PDA

View Full Version : Six Labour Falsehoods in 100 seconds


Astrodome
22nd May 2005, 22:50
Jus a taster for what is to come....

Charles Clarke, the new Labour Home Secretary made the following false claims in a one minute 40 second radio interview last week when claiming that Labour will get tough on 'Yob crackdown'.

Clarke was pontificating on tough justice for young offenders.

Falsehood No. 1 - Clarke said "I went before the election to one scheme precisely doing that in south London, an excellent local club where people on community service were doing the whole place up...where the people were wearing uniform so they were seen to be putting something back in respect to the crime they had committed.
The Truth - They were wearing disposable blue overalls bought at a local DIY store to protect their clothes from paint.

Falsehoods No. 2 and No. 3 - Clarke said "If you talked to the young people themselves, mostly young men doing the work, they felt it worthwhile to do it and they were learning skills which would stop them re-offending later in life"
The Truth - The men were aged 20 to late 40s. None of them was a youth. Several had been convicted of dring driving and did not have a record of repeat offending. Several were already skilled workers, including painters and decorators.

Falsehood No. 4 - Clarke said "They were badged in the sense that they were wearing uniform"
The Truth - The overalls worn by the members of the working party did not bear logos or reveal that the wearers were offenders. According to the project leader 'they were happy to wear them'.

Falsehood No. 5 - Clarke said "It wasn't just hanging about....and actually harder for them than just lying around in a cell"
The Truth - The men worked once a week from 9am until 4 pm with an hour break for lunch. They said it was preferrable to be confined to a prison cell or work area.

Falsehood No. 5 - Clarke said "It is happening now successfully in many parts of the country....a number of these projects that already exist up and down the country [are] having very good effects"
The Truth - The project was unique to the sea cadets. Asked where other projects were a Home Office spokesman said "It was a one off. There aren't any other projects".


Clarke's statement that the idea would be rolled out was also retracted. A Home Office spokesman said "There are no plans for any more. It wasn't being trialled. It is over and done with".


So yet again more Labour lies and broken promises.

But of course we are used to this now.

Comments from Labour voters welcomed.

Unwell_Raptor
23rd May 2005, 05:57
Your lot lost the election. I feel about as sorry for you as I do for Manchester United fans. You will have to live with it for four years or so.

Why not give these rants a rest until, say, a year before the election? Until then the Daily Mail will keep the pot of vitriol boiling nicely for you.

Although I voted Labour I am a long way from supporting all of their plans, but the Jet Blast Mr. Angry brigade remind me why it would take a lot to make me vote Tory.

sirwa69
23rd May 2005, 07:00
Not telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth is an essential skill for all politicians. The better they are at truth concealment the more successful a politician they are.

Politicians from all parties in all countires in the world do it, they have to!

Astrodome, your lot are just as guilty, you lost get over it!:}

On On

Send Clowns
23rd May 2005, 09:38
U_R - an answer as smug, complacent and arrogant as the party it supports! It is ridiculous to suggest that just because a party can get a 36% vote they can start to lie to the public. Suggests why the party of lies, cronies and bribes won, if people like you support them who would rather stick dogmatically to them despite the lies and corruption than throw them out for it.

1DC
23rd May 2005, 09:48
Warch TV channel 4 tonight at 2000, it is all about dirty tricks used in the last election. I wonder which party will win the oscar??

On the other hand it may be a load of scaremongering crap, I assume the parties will say that.

Wedge
23rd May 2005, 09:56
How amusing, and ironic, to see the Tories get on their high horse about 'lies', 'bribes' and corruption. Spot on U_R, the JetBlast Mr Angry brigade remind me how lucky we are that the British people had the sense not to re-elect the Tories.

And as for 'broken promises', well that hardly deserves an answer, much less a justification, to a Tory.

Of course there was nothing smug, complacent or arrogant in U-R's post, but spin can be a wonderful tool.

Ah, and 36% of the vote. I don't recall their beloved Maggie ever getting more than 43.9%, but we like to conveniently forget that. :hmm:

Edited for typos

Send Clowns
23rd May 2005, 10:01
Wedge - remember you already lost that argument. You couldn't come up with the examples of Tory dishonesty and corruption on a par with the the examples from Labour that poured in. You still haven't bothered to back your criticisms, so your argument is worthless.

Maggie never ripped the constitution apart on a weaker mandate than that claimed. She had a perfectly normal vote for a party in power. Labour's seats are out of all proportion to the vote, as their seats have fewer constituents, being mostly urban, Welsh or Scottish, all of which have more MPs than they should have. With a false majority Blair has made drastic changes to the way we are governed, unopposed by the pathetic sheep on his benches, many of whom were originally elected illegally.

Unwell_Raptor
23rd May 2005, 10:04
Look, I can't stand another four years of this. I'll do you Tories a deal:- Stop telling lies about Labour and we won't tell the truth about you.

Send Clowns
23rd May 2005, 10:07
So where are the lies, U_R? Astrodome wrote the truth, can you handle it?

McAero
23rd May 2005, 10:50
YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH! :E

Where's Tom Cruise when you need him

Send Clowns
23rd May 2005, 11:19
Hahaha.

U_R is very quick with accusations, but a lot slower when he has to actually justify them. Doesn't "justify" come from the same root as "justice"? I wonder if U_R is in the habit of making unjust accusations in life as he is doing here, or is it easier in an anonymous forum where his words are not called to account?

Unwell_Raptor
23rd May 2005, 11:30
Bait-hook-fish-reel him in!

The fun thing about winding up the Angry Brigade is that they almost invariably lack a sense of humour, as well as a sense of proportion.

The bit about telling lies is a very old joke that I nicked from Harold Wilson.

Wedge
23rd May 2005, 11:35
Indeed, U_R, and I'm not sure that McAero was laughing 'with' SC about 'the truth'. :D

Mind, I've never known a Tory to be 'untruthful'........ :ok:

airship
23rd May 2005, 11:38
U_R, I must protest at your inappropriate use of the verb to nick à la légère, it's really quite unbecoming of you...

Send Clowns
23rd May 2005, 11:40
U_R

You mean you still can't justify your argument? You rip apart the rules of the forum on which you post, just for a pathetic jibe? Sad life some people lead.

Wedge

Seems I will have to wait a long time for you to justify your comments as well. Or will you ever acknowledge that if you cannot justify them they are, by definition, unjustified?

Unwell_Raptor
23rd May 2005, 11:51
Well, SC, you will certainly have to wait a while because I am off to French Catalonia for three weeks on Thursday.

There I shall be free from the telly, the Interweb, and the newspapers. I shall read some books, drink some wine, eat some fish, and look for some détente.

panda-k-bear
23rd May 2005, 12:03
And the only English language newspaper you'll find will be the Daily Mail :}

Unwell_Raptor
23rd May 2005, 12:23
Fortunately I can read French!

In fact, as The Times is printed in Spain it is freely available at or near the border, and we are only about 15 minutes from Spain.

Has anyone ever tried the dégustation counter at the fish market in Port Vendres? You have to time it right to get served, but there is a huge selection to choose from before you sit on a high stool with a chilled vin blanc and just a little bread and get stuck in to the seafood.

France is such a credit to the socialist system .......sorry, I've already teased the Angries enough.

A bientot!

Duckbutt
23rd May 2005, 12:24
Oh yes, Maggie - wasn't she the one who catagorically denied that the Tories intended to double the VAT rate just before the 1979 election?

And which party had MP's taking money to ask questions in parliament?

They ALL have a tendency to put the best possible gloss on things and pull cheap stunts (remember Maggie picking up a few carefully placed empty crisp packets for publicity purposes, and holding that calf (I think it was)?

The fact is that whilst most of the electorate have a cynical view of the veracity of the Labour party, at the last election they trusted Howard's lot even less.

As for the proportion of votes issue, well come up with a better system if you don't like it (bearing in mind that Hitler came to power under a system of PR).

panda-k-bear
23rd May 2005, 14:43
You're right, U_R. The strikes are just fabulous:* I hope you get your papers because with the general unrest over having to work at Pentecost (like the rest of us!) disruption to the rail, road and postal services might cause some headaches.

Frotunately for me, I can also read (and speak) French, so I can find out what's going on in France. A bit of a problem finding out what's going on outside though.

Ho-hum. Back to my Belgian capucchino....

1DC
23rd May 2005, 15:21
Interesting little cat fight this, but with the content it will stay at handbags.
How about a few comparisons.

a) Compare how many Tory ministers have lost their jobs because they were naughty boys/girls to Labour ministers....
b)Compare how mant Tory ministers got a ministerial job back after the heat had appeared to have died down to Labour ministers.
c) Compare how many Tory mp's have been reported for sleaze compared to Labour mp's.

I don't know the answers but I am sure some contributers to this thread will be able to provide them and then we should have some facts to argue about..

Paterbrat
23rd May 2005, 17:32
Ah well the smug complacency of the left wing brigade as pesonified by U-R and Wedge amongst others can only serve to remind us of the further decline we can look forward to.

Elected by a minority of the population, with a postal ballot system in place the Government admits is open to fraud but would do nothing about until after the election.

The increase in taxes of the middle and upper classes to fund the bigger handouts to the 'disadvantaged' 'sick' and 'fleeing persecution' brigade that is increasing by the day in this country.

More years for the higher taxpayer until retirement

Europe's largest population of young single mothers on handouts. Uncontrolled children raising children with predictable results.

The largest number of people on sick benefits ever. The pension plans of huge numbers in tatters the Labour government has done very well so far.

The 'travellers' who have broken the laws seem free to do so without let or hindrance in most cases U_R you never ever did reply to that did you. Ducked doged and kept quiet.

The behaviour of quite large segments of the young some of whom are being 'paid' to study seems to be on the decline as well as their education standards.

Senior officers in the Army are being courmartialed and called to account for events that happened under their command when sent on a war that Blair wanted. As their superior should he not be held accountable???

Republicanism gallops on as the Monarchy is mocked derided and undercut. Institutions that took hundreds of years to refine are being dismantled.

The House of Lords packed with Labour cronies given titles they derided, now love and fight for.

Big Labour party donators daily seen to get pay-offs and rewards for services rendered.

Rebates fought for by Thatcher which have saved this country BILLIONS in unfair payouts to the EU, despite Brown's protestations may well be 'bargained' (given) away soon. Watch this space for even now there appears to be a distancing of Blair and Brown on this point.

Oh yes all's well in the Kingdom Blair's paradise. U_R may well bask on holiday and be happy and Wedge sit back and smile because all is well here going like a dream. A bad dream sadly.

Anger ? No just sad resignation as the degeneration continues and the revolution prospers. The red flag is flying high. We are a democracy after all.:rolleyes:

SpinSpinSugar
23rd May 2005, 19:10
There's a cracking Dispatches on Channel 4 right now about the dirty tricks utilised during the New Labour election campaign.

[undercover reporter works in the press office during election run up, secret filming, etc.]

If anyone still cares!

Cheers, SSS

XXTSGR
23rd May 2005, 19:15
Paterbrat, I won't argue with the majority of items in your (unusually readable) post, since I agree with the vast majority, being, as you are aware, no lover of Tony Bliar's "New" Labour.

However:- The increase in taxes of the middle and upper classes to fund the bigger handouts to the 'disadvantaged' 'sick' and 'fleeing persecution' brigade that is increasing by the day in this country. Do you consider that people who are disadvantaged, sick or fleeing persecution should not be eligible for state assistance? Or are you merely arguing that everyone who requests such assistance is therefore a scrounger and ineligible? I would suggest that, as regards asylum seekers, it would make a lot of sense, provided they have been released from Belmarsh or wherever, to permit them to work, therefore stopping reliance on government benefits, and tax them instead.

Secondly:- Senior officers in the Army are being courmartialed and called to account for events that happened under their command when sent on a war that Blair wanted. As their superior should he not be held accountable??? Yes, he should be held accountable. They must also be held accountable for everything that happens under their command. Unless you are a fan of the "Nuremburg Defence"? Since when must Army Officers not be held accountable, in your opinion?

And finally:-The red flag is flying high.Where? Not above this Labour government it's not. They are as far from being communist (or even socialist) as it's possible to be. They have the most illiberal, authoritarian, low-tax policies of any Labour administration since the party was formed. Their economic policies therefore are very, very far from socialism.

Unwell_Raptor
23rd May 2005, 19:15
Phew!

That's a basket of complaints.

Spoiled, in my view by the fact that it comes from that bastion of human rights and civilised standards known as Saudi Arabia.

PPruNers who were living in England in about 1470 may recognise quite a few of the legal principles that operate in that sandy paradise.

How would your comments play in your adopted sandpit if the locals found out?

