Election debate

[BillyStubbsTears]

All major civillizations come to an end eventually, and most do so when they go soft.

I've just seen the Newsnight article where they get folk to watch the Leaders' Debate and press buttons to say whether they like what everyone is saying.

It seems that the Great British People like it when people tell them nice touchy-feely stuff, and hate it when their politicians sound aggressive and argumentative.

Well f**k me. We'll end up with a PM who can tuck us all up in bed and tell us a nice fairy story. f**king brill. Just what we need a Prime Minister to do.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

Well fcuk me. We'll end up with a PM who can tuck us all up in bed and tell us a nice fairy story. fcuking brill. Just what we need a Prime Minister to do.

Lib Dem it is then  

[Thinwhiteduke]

big fat yorkshire pudding wrote:

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

Well fcuk me. We'll end up with a PM who can tuck us all up in bed and tell us a nice fairy story. fcuking brill. Just what we need a Prime Minister to do.

Lib Dem it is then  

We'll be a sitting duck for all terrorist organisations / potential troublesome nations if the wishy washy Liberals get in.

[I-was-there1976]

isnt it great tv when party members start arguing over each other on national live tv like they were on Sky news last night.

All three (whoever they were) answered a tricky question with another question and Kay Burley just stuck the mic in and said get on with it children.


yeah but no but yeah but

[The Red Baron]

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

All major civillizations come to an end eventually, and most do so when they go soft.

I've just seen the Newsnight article where they get folk to watch the Leaders' Debate and press buttons to say whether they like what everyone is saying.

It seems that the Great British People like it when people tell them nice touchy-feely stuff, and hate it when their politicians sound aggressive and argumentative.

Well fcuk me. We'll end up with a PM who can tuck us all up in bed and tell us a nice fairy story. fcuking brill. Just what we need a Prime Minister to do.

I didn't watch the debate but I did see the news coverage where they showed the audience pressing the buttons. The \"worm\" just seemed to go up whenever anyone was speaking. Seemed one of the most pointless exercises ever.

Funny you should say that about all the \"touch-feely\" stuff. The polls seem much closer this time around and from what I saw both Brown and Cameron did better because they were more combative. Brown was much better for getting rid of his \"I agree with Nick\" line. No doubt the adviser who suggested that approach has picked up his P45 since.

[Filo]

The Lib Dems would be much more appealing if they changed their stance on having a Nuclear deterrent. The fact that they want rid of our deterrent will cost them a lot of votes

[BillyStubbsTears]

It was the fact that the lines went up when someone was saying something ameliorative, and down as soon as there was any confrontation.

We've become emasculated as a society. We're wanting comfort and reassurance all the time. The Tories have seen this  - when their policy was to stress the difficult decisions ahead, they went down dramatically in the polls, so they've changed their approach to one of optimism instead. They know that people just don't want to hear difficult stories.

We used to be the nation of the stiff upper lip and the Dunkirk Spirit. I wonder where that attitude went? Look at Afghanistan for example. THE most important strategic issue in the world today. Fail there and you're left with the possibility of Islamist fundamentalists toppling Pakistan and getting hold of their nuclear weapons. Yet the majority here want us out because the human cost is too high.

If we elect a Prime Minister that reflects us as a people, then God help us if we ever need him to go eyeball-to-eyeball with Putin for example. He'd get eaten for breakfast and spat out.

I blame Lady Di. She's turned us into a nation of simpering, non-confrontational sops.

[The Red Baron]

I agree- but isn't it strange how things turn around in politics.

The Lib Dems were formed from a merger between the old Liberals and the SDP. The bulk of the SDP membership came from the Labour party and one of the key reasons for \"defecting\" was Labour's then support for unilateral nuclear disarmament. Now the Lib Dems are the unilaterlists while Labour are supporting a multilateral approach. Weird!

[Filo]

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

Fail there and you're left with the possibility of Islamist fundamentalists toppling Pakistan and getting hold of their nuclear weapons.

