what needs to be done get elected. You can’t blame them, the media have made the two mutually exclusive.

Edited May 3, 2010 by Problem Child

[NJS 4386]

he's almost convincing – assuming you can ignore the shrieking, cavernous lack of anything approaching a soul. Which you can't.

 

 

Brilliant

It’s bullshit. I know somebody with no political bias who knew Brown from his days as a Labour back bencher and they say he was a decent lad who genuinely cared about ‘ordinary’ people. He might not be media friendly but who gives a shit, I want my prime minster to be an intelligent man with good intentions – not a plastic tool who just happens to be comfortable in front of the cameras.

 

This is one of the big problems with our democracy. It has ceased to be about policy and has turned into a vacuous image contest. All style and no substance.

 

I might add that I haven’t voted labour for years and won’t be voting for them this time, as has been said none of the parties really have the guts to do what needs to be done to create a sustainable and healthy society instead of doing what needs to be done get elected. You can’t blame them, the media have made the two mutually exclusive.

 

If you're just referring to that quote then that's about Cameron not Brown.

 

If you meant the whole thing then fair enough.

[Christmas Tree 4725]

he's almost convincing – assuming you can ignore the shrieking, cavernous lack of anything approaching a soul. Which you can't.

 

 

Brilliant

It’s bullshit. I know somebody with no political bias who knew Brown from his days as a Labour back bencher and they say he was a decent lad who genuinely cared about ‘ordinary’ people. He might not be media friendly but who gives a shit, I want my prime minster to be an intelligent man with good intentions – not a plastic tool who just happens to be comfortable in front of the cameras.

 

This is one of the big problems with our democracy. It has ceased to be about policy and has turned into a vacuous image contest. All style and no substance.

 

I might add that I haven’t voted labour for years and won’t be voting for them this time, as has been said none of the parties really have the guts to do what needs to be done to create a sustainable and healthy society instead of doing what needs to be done get elected. You can’t blame them, the media have made the two mutually exclusive.

 

The bit I highlighted is about Cameron btw and not Brown

 

Also, you really should vote.

 

People are dying all over the world for democracy.

 

Even if you feel it's a wasted vote and your favourite can't win, at least it's another number for that party / candidate and will give them encouragement to keep on fighting for that cause.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Be Brave, vote for Dave.

[Craig 6682]

Clegg has apparently called for an end to Lord Ashdown!

 

Surely he means Ashcroft, but all the same...

[Craig 6682]

Gordon Brown's visit to Ipswich was designed to show off the redeveloped waterfront with its new housing, businesses and university campus. It certainly looks impressive but as ever there are at least two sides to every story, reports the BBC's James Cook. A policeman told us of problems with immigration, graffiti and anti-social behaviour. He also said the value of the flats had plummeted since the first buyers moved in. The controlled nature of Mr Brown's question-and-answer session also caused some problems. One woman wanted to see the prime minister but was refused entry because she wasn't on the guest list. As she was turned away, she said Mr Brown had now lost her vote

 

He's being fat too selective of who he speaks to I fear. This won't be helping his cause one bit.