Astrodome
23rd May 2005, 19:28
Where to start eh ?

Your lot lost the election. I feel about as sorry for you as I do for Manchester United fans. You will have to live with it for four years or so. Firstly YOU will also have to live with it. You are one of those responsible for putting this lot back into power. Soon maybe sooner than you imagine, you no doubt will be one of those squealing like stuck pigs when general taxation rises, National Insurance rises, and inevitably Council Tax rises as well.

Should you be 'lucky' enough to be retired, or close to retirement, you may wish to reflect as your pension becomes smaller.

Maybe you may want to sell your house and move abroad? Could be a little more difficult as the housing markets starts to contract, property values start to reduce, and interest rates start to rise.


Why not give these rants a rest until, say, a year before the election? Until then the Daily Mail will keep the pot of vitriol boiling nicely for you. Quite clearly you miss the point totally. And you I understand a Magistrate, who one expects to have relatively good powers of reasoning and deduction?

The POINT is that these are NOT rants. What I posted was a complete statement of fact. The FACT very clearly is that a senior member of the Labour Government made SIX factually incorrect statements in a radio interview.

Given the ongoing history of Labour, it is hard for one to believe that these were made in error, unless of course one accepts that Labour Minister make a lot of errors?...(actually come to think of it !......)

You clearly see no problem with this. Many people, both on here as well as in the Country generally, do not like being lied to or be treated as simple idiots who can be told any mis-truth simply because it suits the Government to do so, or to conceal Government failure, incompetence, and pretence.

Even your own media lost patience with Bliar and his cohorts lies, evasions, and distortions of the truth during the election campaign.


....it would take a lot to make me vote Tory I don't want you to vote Conservative ...EVER. I prefer my fellow pary voters to be able to clearly and rationally think, be able to determine the real arguments, and be shrewd enough to identify lies and distortions.


Wedge Thought you had gone off to start earning enough money to pay the inevitable tax rises to come, bearing in mind the £10m 'Black Hole' that Brown is now beginning to admit to.

And as for 'broken promises', well that hardly deserves an answer, much less a justification, to a Tory I am talking about LIES....LIES...and I say again...LIES. The broken promises are another story. Want to discuss them do you ?? That said I wouldn't want to listen to you trying to justify this corrupt and odious Labour Government. You sound just the sort of person who has swallowed all the sh*t that Campbell and his acolytes continually spouted out. Maybe (actually?) you believe it all?

Your posts have little to commend them and even lass intellectual merit. You continually harp on about 'Tory lies, and corruption'. You have failed at EVERY count to bring forward evidence despite being consistently and constantly asked by both myself and others on here.
Ah, and 36% of the vote. I don't recall their beloved Maggie ever getting more than 43.9%, but we like to conveniently forget that. Wrong yet again. Labour only got 22% of the vote, in other words nearly 8 in every 10 people did not vote for this Government.

The only reason that they got that level of support was because they refused to countenance a change to the electoral boundaries, which are massively faovurable to Labour, until after the election. I won't hold my breath on them changing in the near future either. Put simply this mean that the Conservatives had a huge hill to climb just to even level the playing field.

Remember also that Labour can ONLY win any vote in Parliament with the support of Welsh and Scottish MPs'. They can vote for legislation to be passed affecting England against the wishes of the people in England, whilst at the same time these two 'Countries' have their own Parliaments against which English voters have no say.

By way of example I give you tuition fees. The legislation introducing tuition fees in England was voted in by Scottish MPs whose own devolved assembly voted against !!

Indeed even more sickeningly WE actually PAY for their students to go to Universities in Scotland for free whilst we also have to pay for our own children to go to University here.


In closing isn't interesting how so many Labour voters on here are quite happy to be lied to, treated like little children and patronised by one of the most authoritarian Governments ever. Says so much for your beliefs and values that you tackle anyone who tries to open your eyes up with the real facts.

Finally my information didn't come from the Daily Mail. It came from the Sunday Telegraph. That said even one of your senior Labour Ministers recently commented on the quality of reporting of the Daily Mail. Better be good boys and seek advice from Campbell as to how you respond to that one chaps.

Unwell_Raptor
23rd May 2005, 19:56
If providence had made me a fisherman, I doubt that my family would ever have starved.

-----------------------------------------------

Sorry, I can't resist this cracker:-

"Finally my information didn't come from the Daily Mail. It came from the Sunday Telegraph."

So that's all right then. It's totally unbiased.

Wedge
23rd May 2005, 20:10
What a lot of nonsense Astrodome and his fellow JetBlast 'angry brigade' talk.

I'll try to deal with all of the points raised in limited time.

First of all:

isn't interesting how so many Labour voters on here are quite happy to be lied to, treated like little children and patronised by one of the most authoritarian Governments ever.

One of the most patronising comments I have ever seen here, and one which makes a huge number of flawed assumptions about Labour supporters and the Labour government. I know you wanted the Tories to win, you have made that clear enough, but happily you are in the minority, as I predicted you would be long before the election. There is a distinct air of sour grapes in your post-election contributions. The fact that you seriously believed that a Tory victory was possible shows how far out of touch you are with the feelings of the electorate.

And please, try to get your facts right on percentages if you are going to try to challenge my statistics. You quote 22% which was the total number of those eligible to vote who voted Labour. Of those that did vote, 36% voted Labour, compared to the 43.9% which I cited which was the highest percentage share of the vote that the evil old hag got (in 1979). It's been argued by political commentators, correctly in my view, that a very large number of Labour voters abstained because of the Iraq war, and that the majority of the electorate's wish was that Labour be returned with a smaller majority and therefore many Labour supporters either did not vote or voted LibDem to bloody Blair's nose. So don't take 22% as your figure for the percentage of people who wanted the result we got.

Your posts have little to commend them and even lass intellectual merit.

This comment is unnecessarily personal and crosses the line into attacking the poster in my view, but if you are going to make references to my 'intellectual' abilities at least make sure you spell them correctly.

I was asked repeatedly to detail the examples of Tory corruption that I referred to in another thread. I did not, because the corruption referred to had already been covered in detail on that thread, which I made clear at the time. I don't for a moment accept of course that I 'lost the corruption argument' because I chose not to go over the same ground again. Nor do I view the record of this government with rose tinted spectacles and suggest there have not been some unfortunate episodes. There have. But as we all know the previous Tory government was tainted by the time they left office with a long catalogue of sleaze and corruption (which landed two former senior Tories in prison I might add), and yet we are led to believe by the Tories that Blair's record is somehow worse? What nonsense.

I would further point out, as I have been asked to comment on the Tories' record on corruption, that they have not been the party of government since 1997 so it is just a little more difficult to cite recent examples. :hmm:

Oh, and by the way, the 'Red Flag' is not flying high under Blair; go and ask a Socialist what he thinks of Blair if you don't believe me. Secondly, myself and U_R are hardly 'left wing', on another site where I post I'm viewed as a Tory [email protected] for being New Labour.

Astrodome
23rd May 2005, 20:12
What part of FACT do you not understand?

Presumably also you don't accept the C4 Dispatches programme that has just finished as as factual either ?

You sure you are not in Russia?

You sound like a broken record. Any thing that is said contrary to your own limited belief system is wrong then?

And then again you do hold strong views as to right and wrong, or at least your view of it?

I believe that Davaar has had to take you to task on this once or twice previously in relation to matters where you are REQUIRED to exercise indepence of thought and a mind unsullied by personal belief.

Wedge There are non so blind as those who cannot see.

Great pleasure will accrue in due course when we start to see the results of Labour\'s third term in office. Be nice to see you wriggling.

Of course you will never accept that ever, hence my first comment.

On the subject of percentages just go away and re-read your post. I think it is you who need to get your facts right. I said only 22% of the vote. ONLY slightly more than 2 in 10 people actually want this Labour Government.

In respect of sleaze and corruption you introduced the subject, were challenged time and time again to bring facts to the post. You never did so. Neither did any of your erstwhile colleagues.

You seek to defend this failure by now suggesting that it was a long time ago ! So why raise it then?

Why don\'t we just look at Labour\'s terms in office? Let us take a look at promises made, and broken?

You argue with the spelling of \'intellectual\' ? or maybe you take a quick swipe at a slip of the finger as opposed to a spelling mistake?

Sticks and stones old son as the song goes.

When you get your breath back let us do battle on Labour lies?

XXTSGR
23rd May 2005, 20:26
I said only 22% of the vote. Whether you did or not, it is incorrect. Only 22% of the franchise. 36% of the vote. But certainly only 2 in 10 wanted them enough to vote for them.

Caslance
23rd May 2005, 20:29
My memory is failing me in my old age, XXTSGR.

Could you be so kind as to remind us all what share of the franchise actually voted Conservative and Liberal Democrat respectively?

XXTSGR
23rd May 2005, 20:33
No idea, sorry - I was only familiar with the Labour figures. Had no axe to grind, merely pointing out the error in the difference between the two terms "franchise" and "vote".

Caslance
23rd May 2005, 20:49
Not to worry... I've worked it out for myself, with figures provided by the Electoral Commission. (All percentages are rounded up to 2 decimal places.)

Number of UK Electors at the time of the Election: 44,255,071

Labour (including the Speaker): 9,556,183 = 21.59%
Conservative: 8,772,598 = 19.82%
Liberal Democrat: = 13.51%
Others: 6.38%
Did Not Vote:38.70%

So, while it's almost true that "only 2 out of 10 people actually want this Labour Government" - very slightly more than 2 out of 10 in fact - Astrodome seems to have lost sight of the fact that by the same reckoning even fewer people shared his desire for a Conservative Government. In fact, almost 4 out of ten of the electorate did NOT want a Conservative Government and voted accordingly.

Perhaps the 38.70% who couldn't be bothered to get off their backsides and vote are this "silent majority" that we hear so much about - even though they were a minority this time round? :rolleyes:

XXTSGR
23rd May 2005, 20:59
Thanks for digging those out - I couldn't care enough to do so myself! :O All the figures highlight is that, with a minority of either the franchise or the popular vote, Labour have managed to nab a significant majority of seats in the House of Commons.

And they call that democracy... :rolleyes: :(

Caslance
23rd May 2005, 21:01
As I said at the time, XXTSGR - how could you have a clearer example of the case for electoral reform?

The main victims were Liberal Democrat voters: 13.51% of the electorate, 22% of the vote, and 9.61% of the seats.

Now that can't be right or fair, can it? :confused:

lanciaspezzata
23rd May 2005, 21:47
(Did Not Vote:38.70%)

Godfathers!
What does that figure tell you about life in the UK right now?

What's more, with a result like that, why is that bloc not in power?

That figure represents only a few percentage points lower than the combined Labour/Tory vote.

It strikes me that if apathy rules to such an extent then there can't be much wrong with the country as far as the populace is concerned.

Mind you, I think that you'd have to ask them more nicely if you want the right response. People do not respond well to other folk sitting smugly above them on high horses. Go on - dismount. Shake hands with the peasantry. They won't bite! Besides, there'll be a handy trough where you can scrub off the filth afterwards.

Of course you could always consider migration - but please don't. We are in a tough spot but we can manage without you - honestly!

Send Clowns
24th May 2005, 08:53
Wedge is lying now:I'll try to deal with all of the points raised Then goes off on a rant that says nothing of any substance, and certainly does not address any of the points raised, axcept to moan about his posts being criticised en masse for being, basically, vacuous! If you don't want that criticism, Wedge (which is fair by the rules - it attacks your posts, not you unlike for example U_R's personal criticism of others) then back up your random assertions with reasoned arguments.

U_R

The Daily Telegraph won "Newspaper of the Year" for the quality of its reporting. From a media that tends, if anything, to the soft left. he Sunday Telegraph is its equal.

XX

Low tax? That is funnier than most of the Friday jokes. How on Earth can you call a party that has raised taxes as a proportion of GDP during economic growth low tax? That shows either complete ignorance of the tax increases that have occured or complete naive faith in the Labour spin on them! I am not well-off, but have paid, at a very conservative extimate, at least £13000 more tax than I would have done under the pre-1997 regime over the last 8 years. That is disgusting.

Why should the people that don't earn the money have it? Yes, support them if genuinely incapable of earning for themselves, but the workshy masses? Why do they have the good car, the Sky TV and X-Box I can't afford, but have paid for them to buy?

BillHicksRules
24th May 2005, 10:04
Astro,

"ONLY slightly more than 2 in 10 people actually want this Labour Government"

And you can prove what the more than 38% of the electorate who did not vote were all opposed to Labour?

SC,

"Maggie never ripped the constitution apart on a weaker mandate than that claimed"

Sorry to get between you and Wedge but I would take issue on this with regards to the testing of the Poll Tax in Scotland.