And that is the reason why we should never give up our Nuclear deterrent!

[BillyStubbsTears]

Filo wrote:

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

Fail there and you're left with the possibility of Islamist fundamentalists toppling Pakistan and getting hold of their nuclear weapons.

And that is the reason why we should never give up our Nuclear deterrent!

I'm not sure that's the biggest reason for us keeping nuclear weapons. The danger in Pakistan is not a rogue Pakistani Government, but instability meaning that fundamnetalist groups can get their hands on nuclear weapons. If Al Qaeda, for example, get their hands on atomic weapons, no detterent will stop them using it.

General Mike Jackson called it right on the news last night. He said that a nuclear deterrent is a strategic POLITICAL weapon, not a military one. It's used to give you more political clout in international relations. It's something that says, \"You can't push us around, because at the end of the day we've got THIS under the table\".

That sort of detterent can work with the likes of China, Russia, Iran, even North Korea. None of them would want to provoke a retaliation.

AQ are different. If they detonate a nulcear bomb in London or New York, where do you aim your Trident missiles in retaliation?

Personally, I'm in favour of us keeping some form of strategic nuclear detterent, but that's only half the story - that policy has to go hand in hand with strength in conventional action in Afghanistan.

[bobjimwilly]

I understand Clegg and the Lib Dems want to abandon the Trident system, but didn't they say they would be reviewing other means of nuclear defense, including re-fitting nuclear subs etc?

I wouldn't have thought they would want to remove our nuclear capabalities altogether, like the other 2 parties would have us believe, just get rid of a system designed 30+ years ago to only defend us (really) against Russia, who are now allies?  :S

[Thinwhiteduke]

Filo wrote:

The Lib Dems would be much more appealing if they changed their stance on having a Nuclear deterrent. The fact that they want rid of our deterrent will cost them a lot of votes

What about the amnesty for illegal immigrants as well.  Another guaranteed vote loser.

[River Don]

Thinwhiteduke wrote:

Filo wrote:

The Lib Dems would be much more appealing if they changed their stance on having a Nuclear deterrent. The fact that they want rid of our deterrent will cost them a lot of votes

What about the amnesty for illegal immigrants as well.  Another guaranteed vote loser.

The idea of making the illegal immigrants who are already living here anyway and turning them into law abiding, tax paying legal immigrants isn't such a bad one.

I just don't believe any of the three parties has got a clue how to control immigration going forward.

[5minstogo]

The idea of making the illegal immigrants who are already living here anyway and turning them into law abiding, tax paying legal immigrants isn't such a bad one.

I just don't believe any of the three parties has got a clue how to control immigration going forward.

The problem with this policy is that it has too many stipulations.  The amnesty is only open to illegal immigrants who can prove they have lived here for ten years without committing any crimes.  Clegg has absolutely no idea how many, if any, immigrants fall into this bracket.

I doubt many will step forward with the prospect of Community Service to look forward to as well, when they have already coped quite abley for the last ten years!

I don't pretend to know the answer but this ain't it.

[BillyStubbsTears]

River Don wrote:

The idea of making the illegal immigrants who are already living here anyway and turning them into law abiding, tax paying legal immigrants isn't such a bad one.

It's a perfectly sensible way of dealing with a problem. In the long term interests of the country, as you say, it makes sense to have people as tax paying citizens rather than permanently marginalise and criminalise them - especially if the scale of the problem is so great that you couldn't realistically apply the law anyway.

Of all the Lib Dem policies, this is the least bleeding heart. America is looking at something similar to \"regularise\" the situation with the millions of illegal immigrant Mexicans working there. Even Dubya wanted to have an amnesty.