Maggie had no mandate for it and the bulk of public opinion was against it yet it took the riots in England to get it repealed. Why was that?

Cheers

BHR

panda-k-bear
24th May 2005, 11:34
I just thank my lucky stars that I don't live in the U.K. any more and don't have to put up with Bliar and his cronies. I can't believe how may comebacks Mandy has had - he's as corrupt as they come and STILL he's linked in with the government. A war that was unjustified, probably illegal and totally unnecessary. Stealth tax increases. The whole David Kelly mess. The law and order issues (see happy slapping), the welfare state looking after people screwing the system (see thread about 3 teenage sisters all pregnant), the influx of people from both outside and inside of Europe into places ill equipped to look after them, a self destructing manufacturing industry... the list goes on! The U.K. is, from my perspective, a great place to visit but I'd no longer like to live there.

AirYard
24th May 2005, 11:37
While talking about the majority that didn't vote, like to bring up a small point on that.



Was informed of the general election beginning of april, if I remember rightly.


I contact the embassy, to register as an over sees voter, and get promptly told that I have to register by February 2005!!!...

2 months, before they annouced it!.


Not many expats voted where I live me thinks..........


Right, end of British politics for me :p

XXTSGR
24th May 2005, 13:59
SC, you won't remember the Labour governments of Harold Wilson or Jim Callaghan. Nor does your understanding of economics cover different models than that we have now, which is basically the same under Tories as under Labour. And that is considered to be a low-tax model. Had you seen Wilson's government and the economy as run by George Brown and Callaghan, you would understand the difference between a 20th. Century-style mild socialist government and "New" Labour. You could also try reading up on the difference between Keynesian economics and Friedman. Until your understanding is a little more grown-up, you will have to accept that people may know a little more about it than you do.

Wedge
24th May 2005, 14:30
Agreed, XX, SC's continuous complaints about New Labour being a party of high taxation are as risible as they are untrue. Ironically, he's also recently accused me of having the economic understanding of a seven year old.

Not to mention the fact that the last Tory administration had the worst record on stealth taxes in history, while dishonestly claiming to be the party of low taxation.

the workshy masses? Why do they have the good car, the Sky TV and X-Box I can't afford, but have paid for them to buy?

This gave me a chuckle too. 'We have to pay for their Sky TV! Their X-Box! and their smart car with our money, and we can't afford to buy our own as a result!'. Signed Mr Angry of Bournemouth.

Just who are these 'workshy masses' who drive such nice shiny cars? I've not seen many Mercs parked outside the benefits office recently.

I'm sure you are capable of seeing through the Daily Mail lies, SC, but all you seem to do is regurgitate them.

WG774
24th May 2005, 16:31
I must say I find it surprising that no one's started a thread on the C4 documentary last night, "Inside New Labour"...

:yuk: :yuk: :yuk: :yuk: :yuk: :yuk: :yuk:

Apparently NL employ numerous spin-doctors to write letters to the press, under the guise of everyday readers...

And, more pertinently, disseminate propaganda to discredit other parties / promote their own policies via Internet message boards...

(Both the above allegations are 100% proven btw)

Considering this place has over 70,000 members, it must be one of the largest, most high-profile message-boards on the 'web full-stop... I wonder how many New Labour cronies are posting around here????

In the programme, a document from head-office was shown stating: People "trust" the letters page in newspapers

Why the use of quotes:confused:

New Labour also employ renta-mob to dress up as grim-reapers and such to heckle other party conferences... C4 identified numerous Labour employees in fancy-dress holding placards at other party's events...

I find the concept of employing people to write on message-boards and newspaper letters pages insidious... A new moral low... How on earth would anyone discern between genuine praise / criticism and that which is staged by Labour? I don't read the newspapers anyway, but the idea repulses me.

There is little doubt in my mind that historians will document Bliar's time in Govt as a watershed, when ethical behaviour in politics hit a new low... Not to mention an illegal war, when public services are crumbling all around us, and youths are terrifying OAPs...

Next time you see someone hobbling down the street in need of a new hip, bear in mind the cost of the war so far would pay for upwards of 50 new hospitals.

I don't often rant, please forgive me - when I began watching the prog last night I didn't think it was too odious, but after a while it became apparent that the "human beings" behind closed doors working for 'Tone possess nothing in the way of ethical principals...

Paterbrat
24th May 2005, 17:26
Wedge "Just who are these 'workshy masses?' "

Well let's consider just a couple. The ones on sick benefits. Largest numbers ever are now on the books, to the point the Government themselves are concerned about the numbers which have risen enormously in just the last few years encouraged by the easy policies brought in by them and still growing.

Europes largest number of young unmarried mothers. Why do we have so many? Benefits where they are almost encouraged to get pregnant qualify get a council house and basicaly drop out. Generaly educated to a very low standard, they have few or poorly developed parenting skills, probably the reason they are where they are.
The example set to these children is one of total dependence on the state, and when the mothers lose control of these children, generaly quite early, what motivation to either be educated or to seek work will these children have?
They in turn will be soon following the example that was set to them, unlikely to be very interested in fitting in, working or being socialy responsible. The problem is bad and getting worse.

Astrodome
24th May 2005, 17:32
Agreed, XX, SC's continuous complaints about New Labour being a party of high taxation are as risible as they are untrue. Not to mention the fact that the last Tory administration had the worst record on stealth taxes in history, while dishonestly claiming to be the party of low taxation.

OK the a deal

YOU provide me with hard evidence of the alleged Conservative 'Stealth' taxes, and in return I will let you have chapter and verse on the 66 Labour stealth taxes, maybe even complete with the lies given out beforehand if I get the time. There are after all so many tax rises.

Actually on second thoughts anyone who could post the sort of cr*p that you just have probably wouldn't even see the truth anyway. I think you are just so full of the Bliar propaganda that you are beyond the bother?

Why not prove me wrong though?

Caslance
24th May 2005, 18:53
It's not actually all that hard to provide you with an example at least, Astrodome.

Ask yourself this simple question: What was the Standard rate of VAT when Mrs Thatcher came into office, and what was it when Mr Major's government fell?

Secondly, how many new categories of goods and services did said Conservative administrations bring within the scope of VAT for the first time?

Now, I'm sure you're going to try and gloss over these rather inconvenient facts and come back with the reductions of the Basic Rate of Income Tax under the Conservaties, but this is comparing apples with pears.

From the Treasury's point of view, the nice thing about VAT is that, while only people in employment and enjoying an annual income above a certain amount pay Income Tax, everyone who buys goods or services - that's EVERYONE, regardless of age, income or employment status - pays VAT on those goods or services.

A stealth tax par excellence that broadened and deepened the UK tax base without most people ever noticing a thing.

Astrodome
24th May 2005, 19:06
VAT rates are in the gift of the EU, NOT the UK Government.

Why do you think that the French are SO desperate to have VAT reduced on restaurant food in order to gain a Yes vote for the EU dream ?

Would this be the same Mrs Thatcher who conistently refused to countence VAT on books, childrens clothes, food etc?

Oh sorry that doesn't fit into your vindictiveness does it, silly me !

Let us for one minute accept that I decide to take the SOLE example of a tax increase that you can bring to the table. Should we now debate the cynical 66 stealth taxes introduced by Labour?

For example increases in NI contributions?

For example the Tax on insurance premiums?

Maybe even Airport tax?

The ''above inflation' excise duty on fuel?

What of the fact that several millions are now paying tax for the first time or are paying a higher level as a result of not increasing the tax thresholds in line with inflation?

Recently I compared two payslips. One was for 1995, the other for a couple of months ago.

Now the interesting thing is that I now have slightly more take home pay, by a few pounds a month. The difference in top line earnings?...£28,000.

Says it all really

Brizzo
24th May 2005, 19:27
Astrodome;

I challenge what you assert about your take home pay vs. the gross salary. You ask us to believe that £28,000 pa increase translates into only a 'few pounds' per month 1995-2005.
£28,000 p.a is more than £2,300 per month. Even half of that would be a bit more than a few pounds, would it not?

Says it all really.

Prove or withdraw please.

Caslance
24th May 2005, 19:28
Oh sorry that doesn't fit into your vindictiveness does it, silly me !Where is this vindictiveness of which you speak, Astrodome?

The only vindictiveness that my unsophisticated eye can detect is your own haste to attach unflattering labels to those with the sheer affrontery to hold views that differ from your own. How dare they!!! :rolleyes:

And you, sir, are simply wrong in your assertion that VAT rates are set centrally by the EU.

I will grant you that the minimum rate is set centrally but that is a very long way from being the same thing - as you knew perfectly well, of course.

All EU governments garnish this minimum rate to a greater or lesser degree and there is considerable variation between nations - the difference between local and minimum rated VAT finding its way into the local exchequer, naturally.

Now, vituperate away........ :ok:

Astrodome
24th May 2005, 19:41
We have done battle on here many times.

You in the course of those have NEVER had ANYTHING complimentary to say of the Conservatives. I have to draw conclusions from that.

your own haste to attach unflattering labels to those with the sheer affrontery to hold views that differ from your own I would be grateful to read what those labels are.

Caslance
24th May 2005, 19:52
You in the course of those have NEVER had ANYTHING complimentary to say of the Conservatives. I have to draw conclusions from that.Really? Wow! You're too canny for me by far....... :rolleyes:

Is there any previously-overlooked Law, or rule of this Forum, that says I have to say complimentary things about the Conservatives?

If you had even the most rudimentary grasp of the concept of balance, you'd mention the many uncomplimentary things I've had to say about The Dear Leader Blair and his unsavoury circle, too.

But you may be disappointed to learn that I'll not be holding my breath waiting for the latter.....

Regarding your challenge... well, let's see shall we? From this thead alone we have:

".....anyone who could post the sort of cr*p that you just have probably wouldn't even see the truth anyway"

"...You sound just the sort of person who has swallowed all the sh*t that Campbell and his acolytes continually spouted out."

"...You sound like a broken record. Any thing that is said contrary to your own limited belief system is wrong then?"

Now, none of these read much like compliments to me, but of course I - unlike some, it would seem - may be wrong.

That final one, however, is particularly ironic.............. :ok:

Astrodome
24th May 2005, 20:06
Not ONE of those is a label.

A 'label' for example would be to brand someone a Communist or a 'Socialist'.

Can we now get onto discussing the Labour 'Stealth' taxes?

I would be particularly interested in your views bearing in mind your previous comments on the Conservative Government.

Just for the sake of the 'balance' that you accuse me of not having

Caslance
24th May 2005, 20:14
Semantics, Astrodome. Mere semantics.

My essential point - that you groundlessly accuse me of vindictiveness whilst gleefully "playing the man" yourself - remains intact and, I rather think, proven.

I have not sought to differ from your points about Labour stealth taxes, Astrodome, merely to point out that such things are neither new nor unique to one particular party.

In the light of this, your yearning for me to comment on or disprove them strikes me as rather odd. Grandstanding, perchance? :ok:

Now, are you ready to take up Brizzo's challenge to prove your somewhat suspect claim about the difference in your take home pay between 1995 and 2005, or are you going to withdraw your assertions as baseless?

Astrodome
24th May 2005, 20:19
Semantics, Astrodome. Mere semantics. No further comment needed there then.

I don't propose to debate the contents of my earnings in a public forum, neither would I ask you ar anyone else to set out your personal financial details on here.

Taking a slightly different slant in order to make headway on this.

Can you honestly say that your take home earnings are greater now than say 8 years ago taken on a like for like basis ?

I presume your failure to mention the 66 'Stealth' taxes means that you don't wish to bring some balance to the arguement?

Caslance
24th May 2005, 20:30
I presume your failure to mention the 66 'Stealth' taxes means that you don't wish to bring some balance to the arguement? No - but it does mean that you don't set the agenda for other people's postings.

It was you, Astrodome, and no-one else that raised the subject of your earnings. Allow me to refresh your memory: Recently I compared two payslips. One was for 1995, the other for a couple of months ago.

Now the interesting thing is that I now have slightly more take home pay, by a few pounds a month. The difference in top line earnings?...£28,000. Brizzo doesn't believe you and neither, quite frankly, do I.

In the interest of fair play, I can answer your question about my own earnings with an unqualified and categorical "YES". :ok:

I've already said that I am not arguing with your point about stealth taxes - why on Earth should I mention them?

Or maybe you really do truly believe that taxation by stealth was invented by "New" Labour - in which case my only comment would be that such an assertion would be as factually correct as your earlier statements about the way in which rates of VAT are set.

Brizzo
24th May 2005, 20:32
Astrodome - any chance of a reply to my challenge to your assertions about your pay?

Don't make me do a Paxman, please.

Caslance
24th May 2005, 20:34
Ah well..... an early start tomorrow, so I'll have to leave you to it.

I'll catch up after the match tomorrow evening. :ok:

Curious Pax
24th May 2005, 20:36
Calm down dear Astro, you're going to rupture something! You mentioned fuel taxes - one party introduced the fuel tax 'escalator' to try and get some green votes (3% increase above inflation rate every year). Another party, granted for vote winning purposes, stopped it, and has even made increases less than inflation on occasions since then. Like to put names to the 2 parties?

I'd actually be interested to see what constitutes these 66 stealth tax rises that are raised ad nauseum, so if you can list them in no more than half a line each, and then we can pick holes in it.

I don't vote Tory by the way, hope it's all right me posting here.

Astrodome
24th May 2005, 20:45
66 Tax Rises

2 July 1997
1. Mortgage tax relief cut
2. Pensions Tax
3. Health insurance tax
4. Health insurance tax again
5. Fuel tax escalator up
6. Vehicle Excise Duty up
7. Tobacco duty escalator up
8. Stamp duty up for properties over £250,000
9. Corporation tax changes
10. New windfall tax on utilities

17 March 1998
11. Married couples allowance cut
12. Tax on travel insurance up
13. Tax on casinos and gaming machines up
14. Fuel tax escalator brought forward
15. Tax on company cars up
16. Tax relief for foreign earnings abolished
17. Tax concession for certain professions abolished
18. Capital gains tax imposed on certain non-residents
19. Reinvestment relief restricted
20. Corporation tax payments brought forward
21. Higher stamp duty rates up
22. Some hydrocarbon duties up
23. Additional diesel duties
24. Landfill tax up

9 March 1999
25. National Insurance Contributions (NICs) earnings limit raised
26. NICs for self-employed up
27. Married couples allowance abolished
28. Mortgage tax relief abolished
29. IR35: Taxation of personal services companies
30. Company car business mileage allowances restricted
31. Tobacco duty escalator brought forward
32. Insurance premium tax up
33. Vocational Training Relief abolished
34. Employer NICs extended to all benefits in kind
35. VAT on some banking services up
36. Premiums paid to tenants by landlords taxed
37. Duty on minor oils up
38. Vehicle excise duties for lorries up
39. Landfill tax escalator introduced
40. Higher rates of stamp duty up again

21 March 2000
41. Tobacco duties up
42. Higher rates of stamp duty up again
43. Extra taxation of life assurance companies
44. Rules on Controlled Foreign Companies extended

17 April 2002
45. Personal allowances frozen
46. National Insurance threshold frozen
47. NICs for employers up
48. NICs for employees up
49. NICs for self-employed up
50. North Sea taxation up
51. Tax on some alcoholic drinks up
52. New stamp duty regime
53. New rules on loan relationships

9 April 2003
54. VAT on electronically supplied services
55. IR35 applied to domestic workers
56. Betting duty change
57. Tax on red diesel and fuel oil up
58. Controlled Foreign Companies measures on Ireland
59. Vehicle excise duty up

17 March 2004
60. New 19 per cent tax rate for owner-managed businesses
61. New tax on private use of company vans
62. UK UK transfer pricing introduced
63. Increase in rate of tax on trusts
64. Increase in tax on red diesel fuel
65.Increase in tax on other road fuels (including LPG)

Every April

66. Council Tax up by an average of three times the rate of inflation every year

Caslance
24th May 2005, 21:07
Just a thought as I sip my bedtime cocoa.

If these measures were included in the Budgets for their respective year then how can they be stealth taxes?

"Inclusion in a speech and accompanying document, every word of which will be closely analysed by the nation's media, political commentators and financial institutions" does seem a rather idiosyncratic definition of "stealth" to my untutored mind.

Goodnight, all. :ok:

Brizzo
24th May 2005, 21:07
Yes, yes, but what about your disappearing pay rise?

Any chance of the figures to prove what you claimed?

Just in case you have forgotten, it went:-

"Recently I compared two payslips. One was for 1995, the other for a couple of months ago.

Now the interesting thing is that I now have slightly more take home pay, by a few pounds a month. The difference in top line earnings?...£28,000."

Let's be having you!

(question asked at 19.27 - silence since then)

Curious Pax
24th May 2005, 21:10
You had that ready (or at least knew a website which had it) didn't you, you little tinker. Anyway thank you, at least we can see what they are now. I have to say that number 58 worries me, and if I had a clue what it meant might possible have changed my vote a couple of weeks back! ;)

Haven't got time to read all the last 8 budgets, but a quick look at 1997 throws up the following items, which I'm sure you would wish me to include for reasons of balance:

VAT on fuel reduced to 5%
Clampdown on tax avoidance
Gas levy abolished (guess who introduced it - a stealth tax?)
Corporation tax cut
Cut small companies tax
British film makers tax relief introduced
'Green' HGV excise duty cut

Doesn't prove anything apart from that anyone can be selective when trying to prove a point

They've got £4 billion extra to spend as a result of the reduction in national debt, if anyone's interested.

Did you have any thoughts on the answer to my earlier fuel tax poser?

Wedge
24th May 2005, 21:28
I don't propose to debate the contents of my earnings in a public forum

A clear and unconvincing attempt for Astrodome to 'have his cake and eat it', by making this frankly incredible assertion and then refusing to back it up or retract it.

I could go back to the 1997 election campaign and the famous '22 Tory tax rises' that Labour trotted out at the time, but I don't really have any interest in doing so, the information is all there on the internet, just google for it. Yes, there was a Labour spin on those tax rises, just as there is an equal Tory spin on Astrodome's figures. Caslance is quite right, to suggest that stealth taxes are somehow a Labour invention is a complete falsehood.

He's also absolutely right about the contempt which Astro holds anyone who disagrees with him, as Caslance ably demonstrated with the raft of patronising comments that were aimed at me earlier in the thread.

More voters wanted Labour back than the Tories, and Astro just finds that fact too hard to swallow. Instead he concentrates on trying to convince us that Labour have lied to the people in order to be re-elected. Well we can all regurgitate simple rhetoric like that, just as every politician who has just lost an election does. To take that line, however, gives the British voters no credit at all for having the ability to take the decision on the facts on who they think should run the country, and is therefore very patronising indeed.

Astrodome
24th May 2005, 21:34
I don't propose to debate the details of the contents of my earnings in a public forum, neither would I ask you or anyone else to set out your personal financial details on here.

What I will say however is that in the intervening years the following specific issues have affected my salary.

Taxation thresholds not increased in line with inflation
The removal of the Married man's allowance
Increases in the NI maximum contributions ceiling
Increases in Company car taxation
Increases in Fuel taxation
The 'theft' of £5 billion from Pension funds has created a crisis that has required considerable increases to my Pension contributions to maintain anything near to equity
The above further compounded by the financial situation of my employer who had reduced the level of their pension Contributions owing to 'poor trading figures' and changes to 'Company taxation'

I would point out also that as a result of the above despite pay rise in line with inflation in 2002, I was actually worse off, taking home LESS than in the previous year. And this was before the required increase in Pension contributions.

That is all you get.

I note that Caslance appears to have bucked the trend in that he has actually become better off !

Obviously none of the above apply to him then.

How about you?

Can YOU actually say that you are better off on a like for like basis in comparison to 1997?

Curious Pax Thank you. Always best to have such information to hand.

As a matter of interest I would refer you to a recent article concerning the number of senior Labour party supporters who donate to the Labour party whilst enjoying the benefits of offshore personal taxation.

This was a loophole that Brown pledged to plug as soon as he came into power, however it is NO surprise that this little loophole was left unplugged. After all why kill the Golden Goose?

A little further research suggests that the going rate for a peerage is £500,00. I refer to the owner of a company who has donated large sums to Labour, benefitted from a large Government order which did not go to competitive tender, and who has since benefitted from a peerage. Subsequent to this, amazingly, a large donation was made to Labour party funds.


Talk of sleaze eh?

Wedge concentrates on trying to convince us that Labour have lied to the people in order to be re-elected So you don't believe that they did then? This is at odds even with the pro-Labour media who took both Bliar and Brown to task very publicly in the early stages of the election. Obviously this didn't happen then?

To take that line, however, gives the British voters no credit at all for having the ability to take the decision on the facts on who they think should run the country, and is therefore very patronising indeed The greater percentage of the voters did not want a Labour Government.

Of those entitled to vote on 22% wanted a Labour Government.

Labour can only pass English legislation by relying upon the Scots and Welsh MPs, both of whom have their own regional national assemblies.

ably demonstrated with the raft of patronising comments that were aimed at me earlier in the thread Very much a case of the pot calling the kettle black?

Both I and SC for example still await corroberation of your allegations against the Conservatives. I still wait to debate the 66 'Stealth' taxes with you.

Brizzo
24th May 2005, 21:55
"I don't propose to debate the details of the contents of my earnings in a public forum, neither would I ask you or anyone else to set out your personal financial details on here."

You started it matey. You said that a £28,000 gross increase came to just a few pounds a month in your pocket.

So did it, or didn't it?

No need to get too personal, just give us the before-and-after gross and the before-and after net.

Forget the party political broadcast - will you justify your earlier assertion, or will you withdraw it?

Your call.

Astrodome
24th May 2005, 22:12
Read my words, eh?

Just do the maths yourself.

Not willing to demonstrate that you are better off eh?

Brizzo
24th May 2005, 22:17
Not good enough, and you know it. Did your 28 grand evaporate to a few pounds or not?




Me, I'm comfortable thanks. Nice house, no mortgage, bit in the bank, few shares. Could be worse. Since 1995 my net worth has more or less trebled.



Now about that £28,000 - ready to prove or withdraw your assertion yet?

Wedge
24th May 2005, 22:18
Labour can only pass English legislation by relying upon the Scots and Welsh MPs, both of whom have their own regional national assemblies.

There is an inherent contradiction in the assertion that the very party who introduced devolution of power by creating the Scottish and Welsh assemblies should be somehow 'relying' on the MPs of those two countries to pass primary legislation in the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I didn't know you were an English separatist, Astrodome.

Secondly, the Labour party did not make our electoral rules, the first past the post system saw 18 years of consecutive Tory rule, despite the fact that they never received more than 43.9% of the vote in any of the four elections that they won. Your consistent assertions that only 22% of the franchise voted Labour, which I accept, seem to conveniently ignore this fact.

Astrodome
24th May 2005, 22:29
There is an inherent contradiction in the assertion that the very party who introduced devolution of power by creating the Scottish and Welsh assemblies should be somehow 'relying' on the MPs of those two countries to pass primary legislation in the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Sad but unfortunately true. Just look at the number of Scottish MPs who hold office in cabinet and can vote on legislation affecting England, whilst English MPs cannot vote on legislation affecting Scotland or Wales. Hence why for example Scotland does not have tuition fees. This did not stop Scottish MPs however from voting for the imposition of tuition fees for England.

despite the fact that they never received more than 43.9% of the vote in any of the four elections that they won. Your consistent assertions that only 22% of the franchise voted Labour, which I accept, seem to conveniently ignore this fact You cannot quote these figures a being true representations. The number of people who do not vote has increased steadily since 1997. I cannot give you the actual figures but I am sure you will accept the general thrust of this argument.

Brizzo
24th May 2005, 22:31
But what everyone wants to hear is about that £28,000.

We are all on tenterhooks...........

Astrodome
24th May 2005, 22:41
Me, I'm comfortable thanks. Nice house, no mortgage, bit in the bank, few shares. Could be worse. Since 1995 my net worth has more or less trebled. Ah so not your ordinary punter then?

No mortgage, presumably no pension contributions? Lucky you. I have had to substantially increase my contributions.

Not affected by the increases in the NI maximum contributions ceiling?

Not lost the Married Couples allowance?

Presumably no Company car? Mine is not a perk but an necessity to do my job. Didn't stop the increases though.

Petrol card as a requirement of the company costs an awful lot of tax. More than I would pay in actual private use.

Not affected by the increases in fuel taxation then ? Everyone else is. Obviously don't drive?

Brizzo
25th May 2005, 06:20
And the £28,000 - what about that?

BillHicksRules
25th May 2005, 07:52
Astro,

Tobacco duty escalator up – good for national health. Personally, I think it should be higher

Stamp duty up for properties over £250,000 – again good

New windfall tax on utilities – as someone who works in the industry this was hard but necessary to put these companies on a better track

Tax on casinos and gaming machines up – good

Some hydrocarbon duties up – good for the environment

Additional diesel duties – good for the environment

Landfill tax up – good for the environment

Tobacco duty escalator brought forward – good for national health

Duty on minor oils up – good for the environment

Landfill tax escalator introduced – good for the environment

Tobacco duties up – good for national health

Tax on some alcoholic drinks up – good for national health

Tax on red diesel and fuel oil up – good for the environment

Increase in tax on red diesel fuel – good for the environment

Increase in tax on other road fuels (including LPG) – good for the environment

Council Tax up by an average of three times the rate of inflation every year – Since when has this been set by Central Government.