Going forward, the slowdown in the UK economy will ensure that immigration is not such a big issue in the future. People want to come here because they think they can have a better economic chance than elsewhere. Just like the Geordie brickies who went to Germany in the 1980s, or the Irish navvies who went to the States in the 1890s. The very best thing that we can do to stop floods of East Europeans coming to Britain is to ensure that the economic conditions back home are competitive with those here. THAT is one of the key policies of the EU, and it has been spectacularly successful in helping basket cases like Spain, Greece, Ireland and Portugal to improve their lot over the last 30 years. Doing that stabilises societies, reduces immigration pressures and in the long run enriches us all by giving us all a bigger, wealthier market to trade with. Even the Tories realise that.

It's only the flat-earth Little Englanders in  UKIP & the BNP (& Peter Davies's lot, although I'd hardly even credit them with being a proper political party) who refuse to see the logic. Their Utopia would be a wealthy Britain surrounded by barbed wire to keep out the wogs/Poles/Kossovans who want to come and share that standard of living. Sounds fine as a rabble-rousing idea, but it doesn't work in practice - just ask anyone patrolling the Texas-Mexico border.

[River Don]

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

River Don wrote:

The idea of making the illegal immigrants who are already living here anyway and turning them into law abiding, tax paying legal immigrants isn't such a bad one.

It's a perfectly sensible way of dealing with a problem. In the long term interests of the country, as you say, it makes sense to have people as tax paying citizens rather than permanently marginalise and criminalise them - especially if the scale of the problem is so great that you couldn't realistically apply the law anyway.

Of all the Lib Dem policies, this is the least bleeding heart. America is looking at something similar to \"regularise\" the situation with the millions of illegal immigrant Mexicans working there. Even Dubya wanted to have an amnesty.

Going forward, the slowdown in the UK economy will ensure that immigration is not such a big issue in the future. People want to come here because they think they can have a better economic chance than elsewhere. Just like the Geordie brickies who went to Germany in the 1980s, or the Irish navvies who went to the States in the 1890s. The very best thing that we can do to stop floods of East Europeans coming to Britain is to ensure that the economic conditions back home are competitive with those here. THAT is one of the key policies of the EU, and it has been spectacularly successful in helping basket cases like Spain, Greece, Ireland and Portugal to improve their lot over the last 30 years. Doing that stabilises societies, reduces immigration pressures and in the long run enriches us all by giving us all a bigger, wealthier market to trade with. Even the Tories realise that.

It's only the flat-earth Little Englanders in  UKIP & the BNP (& Peter Davies's lot, although I'd hardly even credit them with being a proper political party) who refuse to see the logic. Their Utopia would be a wealthy Britain surrounded by barbed wire to keep out the wogs/Poles/Kossovans who want to come and share that standard of living. Sounds fine as a rabble-rousing idea, but it doesn't work in practice - just ask anyone patrolling the Texas-Mexico border.

Sorry to be negative but given we're at or maybe beyond peak oil, and given our increasing demand for it internationally I see nothing but poverty, famine and war in the world from here on in. The idea of lifting all nations to western states of wealth just isn't credible but we might well all become equally poor.

All those EU basket cases like Greece, Portugal, Spain and Italy turn out still to be basket cases and the Germans don't much fancy having to pay for them. The whole EU project is beginning to look quite shaky.

[BillyStubbsTears]

River Don wrote:

Sorry to be negative but given we're at or maybe beyond peak oil, and given our increasing demand for it internationally I see nothing but poverty, famine and war in the world from here on in. The idea of lifting all nations to western states of wealth just isn't credible but we might well all become equally poor.

All those EU basket cases like Greece, Portugal, Spain and Italy turn out still to be basket cases and the Germans don't much fancy having to pay for them. The whole EU project is beginning to look quite shaky.

Different opinions I guess. I'm an optimist. I have great faith in the power of technology and human ingenuity to make the lot of humanity better. That's been the general trend for many, many years. Fewer people today (as a propotion of the human race in general) die from simple diseases like smallpox, TB etc than was the case decades ago. Fewer die from starvation. More have education and chances to have a decent quality of life. Not everyone by any stretch of the imagination, and I'm not saying that there are never blips on the way, but if you look at it over a long historical time scale, things improve.

Every generation has its Malthusians who believe that we're at the peak and on our way to collapse. That's why the Daily Mail is so popular - it feeds that doom-laden outlook. Every generation also has its geniuses that find the ways to open up new possibilities. Malthus himself was convinced that mass starvation would occur as population growth outstripped crop growth. He didn't take into account improvements in the technology of farming. Those who see disaster in the falling oil supplies don't factor in the technologists who will make solar power, fusion, wind power, geothermal power or some form of power that we don't even know about yet the driving force of the future.

As for the problems of the countries you mention, you're taking a very short-term view. Even with their current difficulties, they are far more prosperous and stable than they were a ferw decades back. The EU has been a spectacular success in helping these countries to develop, and just because there are difficulties now, it doesn't put the whole policy into question. I'll tell you one thing. If we in the UK had been as wealthy as we have over the last decade and Ireland was still the backward benighted place it was back in the 60s, how many hundreds of thousands of Paddies do you think would have been flooding over looking for work? And if Greece had not been relatively prosperous in the 1990s, and therefore more politically stable than it had been 20 years before, there would have been a very big chance of them getting dragged in to the Balkans wars, bringing Bulgaria and Turkey in too. If that lot had gone up, the problem of Kossovan and Albanian immigrants would have looked like a drop in the ocean.

Nobody says that there aren't major ups and downs on the road. But just because we're on a rocky down-path at the moment, it doesn't mean that the world is dropping off a cliff. We'll be fine in the long run. Our grand-kids will be better educated, wealthier, healthier and better travelled than we are. Just like we are compared to our grandparents' generation. And just like they were compared to their grandparent.

[Dizzy_Burton]

River Don wrote:

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

River Don wrote:

The idea of making the illegal immigrants who are already living here anyway and turning them into law abiding, tax paying legal immigrants isn't such a bad one.

It's a perfectly sensible way of dealing with a problem. In the long term interests of the country, as you say, it makes sense to have people as tax paying citizens rather than permanently marginalise and criminalise them - especially if the scale of the problem is so great that you couldn't realistically apply the law anyway.

Of all the Lib Dem policies, this is the least bleeding heart. America is looking at something similar to \"regularise\" the situation with the millions of illegal immigrant Mexicans working there. Even Dubya wanted to have an amnesty.

Going forward, the slowdown in the UK economy will ensure that immigration is not such a big issue in the future. People want to come here because they think they can have a better economic chance than elsewhere. Just like the Geordie brickies who went to Germany in the 1980s, or the Irish navvies who went to the States in the 1890s. The very best thing that we can do to stop floods of East Europeans coming to Britain is to ensure that the economic conditions back home are competitive with those here. THAT is one of the key policies of the EU, and it has been spectacularly successful in helping basket cases like Spain, Greece, Ireland and Portugal to improve their lot over the last 30 years. Doing that stabilises societies, reduces immigration pressures and in the long run enriches us all by giving us all a bigger, wealthier market to trade with. Even the Tories realise that.

It's only the flat-earth Little Englanders in  UKIP & the BNP (& Peter Davies's lot, although I'd hardly even credit them with being a proper political party) who refuse to see the logic. Their Utopia would be a wealthy Britain surrounded by barbed wire to keep out the wogs/Poles/Kossovans who want to come and share that standard of living. Sounds fine as a rabble-rousing idea, but it doesn't work in practice - just ask anyone patrolling the Texas-Mexico border.

Sorry to be negative but given we're at or maybe beyond peak oil, and given our increasing demand for it internationally I see nothing but poverty, famine and war in the world from here on in. The idea of lifting all nations to western states of wealth just isn't credible but we might well all become equally poor.

All those EU basket cases like Greece, Portugal, Spain and Italy turn out still to be basket cases and the Germans don't much fancy having to pay for them. The whole EU project is beginning to look quite shaky.