And I am not even a Labour supporter, I am a registered member of the Liberal Democrats.

Cheers

BHR

Send Clowns
25th May 2005, 08:13
Wedge

The facts are with me. Tax as a proportion of GDP has gone up (I believe from memory it has gone from 37% to 42%, an increase of 14%, but look it up yourself if you wish to dispute this) at a time of economic growth. This means that taxes have been raised significantly, tax take by even more than the rate as the GDP has increased, at a time when certain areas of government spending should have been reducing rapidly. This means that they are a party of high taxes.

There new taxes have cost me, not a high earner at all, in fact rather struggling at times, well over £10,000. Largely they have cost me that because I am a responsible citizen, and taking responsibility for myself. The new tax regime therefore not only is damaging the economy (shown by a reduction in mean take-home pay for the first time I remember. Doesn't matter according tot he government, because it is the self-employed that are worst hit - so it the dynamic, self-sufficient area of the economy. What a bunch of smug, out-of-touch b :mad: s) but at the same time is discouraging self-sufficiency.

You clearly have no idea of the Westlothian Question or the facts about the parliament of the UK if you can even write "There is an inherent contradiction in the assertion that the very party who introduced devolution of power by creating the Scottish and Welsh assemblies should be somehow 'relying' on the MPs of those two countries to pass primary legislation...". There is no contradiction at all, but the question is if you don't understand this very simplest part of the constitution what credibility does your opinion have?

The Labour party does not have a majority in England. It has already passed legislation on issues devolved to the Scottish Parliament which would have failed had no Scottish MPs voted. That is disgraceful. We have never been offered a solution to this issue. It could easily be done, simply by an agreement that Scottish, Ulster and Welsh MPs do not vote on issues devolved in their part of the UK (I would be in favour of them being allowed to speak in debate, although perhaps discouraged, as they may have special knowledge).

My car cost me £1100 2 years ago, even then I had to borrow from my parennts. I like it, but I drive it because it is cheap to own and run. Much more than that I would count as a nice car. It doesn't have to be flashy, I don't even like flashy cars, but I've known plenty of people on benefits who drive cars better than mine. Why should people I am paying with my taxes expect a TV, let alone a Sky subscription?

I have never, in my entire life, bought the Daily Mail.

We should be angry. We are being ripped off and lied to at every stage. I am angry for a reason, you cannot seem to come up with the reason that you are smug and complacent.

It is you, representing Mr Complacent and Mr Don't-really-know-what's-going-on-but-Toneeee-claims-the-Tories-are-nasty of London that have brought back the smug liar to rip apart the fabric of the country with ill-considered legislation.

XX

The Community Charge was not a constitutional issue. Maggie did not rip up the constitution. At the time there was no devolution, so Scottish issues were all decided at Westminster. The same tax change was later made in the rest of the UK. The Scottish can hardly complain about slight extra costs, considering how much subsidy they have had from England. We pay for their parliament which has destroyed the political balance in the UK, and we pay for the benefits they give to Scottish residents, such as fully-paid University fees.

Brizzo

You are being ridiculous expecting someone to publish details of his finances on a public forum. You have not answered any of the specifics that have been published, so why the interest in the figures? If you don't believe what Astro's telling you now, why would you believe just because he gave you two more numbers?

BHR

None of what you say disputes that Labour is a high-tax party.

Stamp Duty is not good at all. There is no need for it - our homes are an essential.

Why was the windfall tax needed to put the utilities right?

Why is tobacco tax rise and alcohol tax rise good? They have meant an increase in smuggling. They have not, apparently, restricted smoking or drinking.

Council tax is determined more by central government than ever before. They have been changing the central government grants and have been more demanding as to the roles of local government, much of it just interference and political correctness.

Hydrocarbon tax has increased to make fuel more expensive to "help the environment" (read "help Gordie balance the books") yet when the oil price went up dramatically the taxes were not reduced. If it is genuinely to help the environment then surely they would decide on a pump price and adjust tax to keep that price? When the fuel escalator was put in place wasn't oil at well under US$20 a barrel? I remember there were not many jobs for geologists when I graduated around that time, and I was lucky to find one.

Again, hydrocarbon taxes have not noticeably changed behaviour, they have simply damaged British industry and reduced standards of living.

Firestorm
25th May 2005, 08:46
And as for making the middle classes work on until they are 70 before they can claim the pittance of a state pension, whilst the chavs, proles and benefit cheats can hang up their Burberry trainers at 65 for no apparent change in their sponging, loafing lifestyle is another attack on the sector refered to throughout the farcical campaign as 'hard working families' by the middle class wannabee-workingclass so called socialist new labour luvvies. May they burn in the fires of hell, and the sooner the better. The sooner we get a Tory government with Ken Clarke at the helm, the sooner we can start persuing legitimate country sports, such as hunting with dogs, and owning our own rifles and hand guns, and get on with life, the better.

BillHicksRules
25th May 2005, 09:35
Send Clowns,

"None of what you say disputes that Labour is a high-tax party."

I do not actually remember saying that Labour was not a a high-tax party. Can you tell me when I did?

Cheers

BHR

Wedge
25th May 2005, 09:35
if you don't understand this very simplest part of the constitution what credibility does your opinion have?

If you can't see the inherent contradiction - which even Astrodome appears to agree with, then you have missed the point entirely. Secondly, I know you are capable of debating without making such patronising comments about my 'understanding' of the issues; I'm sure you are capable of distinguishing between someone who disagrees with you and someone who 'doesn't understand'; and I suggest you start to demonstrate that if you want people to treat your opinion as credible. I have a good understanding of the constitution thankyou, if there is something that you think I am missing then I suggest you explain it clearly for the benefit of myself and others.

Mr Don't-really-know-what's-going-on-but-Toneeee-claims-the-Tories-are-nasty

Yet more vacuous and patronising nonsense. I know perfectly well what the issues are, and I decided long before Tony came on the scene that I'm not a Tory. You are entitled to your evident love of them, but again, I suggest you try to appreciate the difference between someone who doesn't understand, and someone who disagrees with you before making such personal comments.

419
25th May 2005, 09:49
What really amazes me, is that there have been 6 pages of replies to the original post, in which there has been name calling, people being accused of lying or exagerating, people slagging off Labour and the Conservatives, etc.

A very important member of our Government was accused of telling multiple lies, and not one person has tried to defend Clarke's comments.

Is it possibly because everyone is so used to Labour lying, they are not surprised any more?

BALIX
25th May 2005, 10:07
No 419, you forgot, there was a perfectly legitamate response back on page one. It went something ike this:

We won, you lost, nuh nuh ne nuh nuh.

:bored:

Send Clowns
25th May 2005, 10:19
BHR

You were answering people who were showing that Labour was a party of high taxes. You appeared to be trying to dispute what they were saying. If not then your argument was not relevant to the post you were answering.

Wedge

There is no contradiction. Astrodome has not agreed with you, he also pointed out that you were wrong. In fact it is entirely because they get electoral advantage that the Labour party has offered devolution to Scotland and Wales but none to England, where they would lose power! You have said there is a contradiction, two people have pointed out that there is none, yet you still don't explain where the contradiction is. As far as I can see that impression can only come from your misunderstanding not a disagreement, as it is not a matter of opinion it is a matter of fact. What you are missing has been pointed out - that the Labour party does rely on MPs of Scottish constituencies to push through legislation only effective in England on issues that English MPs have no say on for Scotland. It has already been pointed out to you.

If you could dispute any of this surely the best way would be to explain the supposed contradiction - but then you never have been quick to justify your opinions with reasoned arguments.

You clearly don't know what is going on if you can't understand the West Lothian question - which, by the way, was originally framed by a Labour MP to say pretty much what Astrodome said. This is where Tony Blair has blinded people who vote by lying or deceiving by "spin" about everything he does, and about the opposition. People like you vote for him because they cannot be bothered to try and understand the issues, just take his word as no more dishonest than other politicians, which it is distinctly, and vote for pie in the sky politics and the contradictions of Labour "policy".

So then - if you are well-informed, what is the contradiction you have claimed?

BillHicksRules
25th May 2005, 10:27
Send Clowns,

I think you have misunderstood the point of my post.

I was attempting to show that although the Labour Party has raised taxes this has not always been the automatically bad thing that yourself and Astro would like us all to believe.

Did you happen to see the poster ads run by UNISON during the election?

I think they put it very well with regards to the Conservative's proposals.

Cheers

BHR

Send Clowns
25th May 2005, 10:34
No I didn't.

However, if so many taxes have gone up righteously (I disagree, but that is not at issue here) then how come my income tax went up as well, rather than down? It did go up, the fact that they call it an increase of NI is just more deception. This is because the taxes went up not for the good the tax does but to help balance the books.

Did any poster comment on Labour's proposals? Would be interesting to see, since they appeared to have none on any important issue!

BillHicksRules
25th May 2005, 10:59
SC,

"However, if so many taxes have gone up righteously (I disagree, but that is not at issue here) then how come my income tax went up as well, rather than down? It did go up, the fact that they call it an increase of NI is just more deception. This is because the taxes went up not for the good the tax does but to help balance the books."

Please tell me I do not need to go up into my attic to dig out my politics and economics texts from Uni.

I hope that you will be content with my simply stating that the taxes collected by the Government and those spent are dependent on means of collection and the department responsible for spending any specific amount.

If you require a more detailed account I can provide one given more time.

As to the UNISON ad it went along the (obviously Labour supporting lines) of "How is £35million less supposed to improve public services?"

Cheers

BHR

Wedge
25th May 2005, 11:06
I will try to explain my point more clearly, I'm sure it's my fault.

Labour can only pass English legislation by relying upon the Scots and Welsh MPs, both of whom have their own regional national assemblies.

The inherent contradiction lies in the fact that Astrodome is lamenting that legislation passed in Westminster is reliant on Welsh and Scottish MPs voting for it. These MPs, as I'm sure you are aware, are elected by the voters to the House of Commons of The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. This is a contradictory non-argument, because Labour were the very party who devolved power in the first place to Scotland and Wales so that they could vote on 'domestic' issues in those countries. There was never a suggestion that devolution would lead to independence for either, or that they would not continue to be centrally governed by Westminster. Of course it is correct that MPs from those countries continue to vote in Westminster on matters relating to the United Kingdom. They are also entitled to vote on matters relating exclusively to England, which I accept is an inconsistency which should be addressed - the so-called 'West Lothian' question.

The West Lothian question was first posed by Tam Dalyell (a left-wing Labour MP) as you are aware: "[Dalyell] asked how it could be right that a Scottish MP at Westminster after devolution could vote upon matters such as education affecting English seats - but that same MP could not vote on such matters affecting his own constituency because they would have been devolved to a Scottish Parliament"

If you don't accept the fact that Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs continue to vote in Westminster, then it follows that you must be in favour of complete independence for Scotland and Wales, and therefore England and Northern Ireland as well; ie the break up of the United Kingdom, and I don't believe you have ever suggested that you are.

I'm not even going to ask you to retract your accusation that I have lied on this thread, because I know it's wrong. Funnily enough I recall you recently taking great umbrage when I made the far less serious allegation that you were being disingenuous. Guilty conscience perhaps?

People like you vote for him because they cannot be bothered to try and understand the issues. These comments are getting rather tiresome, and I wonder why it is only you and Astrodome who are suggesting that I don't understand the issues. I understand them perfectly well, as the above should demonstrate. Please try to understand that there are people who disagree with you and may support their own opinions with facts that you may not accept, as I don't accept yours. I'm sure you are capable of appreciating the distinction I am making.

Curious Pax
25th May 2005, 14:15
Err - there's a slight flaw in the argument that Labour are governing due to their Welsh and Scottish MPs. The results in English constituencies:
Lab 286; Con 193; Libs 47; Respect 1. Lab majority of 45!!!

It's also worth pointing out that the North East of England, as a trial run, voted on having a regional assembly with much the same power as the Scottish and Welsh assemblies, and rejected it, which seems to have been taken as an answer the rest of England would give. Not quite the same as an English Assembly granted, but indicative nonetheless.

I assume that there are no Scots looking at this thread, as I suspect that the assertion by SC that they had been subsidised by the English would draw a one word response: Oil!