But of course, if there turns out to be a substantial oil field in the Falklands things might look a bit brighter, with the added bonus of pissing the Argies off into the bargain!

[River Don]

Hopefully some genius will get fusion sorted because I think we're going to need it.

[River Don]

The EU has been a spectacular success in helping these countries to develop, and just because there are difficulties now, it doesn't put the whole policy into question.

Personally I doubt the Euro can survive in its current form. The amount of bailout cash required to keep Club Med in would result in Germany leaving, it's as simple as that. The alternative to a basket case Euro seems to be eject Greece and other nations in similar circumstances.

I'm increasingly of the opinion that even if we were to elect a Lib Dem government joining the Euro is an option that isn't going to be worrying us for many years to come.

[BobG]

Taking a slightly different slant on the headldine of this thread, is there anyone else who thinks that having these debates at all is a monumental disaster?

I will explain: Now they are here, they are almost certainly here to stay. Therefore, all major election results will fundamentally depend upon the opinion of the 'great viewing public'. And what does that great viewing public like? It likes telegenic leaders who look like leaders who spout optimistic platitudes. Leadership will be almost entirely focussed on one man/woman. You might like to think of him as presidential.

Today we don't vote for a f**king leader 0r a President. We vote for a Party. But we have just guaranteed that all future political party leaders will have to appear to be presidential. And guess what? They'll outdo Tony in actually behaving like Presidents. We are witnessing the birth of an entirely new political system in this country.

I can't believe the stupidity of this.

BobG

[Old Popsider]

When Blair got in first time around, some relatives of my missus thought he was the best thing since sliced bread.

Over time they've become a bit disenchanted with the Labour party. To quote one of them 'About time we got rid of the one-eyed porridge wog and someone decent in.'

When she'd said this I asked her why she had voted Labour when Blair was candidate, she said 'Well he was good looking and that's why I voted for him.' !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :S  :S  :S

Quick, switch off the telly!!

[Snods Shinpad 2]

\"Dave! Dave! Just stop there mate, please. Dave! A little to the left mate. That's it! Smile Dave! Cheers mate!\"  

[CusworthRovers]

I have no doubts in my mind that the person above was bummed many times at Eton and eventually became the bummer to a new fag at Eton.

I would be confident in saying Oliver Letwin has a similar background of bummee/bummer

[Old Popsider]

CusworthRovers wrote:

I have no doubts in my mind that the person above was bummed many times at Eton and eventually became the bummer to a new fag at Eton.

I would be confident in saying Oliver Letwin has a similar background of bummee/bummer

You need to be careful what you say. Law of libel and all that.

[en aitch]

C.U.R.E.

A ZOMBIE rights organisation has provided some extra bite in the race to become Doncaster's next MPs.
The official list of hopefuls standing in the General Election has thrown up an unusual entry with Derek Williams representing the Citizens for Undead Rights and Equality group.

The group, which aims to change the way zombies are seen in society,
will make its debut this May after being recognised as a political party by the Electoral Commission.

Mr Williams aims to bring the elections alive when he stands as a prospective parliamentary candidate for Doncaster Central.

The party's manifesto is a far cry from the other candidates who want to combat problems such as anti-social behaviour and transport troubles.

Its concerns include giving equal rights to the undead, making cemeteries more comfortable, investing in a cure for zombie bites, increasing the minimum retirement age to beyond death and permitting the marriage of living and the undead.

Well, I'm not saying they're perfect, but f you were thinking \"None of the above\"......................

[CusworthRovers]

permitting the marriage of living and the undead.

I'm already in one of those marriages

[Barmby Rover]

I take it that Mrs.Cussy never reads this then!

[CusworthRovers]

She visits now and again and as been known to post under my name, obviously that's when she can be arsed to get out of her crypt.

[bobjimwilly]

CusworthRovers wrote:

She visits now and again and as been known to post under my name, obviously that's when she can be arsed to get out of her crypt.

lol marriage is bliss