Deviating slightly on the subject of sour grapes, the Tory leader of Stockport council has had a letter to the local paper published in which he criticises the recently re-elected Lib Dem MP for Cheadle for allegedly not being upfront enough about how ill she was with cancer, to the extent that she could barely campaign in person. Despite this she managed to up her majority from 34 to around 4,000, largely on a personal vote as she is a well regarded constituency MP. I believe that she is recovering from chemotherapy, and hasn't made a secret of this (I certainly knew despite not being a constituent). His implication being (I assume) that some people wouldn't have voted for her if they thought she might not make it through until the next election. Classic case of it would have been better to keep his mouth shut I think! Fortunately I don't think that he is typical of todays Conservative Party (or at least I hope not).

BillHicksRules
25th May 2005, 15:04
CP,

I am a proud Scot here.

The economic balance between oil and tax is a precarious one and I think you will find that is why it has not been raised by anyone from God's Country here in the North.

As for your mentioning "a slight flaw in the argument", considering the sources of said arguments it is hardly surprising. Why would they waste a good story with the facts.


Cheers

BHR:) :)

SpinSpinSugar
25th May 2005, 15:11
Err - there's a slight flaw in the argument that Labour are governing due to their Welsh and Scottish MPs. The results in English constituencies: Lab 286; Con 193; Libs 47; Respect 1. Lab majority of 45!!!

I believe the argument is that there were more votes cast for the Conservatives than Labour in England during the last election, not more MPs elected.

If you accept that as a given then the majority of 45 merely highlights the bone of contention that is favourable ward boundaries. The Tories have to do significantly better than Labour to be able to merely draw level.

I don't have the numbers to hand, I'm sure someone else will.

Cheers, SSS

BillHicksRules
25th May 2005, 15:41
SSS,

The concept of replacing FPP with PR is not a new one.

It is only coming to the fore now because the Tories keep losing.

I am a LibDem party member so do not come crying to me about a lack of representation commensurate with the votes cast.

Cheers

BHR

SpinSpinSugar
25th May 2005, 15:52
I don't think all the post-election fuss is necessarily around FPP vs PR, it's more how crooked the FPP system has become. I'd not mind it if a vote in any part of the UK counted as much as a vote anywhere else, but that's not how things have evolved.

On a representative-per-head-of-population basis Scottish votes count for 1.3 English ones, don't they? The ratio English City vs English Country is also wonked in a similar fashion, which is just plain wrong, whatever the party colour.

Cheers, SSS

Astrodome
25th May 2005, 18:24
A very important member of our Government was accused of telling multiple lies, and not one person has tried to defend Clarke's comments.
Is it possibly because everyone is so used to Labour lying, they are not surprised any more? Thank you for reminding all of us about the basis of this post.

I was originally asking for opinions on THAT particular subject from Labour supporters, and whether they have an opinion to air on the subject.

It appears that the only response seems to have been, as someone pointed out earlier one along the lines of 'We won, you lost'.

The lack of condemnation or comment on the original post speaks volumes.

Duckbutt
25th May 2005, 18:41
Shock, horror, hold the front page "Politician tries to mislead".

OK so the guy (to say the very least) put a rather misleading spin on things. Just what do you expect someone will say in response?

ALL of 'em do it, regrettably - it is I'm afraid a bit naive to expect that they won't.

By the way, which (for now) party leader wouldn't give a straight answer to a simple question put to him14 times?

Astrodome
25th May 2005, 18:51
OK so the guy (to say the very least) put a rather misleading spin on things Jesus Christ !!!

The guy LIED. He told SIX LIES.

You would appear to think this acceptable.

Does the fact that he was quite prepared to LIE barefacedly not tell you anything at all about the morals of this Government?

By the way, which (for now) party leader wouldn't give a straight answer to a simple question put to him14 times? You seem to forget the Paxman interview of Bliar.

Caslance
25th May 2005, 21:06
The guy LIED. He told SIX LIES.Oh, stop the presses - a politician has told a lie. Where have you been Astrodome, that you should find the concept of a lying politician so novel and shocking?

It's a good job he wasn't under oath when he told them, like Lord Archer and Johnathan Aitken, isn't it?

He'd have really been in trouble then, wouldn't he?

He might even have gone to prison. :ok:

Astrodome
25th May 2005, 21:29
Oh, stop the presses - a politician has told a lie. Where have you been Astrodome, that you should find the concept of a lying politician so novel and shocking? I don't.....I just find it so sad that 10 years ago a Minister would have been sacked for that.

Doesn't even matter to you anymore.

Caslance
25th May 2005, 21:45
Doesn't even matter to you anymorePutting words into other people's mouths as a substitute for a sensible argument of one's own is an admission of defeat, Astrodome.

Very well, I am a kindly and humane man and will gladly accept your surrender. :ok:

But before I do, perhaps you'd like to remind the boys and girls which party Lord Archer and Mr Aitken were members of, whose Cabinet they were part of, and what it was they were both imprisoned for? :hmm:

And what about the £28,000? :E

Astrodome
25th May 2005, 21:58
Putting words into other people's mouths as a substitute for a sensible argument of one's own is an admission of defeat, Astrodome. What a ridiculous comment !

You did not condemn. You retorted with a response that sought to divert attention.

Archer and Aitken were dealt with by a Court of Law in respect of things they had done.

As far as I am aware neither of them told BLATANT lies as a member of the Government.

Your continued failure to ascribe any sort of condemnation needs no further comments. You say that you are a LibDem. Even your own leader has condemned Labour lies, distortions and double speak.

will gladly accept your surrender If by this you mean that I accept that no Labour supporter will condemn blatant lies then by all means do.

Wedge
25th May 2005, 22:30
I don't.....I just find it so sad that 10 years ago a Minister would have been sacked for that.

What nonsense. Not only do I not accept that Clarke has told 'lies', but to suggest that 10 years ago a minister would have been sacked for lying is grossly naive.

None of the 'lies' you have ascribed to Clarke have been proved, in fact you have made no attempt whatsoever to prove that Clarke was telling deliberate falsehoods as opposed to being mistaken, on a very discreet subject on which no one on this thread is party to the real facts (other than the 'truth' which you purport to be fact).

As far as I am aware neither of them told BLATANT lies as a member of the Government.

Archer is a pathological liar, as for Aitken I don't wish to comment. Even if they did not tell lies as members of the government (which I find very hard to believe in the case of Archer) they both told blatant lies on oath and were then found guilty of doing so beyond reasonable doubt, which is far more serious.

Astrodome
25th May 2005, 23:03
Thank you for that wonderful insight.

Caslance
26th May 2005, 06:58
Oh, Astrodome. How wonderful it must be to have your somewhat unique insight and understanding.....:hmm:
As far as I am aware neither of them told BLATANT lies as a member of the Government.True, Astrodome.

They told their blatant lies in a Court of Law while under oath to "tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth".

This is called PERJURY and is a criminal offence - as they found out shortly afterwards.
You say that you are a LibDemDo I now? Show me where I said that.

I do hope that it doesn't turn out be another of those baseless assertions for which you are becoming so justly celebrated.

As I said earlier, I am by nature a merciful man so I think we'll just file that one alongside your now-famous £28,000 and the "66 Labour Stealth Taxes" that were so secret they were part of successive Budgets, shall we?

I'll simply overlook your other rather intemperate outbursts and presume they arose from excitement at Liverpool winning the Champions' League yesterday evening.

Got any more? :ok:

BillHicksRules
26th May 2005, 07:15
Caslance,

"You say that you are a LibDem"

Young Astro has confused you and I.

It must be hard for him to keep track of all us who do not believe that the re-vamped Tories are actually as good as their word.

As a Scot over the age of 25 I find it hard to have any sympathy for the Tories and the bleating about a lack of a mandate from the voters. I lived through 18 years of un-mandated Tory rule in Scotland. 18 years of lies, broken promises and downright ignoring of the will of the people.

Cheers

BHR

Duckbutt
26th May 2005, 08:03
Astrodome, I do not forget the Blair interview, neither do I forget the recent one with (can’t remember her name) another Labour minister. I was just making the point that it is a sad fact that they ALL try to put the best gloss or spin on their particular position at the time and it is naïve to imagine otherwise. I respectfully suggest that you cannot claim that any other party has the moral high ground on such matters – others have mentioned the obnoxious Tory sleaze of the nineties (Archer, Aitkin, Hamilton, cash for questions etc, etc, etc)

Whilst I found Clarke’s comments slightly distasteful I just don’t think in this case they warrant the effort of your huffing and puffing. Save it for the next time that they forget their place and go too far by cynically showing us contempt and generally trying to treat us like complete idiots.

I intended to vote Labour this time because I consider that in general they have done a reasonably adequate job since coming to power, and did not consider that there was a better alternative. They lost my vote however because in my judgement Blair took us to war on a totally false premise with his lies about the immediate threat from WMD. However I found that (literally) in the voting booth I could not bring myself to vote for Howard because in my mind I kept remembering THAT interview with Paxman. The situation would have been somewhat different if I could have voted for Ken Clarke as on the whole, to me he comes across as the most honest and capable choice.

SpinSpinSugar
26th May 2005, 08:14
Duckbutt, I think the most recent victim (it got made into a nice cut sequence on Have I Got News For You the other week) was Hazel Blears, one of those Blair cronies who is seemingly incapable of independent thought and can only work off a pre-rehearsed script.

Paxman seems to enjoy chewing up that sort.

Cheers, SSS

Duckbutt
26th May 2005, 09:05
Thanks SSS, yes that's the one. I love those interviews when the pollys try and evade straight (but reasonable) questions.

However, I thought Paxo's question to Galloway on election night was loaded and unfair as it seemed to be a "when did you stop beating your wife" type.

Curious Pax
26th May 2005, 09:31
To jump all the way back to the original post, while I don't dispute the bare facts, most of the errors pinpointed look like a combination of poor briefing and poor memory rather than bald lies. I wouldn't wish to suggest that politicians of all shades lie as often as not, but I think you could have chosen a better example.

PS: At the risk of sounding like Paxo, can I repeat my earlier question about fuel taxes:
You mentioned fuel taxes - one party introduced the fuel tax 'escalator' to try and get some green votes (3% increase above inflation rate every year). Another party, granted for vote winning purposes, stopped it, and has even made increases less than inflation on occasions since then. Like to put names to the 2 parties?

Or do you not answer questions with inconvenient answers (bit like a politician!!).

PPS: Votes in England:
Lab 8,038,965 (35.4%)
Con 8,102,662 (35.7%)
Lib 5,197,746 (22.9%)
Others gained about 1,200,000 between them.

Astrodome
26th May 2005, 10:24
You say that you are a LibDem Do I now? Show me where I said that. I thought I recalled you saying you supported the LibDems in the distant past. Maybe I am in error.

Oh, Astrodome. How wonderful it must be to have your somewhat unique insight and understanding..... Sarcasm doesn't justify your failure to respond to the central question.

I do hope that it doesn't turn out be another of those baseless assertions for which you are becoming so justly celebrated. If you bother to re-read the first post you will see the attribution of the comments.

so secret they were part of successive Budgets Just demonstrating your lack of understanding of the term used there then. How MANY were hidden in the small print or found to be somewhat different when the fine detail was examined?

Let us examine a recent one. Brown said all Pensioners would get free travel on buses. Sounds wonderful doesn't it?

FACT. This will only apply to off-peak buses. Many rural parts of the Country only have bus services that operate in the peak, so therefore the 'free' travel is not what is was taken to be. Where is this information available? It is in the detail of the Budget documentation. Somewhere where the average punter rarely goes.

I have asked you on a number of occasions to comment on Clarke's lies.

Your responses become repetitive and boring.

They avoid responding to the central theme of the debate and concentrate instead on two individuals who were quite properly dealt with for lies they told as individuals, NOT whilst acting as a representative of HM Government.

Clarke made six statements that were clearly untrue. This was demonstrated by responses from even his own Department to that effect.

I am not aware that a clarification has been given to the effect that he was 'mistaken' or badly briefed.

THis is not a unique occurrence.

There is a history of Labour Ministers giving misleading statements, and distorted facts.

I have been criticised for saying that this sort of thing would not have happened 10 years ago. Nobody however has been able as yet to give a case where a Conservative Minister made a similar statement that had such obvious inaccuracies.

There is a history of Labour spending vast amounts of time and effort in order to present news in a way that minimises any bad publicity to them.

No-one least of all me disputes that all Governments seek to do the same. What we have seen in the last 7 years is this being done on a vast, a cynical, and organised scale. Remember the 'Bury bad news' incident?. Remember the briefing of the media in the Dr Kelly case?

Did you watch the C4 Dispatches programme on Campbell?

Labour supporters are being appointed to senior positions in all areas where the Government has the gift of appointment.

Amazingly some people appointed to high Government office just happen to have donated to Labour party funds.

Other people appear to have been appointed for reasons which do not appear so obvious but are known to have been friends with or colleagues of senior party members.

People who have donated to the Labour party suddenly find themselves being awarded large contracts, that were not competitively tendered.

People who are given Honours amazingly are found to subsequently be Labour Party supporters. Evidence suggests that a Peerage granted results in £500,000 being donated to Labour Party funds.

Even the Labour-biased media accept that.

Some people on here dispute that. That is their right if they so wish.

Democratic governance ultimately relies upon those entrusted with power to act in an honest and moral way. A key factor in this is that we the electorate are not fed a diet of lies, misleading information, and distortion.

I raise a simple question with a request for a simple answer.

Put simply it is this?

Is there anyone on here who finds it distateful the fact that the electorate at large are treated in such a patronising way.

Paterbrat
26th May 2005, 10:46
Errr Wodge, sorry Wedge, about those workshy masses? No comment I see.

This thread makes for truly fascinating reading. The argument and conter-arguments are truly insightful. They allow one to see clear logic being sidestepped, ducked, dodged and dived. Countered with an attack on a different subject/tack, or finaly, simply ignored. Figures and statistics it is true can in a lot of cases be manipulated to prove black is white however there are observable national trends which defy statistics and do become apparent even to the most unobservent amongst the population.

Leaving specifics aside and which the preceding pages will prove to anyone with eyes to see simply become circular arguments going nowhere, it will be most interesting to the population as a whole how the next term will go.

It will be interesting to see how many government promises re-iterated before the last election and which hadn't quite yet been delivered, will be this time round.

It will be interesting to see how the economy fares and whether we will continue to 'prosper' in the same manner as we have been doing, where personel debt soared to an all time high and loans were freely available to anyone who had an adress. Actualy that may not have even been a criteria.

It will be interesting to see if the Government having created a situation whereby the deserving sick be taken care of seems to have created an undesirable situation the government itself wishes to adress. Dare one even say that a few undeserving may have taken advatage or might that be going too far?

It will be interesting to see if the government after looking after the unmarried mothers so well can somehow reverse the trend which they now profess to be concerned about.

It will be interesting to see if the more humane and gentle way of treating the criminal element in lighter and more understanding sentencing will have the desired result in less re-offending.

It will be interesting to see how many more ministers will be caught bending a few rules, nothing serious you understand minor peccadilos which in fact which really do not even deserve a mention. In fact if they were not mentioned at all we would all be 'better' off.

Interesting to see if the government, now that is has been re-elected, will do something about the concerns it expressed with the abuses possible with the postal voting, not that any happened in the last election you understand. Or was that even looked into? I am sure it must have been after all the government said they were going to something about it. Didn't they? Must have been my imagination then.

Abolition of poverty in Africa? Our Chancellor has put his shoulder to the wheel, sorry the country's shoulder. Laudable? Indeed it is. Possible? That is a little more difficult to answer. I do not believe he actually stated a time frame so if that were open ended I would say probably to a large degree yes. After all ask oneself has poverty been wiped out in the UK? Europe? The EEC? Just as an afterthought has there been any effort over the last 20, 30 years to assist Africa? If not why not? If there was, then what happened to those efforts?

We do in fact live in interesting times as the Chinese saying goes, and the few above just some of the items it will be interesting to watch. Will we enjoy it. Well perhaps, perhaps not. Like it or not it will be our lot to sit through what is coming and see just how the next term goes. The nah nah nah brigade are easing back to enjoy, one and can but hope it goes well for them.

As for the rest of us along for the ride, well, I guess if we didn't want to go down the log flume we shouldn't have been in the log in the first place.

(That last comment of mine making about as much sense as Ken Livingston 'asking' Londoners if they would like to extend the congestion zone and increase the fares. The last survey he did overwhelmingly said no. So lets have another one, and if that doesn't come up with the result you want lets do it anyway.)

Duckbutt
26th May 2005, 11:28
Astrodome, I do agree with the main thrust of your arguments and have previously stated that I find such spinning distasteful.

However I must repeat yet again that ALL pollys always have and always will do it - why can you not accept that it is not confined to the Labour party?

There is a history of Labour Ministers giving misleading statements, and distorted facts.

I think you can safely delete "Labour" from this statement.

There is a history of Labour spending vast amounts of time and effort in order to present news in a way that minimises any bad publicity to them.

Again, applies to ALL parties. I agree that this party have raised presentation to a high level. However Sir Bernard Ingham for example was no innocent.

Amazingly some people appointed to high Government office just happen to have donated to Labour party funds.

I refer you to the head of a well known housebuilding company (think helicopters) who was awarded a knighthood immediately after donating large sums to the coffers of the blue party. Possibly a coincidence of course.

Nobody however has been able as yet to give a case where a Conservative Minister made a similar statement that had such obvious inaccuracies.

Again I refer you back to the 1979 election campaign where Thatch categorically denied that she would double the VAT rate. Or the 1992 campaign where Major denied that he had any plans to extend the range of VAT and after reelection promptly applied VAT to gas and electricity. (He lost my vote next time over that one).

Paterbrat
26th May 2005, 11:37
Could the thrust of his argument possibly have been 'the degree to which some of these are now being carried?' :confused:

Duckbutt
26th May 2005, 11:48
Could the thrust of his argument possibly have been 'the degree to which some of these are now being carried?'

OK, I've already said that I agree with that. But I say again they are ALL obsessed with presentation - I give you the 2001 election when Letwin (I think it was) down in Dorset upset Haigh and was exiled throughout the campaign for giving out some wrong sort of figure in connection with tax cuts. And that bloke in Arundel deselected just before the last campaign for going "off message".

This obsession with presentation is, I'm afraid its a fact of life and we have to live with it. If they didn't take care an honest polly (possibly that's an oxymoron) would be torn apart by a section of the press which has an opposing bias.

Most intelligent people can see through it - we all have enough practice dealing with media advertising.

Paterbrat
26th May 2005, 11:54
I suppose one could say that advertising is reaching new lows, but then that would simply be avoiding the issue. How about the government.

The presentation is getting more flimsy and sheer by the day. Pretty soon they will simply be saying look brothers we are in charge and skip the explanations.

Duckbutt
26th May 2005, 12:00
Pretty soon they will simply be saying look brothers we are in charge and skip the explanations.

But if/when the **** it all up they will not get reelected. I suggest that's what happened to Major's lot (meaning the incompetent bit) and as Labour presented a plausible alternative they were elected.

I suggest that even if one ignores the Falklands effect, if Labour had not been such a pathetic disorganised shambles in 1983 Thatcher would have been in trouble.

italianjon
26th May 2005, 12:19
Earlier in the thread it was mentioned that the Labour party is about as far away from Communism as you can get.

Anyone else read in the Private Eye (fine magazine) the comparisons between our Labour party and the Pre-War East German communist regime...

The similarities are frightening.

A few I remember were "Education, Education, Education"

The 250 quid Baby account, (obvously not 250 quid back then, but same idea)

and there were a couple of others...

I am trying to find the article and post a link to it

Duckbutt
26th May 2005, 12:23
Forgive me I'jon but I don't quite understand. Could you clarify what the "Pre-War East German communist regime" is?

BillHicksRules
26th May 2005, 12:26
Astrodome,

"Democratic governance ultimately relies upon those entrusted with power to act in an honest and moral way."

You having a laugh?

Surely you are not contending that the previous party in power acted honestly and morally?

e.g. John Major's Family Values seemed to be him having an extra-marital affair with someone in his Cabinet.

Not much honesty or morality there.

Cheers

BHR

italianjon
26th May 2005, 12:31
Can't find the whole article on line... and think I have thrown my copy... but here's an extract...

The New Labour slogan "Forwards not back" happened to be one used by the former East German communist regime. They also coined the phrase "Bildung, Bildung, Bilding" (Education, Education, Education.) The regime was also in favour of paying lump sums to sprogs.

Duckbutt
26th May 2005, 12:34
So is it logical to conclude that we will soon be erecting high walls to prevent us all emigrating to apparently more prosperous neighbouring countries?

italianjon
26th May 2005, 12:37
Forgive me I'jon but I don't quite understand. Could you clarify what the "Pre-War East German communist regime" is?

Not 100% sure which one, but either the: -

Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschland (SED)

or the

Kommunistische Partei Deutschlands (KPD)

cavortingcheetah
26th May 2005, 13:05
;) ALL HAIL ANTHONY.
BOW DOWN BEFORE THE BLESSED BROWN.

Eight years of arrant government by a party whose concept of truth is mired in a sticky mess of verisimilitude and hypocrisy.
What is eight years of such past power if not anterior abuse? That is the only legacy upon which the present duplicitious and self serving administration should focus its attentions in an attempt to exculpate itself.

Such an effort will be in vain!

Labour has dug itself a very deep hole, aided by its own Hubris and a sublime disregard for the past examples of history. It is going to be very amusing for some and very, very painful for others to watch the wiggly worms wriggle.:E

Send Clowns
26th May 2005, 13:22
Wedge

What you posted shows up no contradiction. So there is no contradiction at all. What Astrodome said fits exactly with what you now agree is the West Lothian question. You presumably made up the contradiction entirely, possibly because you had no valid argument.

You obviously have an aversion to reasoned argument, as you haven't bothered to read mine. I don't want to ban the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs not to vote in Westminster on issues affecting the United Kingdom as a whole. I want them to refrain from voting on issues that are devolved in their own part of the country, and specifically said so. So if you bothered to read my post you are obviously disingenuously misrepresenting what I said.

The only other solution is an English parliament, but since it is our money we would be wasting, in contrast to the heavily-subsidised Scots, that is not popular.

You lied; you said you were going to address the points. You didn't do so. Read your own post again.

You quite clearly don't understand the issues if you think there is a contradiction in Astro saying that the Labour Party relies on non-English MPs to force through legislation on issues devolved in their part of the country. There is no contradiction, in fact I am not sure you are even using the word contradiction in the right way.

BHR

So Unison repeated Labour's lies? The Conservatives never had any plans to reduce government spending.

At the same time they declare their complete misunderstanding of how administration works. They also declared their arogant contempt for the people, saying they are definitively better placed to spend our money than we are ourselves. That is what I dislike so much about Labour and the "public service" bores, who assume public spending must, by definition, be a good thing. The self-righteous, overbearing presumption of people who are often completely obsessed with their own fiefdoms, rather than doing the job efficiently.

By the logic shown in the slogan we should all give all our money to the government. Therefore it is complete garbage, unless you believe that communist ideal?

Caslance

A challenge: let me know some direct lies told by members of a UK government in their capacity as members of government that are the precedent you claim.

(Edited to say: I accept lies have often been told on the subject of the EEC/EU, by all parties. Seems to be an issue over which the lies come from the core of the debate, Brussels itself, and few EU treaties can be honestly presented to the public anywhere in Europe)

It's remarkable how politicians can use presentation and selective facts to avoid lying while putting a case skewed in their favour. It has always happened, although it is only in the last 10 years that it has become so prevalent that a party can now win an election without saying confirming any of their own plans on any major issue. However direct lies are not nearly as common as you think. Evasion, half truth, spin if you want to use the term. Rarely lies. Until about 1998 or 99; it goes as far as Blair (remember Mittal and his "British" company?) and it runs right through the government. The BBC won't publicise it (their journalists have inadvertantly let slip their Labour support on the air, including their most fearsome interviewer and their political correspondent. Their former DG and News editor both gave money to the Labour Party. Why would they complain about Labour corruption?).

Now a minister sets out a series of blatant untruths. Princess Toneee said anyone who lied would be sacked. Well Mr Blair?

BillHicksRules
26th May 2005, 13:40
SC,

“So Unison repeated Labour's lies? The Conservatives never had any plans to reduce government spending. “

To quote the Conservative 2005 manifesto “we will save £12 billion a year by 2007-8 by cutting back”

”At the same time they declare their complete misunderstanding of how administration works. They also declared their arogant contempt for the people, saying they are definitively better placed to spend our money than we are ourselves. That is what I dislike so much about Labour and the "public service" bores, who assume public spending must, by definition, be a good thing. The self-righteous, overbearing presumption of people who are often completely obsessed with their own fiefdoms, rather than doing the job efficiently.”

By the logic shown in the slogan we should all give all our money to the government. Therefore it is complete garbage, unless you believe that communist ideal?”

To take a similarily ridiculous logical leap you feel that none of us should pay any tax at all and that government should be self funding. How would that work?

Cheers

BHR

Send Clowns
26th May 2005, 14:04
Conservative plans were to increase spending year-on-year. They were just going to increase it less than Labour were, and do so in a way that increases effectiveness of services by reducing the farcical, polically-correct, self-serving bureaucracy Unison represents. That's why they didn't like the plans!

The logic that an extra £32 bn must be spent, and that any less will not improve services by as much, leads on to the step that another £32 bn must be spent on top of that, or services won't improve enough, and another £32 bn on top of that until all our money is spent on public services. To break that logic one needs to explain why the amount projected by Labour is (a) necessary and (b) sufficient. They did not do so, and in fact the Conservatives explained in a costed analysis why it was not necessary. This means that the poster is, at the very least, so simplistic as to be completely meaningless, more probably disingenuous and self-serving. Hence my description of it as garbage, fairly accurate I think you'll agree.

Wedge
26th May 2005, 14:31
You lied; you said you were going to address the points

If you can't debate without resorting to such schoolboy tactics as wrongly accusing your opponent of lying, and wrongly that he doesn't understand the issues, and are unable to see the very clear contradication that I was highlighting (which it appears everyone else is able to see), then I am no longer interested in debating with you.

If the only lie that you are able to point to is that I said I was going to address all the issues and failed to do so, then you are also a liar. I've never seen you provide a reasoned argument for your assertions that is convincing, and have repeatedly seen you try to avoid the difficult questions and inconsistencies in your argument.

There is no contradiction, in fact I am not sure you are even using the word contradiction in the right way.

Everyone else, even Astrodome, have accepted that there is a contradiction. I've attempted to explain it as clearly as I can, I'm not going to do it again. Go back and read my explanation slowly if you are still having trouble.

How do you suggest the West Lothian issue is solved? By creating a new English Assembly? Or by banning Scottish and Welsh MPs from voting on matters relating exclusively to England?

As you so patronisingly said to me recently "you have to learn that things are not true just because you say they are". I suggest you listen to your own advice.

Clearly you are trying to wind me up to and I'm not going to take the flame-bait.

Good day.

Send Clowns
26th May 2005, 14:44
If you type something that is clearly not true, I will say so. If you say that someone has contradicted himself, when he hasn't (and you have yet to point out a contradiction, or even made any attempt to do so, despite being asked several times) I will say you are wrong, and back my statement up. That is not schoolboy tactics; it is a challenge to your tactics of obscuring the reasoned arguments with assertions you fail to back.

My reasoning is solid. If you wish to challenge it you are welcome to do so with your own reasoning. That you are yet to attempt to do so, and resort to such tactics I have described, indicates to me that you are not able to do so.

I have never insisted that you accept what I say as true because I say so. If challenged I have always backed my statements with reasoned arguments. Here in your claim of a contradiction, and on other threads (still no advance on the supposed Tory corruption?) you have consistently failed to do so. You simply winge, as above, when I point out the errors in your arguments.

I did not call you a liar. I said you had typed a lie, which you now seem to agree you did, having previously denied it.

I am not a liar and you posting that claim is outside the rules of the forum. You are not attacking a specific argument I have made, you are attacking me personally. You really should retract.

Clearly had I been trying to wind you up, that is a bait well taken. However I was not. I was pointing out the paucity of your case and the dishonest debating tactics you have been using. That is a legitimate addition to the argument.

BillHicksRules
26th May 2005, 15:00
SC,

How can you increase spending by cutting back by £12billion a year?

Cheers

BHR

italianjon
26th May 2005, 15:18
How can you increase spending by cutting back by £12billion a year?

By using the same accounting system as Pam Am...

They never made a loss...

They made Negative Profits...

A negative increase in public spending is still an increase... just a negative one!

Send Clowns
26th May 2005, 15:32
BHR

The policy was not to cut back £12 bn per annum on overall spending. The policy was to make cutbacks of £12 bn in targeted areas, spending the savings plus a small increase on areas considered more productive and important. So you were taken in by Labour's lies too, were you? I cannot see how you can have missed the corrections unless you relied solely on the BBC and other left-leaning media for news during the election campaign.

BillHicksRules
26th May 2005, 15:38
SC,

The honest answer to your question on my source was my wife.

She is an honours graduate in Political Science and at each election collects the manifestos and other bumpf.

I called her and asked her to dig out the Tory one and give me some quotes to support my argument.

Cheers

BHR

Astrodome
26th May 2005, 15:38
Everyone else, even Astrodome, have accepted that there is a contradiction My position has always been that it is quite improper for Scottish MPs to vote on matters that only affect England.

I pointed out the case of tuition fees which the Scots voted against for Scotland. When the matter was debated affecting England, it was only passed because Bliar relied on Scottish MPs to support the proposition.

In respect of matters that affect the UK then I have no issue.

Thus there is to my mind at least NO contradiction.


BHR How can you increase spending by cutting back by £12billion a year? Just a tiny bit disingenuous would you not say?

If SC will forgive me for butting in......The Conservative party placed fully costed spending plans in the public forum. I do not recall Labour doing so, only stating that there would be this magical £35bn made available.

The Conservatives NEVER put any spending cuts into the public fora at all.

Labour quite improperly, blatantly, and disingenuously spread a story that the Conservatives were cutting public spending. This was wholely untrue, and as such even the media who openly supported Labour could not stomach that untruth.

You may not recall that the matter made national headlines and news stories, and Bliar and Brown were publicly pillioried for this.

Labour claim to have spent enormous sums of money on the NHS. I will not argue that they have not. However by many measures this money has not dramatically improved services within the NHS. Most of it has gone on greater administration and management costs in order to produce data that supports the various targets that have been set.

There is/was a debate on the state of the NHS in another thread. I would commend you to read some of the posts.

I would also commend you to read the Daily Telegraph online article on the current state of the NHS.

This quotes from information now made available by virtue of the Freedom of Information Act, and uses named sources from within the NHS. It also uses, if I recall correctly, attributable named sources from the BMA.

Bearing in mind the fact that there is now an accepted £10bn 'Black Hole' in the economy (although that was based upon previous figures before the latest information on the economy and taxation revenues was made available and which now shows a worsement of the position) and that the economy is growing at much less than Brown has assumed, one wonders where this £35bn will come from.

I look forward to Bliar making this £35bn available. I also look forward to you comments in the event that the investment is less.

BillHicksRules
26th May 2005, 15:41
SC/Astro,

Can you tell me which was the only party with a properly costed set of proposals?

It was the mighty Lib Dems ( I wish I could link music at this point, I would choose the Imperial March from Star Wars, lol)

Cheers

BHR

Caslance
26th May 2005, 17:37
Thanks a bunch, BHR.

I just had a sudden vision of Charles Kennedy as Darth Vader and sprayed coffee all over my keyboard.....

Where have those cotton buds gone? :ooh:

Send Clowns
26th May 2005, 17:59
Not true, BHR. The Conservative proposals were fully costed. The figures were confirmed independently (I think by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, although that is from memory).

The Labour party did not have any proposals, just costings, on the blind assumption that if they are spending our money it must, by definition, be better than us spending our own money.

BillHicksRules
26th May 2005, 21:19
Cas,

I thought you would like that one.

SC,

Since we could go round and round on this one till five past the end of the world lets agree to disagree and stop boring the others.

Cheers

BHR

Nick Riviera
27th May 2005, 11:50
Wedge

At the risk of taking this more off topic, I am unsure as to why you think Clarke did not lie. He stated 6 things which were untrue, so I think it is not too far a leap to call them lies. But what really intrigues me is that in a pre-election thread I took you to task for claiming that a Daily Mail headline was a lie, when Clarke himself, the non-liar, admitted it was true. You never really explained that one or could not bring yourself to admit that you were wrong. So, with these two examples to mind, I am unsure as to what you consider constitutes a lie. The evidence suggests you believe that Labour do not tell lies but the Tories, in the guise of the Mail, do tell lies. Surely you don't believe that, do you?

Caslance
27th May 2005, 16:35
Look, the words "politician" and "liar" are practically synonymous, save for a precious few exceptions in all parties.

Why is it that some of our colleagues to the right of the political spectrum have such trouble coming to terms with this in the face of centuries of accumulated supporting evidence? :hmm:

Paterbrat
27th May 2005, 18:09
Promising all things to all men isn't lying. It simply is being unimaginably optomistic that the immpossible merely takes slightly longer, and is actualy achievable.:hmm:

Astrodome
27th May 2005, 18:33
Why is it that some of our colleagues to the right of the political spectrum have such trouble coming to terms with this in the face of centuries of accumulated supporting evidence? AT LAST an admission.

Caslance
27th May 2005, 19:09
AT LAST an admission.An admission of what, exactly, Astrodome? :confused:

Or are you putting words into my mouth yet again, old chap?

Anyway, what about the fabled £28,000, or the perjuring Conservative ministers?

Still no comment yet? :hmm:

Astrodome
27th May 2005, 19:47
An admission of what, exactly Extrapolate your own words to their logical conclusion.

centuries of accumulated supporting evidence Which taken to its logical conclusion asserts that lies have been told, ergo you accept that.

That is what I have suggested all along.

£28,000 - You seem to have trouble in understanding my two previous responses to you. I am not intending to open my own personal financial situation to an open forum, and to you least of all. You have been told that twice by me and once by SC. Only you seem to be smitten with this.

Only you, and maybe one other on here, seem to think (or openly state) that you are better off despite a whole variety of tax increases. I suggest that neither of you in that case would be encompassed by the description 'average person'.

Perjurying Conservatives - Once more, and for the LAST time, this thread is about Lies told by a Government Minister acting in his Ministerial capacity. Comments about former Conservative MPs are irrelevant and your continued harping on about it is just boring.

They were dealt with by the Courts.

Amazing how the body set up to oversee Parliamentary Standards was emasculated by Labour MPs refusing to appear before it, by a vicious and sustained campaign that eventually drove the original head of it to resign, and by the appointment of someone who would ensure that no criticism would ever be made of Labour MPs.

That old chap is the difference. At least under the Conservative Government, despite his many failings at least to his credit Major always accepted the judgements of that body.

The Parliamentary Standards body is now just a complete joke, and I note that despite a whole myriad of scandals, and underhand dealings (Ecclestone for one) not ONE single Labour MP has been called to account either before Parliament or before the Courts.

If you cannot see the point I make here then I can say no more, other than I think such a situation is completely unacceptable.

I fear you think differently.

And I STILL await condemnation of the LIES told by Clarke. Silence normally infers assent in such situations.

XXTSGR
27th May 2005, 20:47
Ca, I think your answer appears to be that lies told by Labour are awful, and make the relevant politican untrustworthy and unfit to hold office, but lies told by Conservatives don't count because they're not in office.

Caslance
27th May 2005, 21:36
Such was, indeed, my suspicion XXT.

Confirmed admirably by Astrodome's latest ra.... er, outpouring of wisdom.

Nor, it seems, do lies told by Conservatives whilst in office, either. :hmm:

At least you don't have to work very hard to argue with Astrodome - he very kindly makes your side of the argument up for you as he goes along. :ok:

Paterbrat
28th May 2005, 17:09
Come on chaps the minimal effort, sneering, and duck'n dodge makes for poor showing. Bit like the present government who you both support.

Interesting views by the race relations chappie, echoes of E Powell but being ethnic makes it OK of course. Conclusions do seem to be converging on the non intergration of new arrivals in a number of EU countries now. Tolerance of the intolerant seems to be a oneway street that does become harder to stomach as it goes along.

The abolition of poverty in Africa once again while wholly laudable seems to ignore, or at least avoid mentioning previous massive efforts the less desirable results. Also why the continent appears to be getting poorer despite these efforts. How is it proposed that these can be avoided this time round and the intended billions do not once again follow that which has gone before?

The shrinking base of taxepayers would seem to be intended to shoulder even more good ideas as to what can be done with Government revenue. Wonder how long that will be sustainable.

Why has the 'flat tax' concept never been explored in this country?

Caslance
28th May 2005, 17:42
Come on chaps the minimal effort, sneering, and duck'n dodge makes for poor showing. Bit like the present government who you both support. Actually Paterbrat, on the assumption that your remarks are aimed at XXTSGR and myself, I think you'll find that neither of us supports this current rabble, thank you very much.

I know I didn't vote for them - in fact, I indulged in a spot of tactical voting this time around...... :ok:

As for your opening sentence.... well, quite frankly I've seen a hell of a lot worse from the Right of the house go unremarked upon. :ooh:

Paterbrat
30th May 2005, 18:55
Neither of you, tactical voting, gosh sound pretty undecided then. By the way were you 'tacticaly' successful? Either way it looks as though we have a few more years of honest forthrightness and impeccable governance to look forward to.:\