UK General Election Thread!

[prof_porn]

Interesting debate.

Roxy Jezel for PM?

 

[Ulysses31]

Interesting debate.

Roxy Jezel for PM?

If she allows hardcore porn to be shown uncensored on tv then she has my vote

 

[DreamSparrow]

I don't think he was as strong tonight.

Me either. Some nerves early on, and he fell into the Cameron trap of not rebutting direct attacks. Extremely strong towards the end though.

Cameron was much more assertive tonight.

Brown came off better on substance compared to the last debate, but is still too weak on delivery to be a television era PM. If Labour poll the fewest votes and he still ends up as Prime Minister, it could trigger a constitutional crisis. Would the public ever be satisfied with anything less than PR after that?

1st Debate - Clegg way ahead, Cameron and Brown lagging far behind.
2nd Debate - Cameron slightly ahead, Clegg, and then Brown.

 

[prof_porn]

A hung parliament is almost assured. That means another Lib-Lab pact, Brown as PM, Cable as Chancellor, probably Miliband as FM and some Lib as Home Minister. All the other jobs are crap.

 

[LukeEl]

Question my friends from across the pond. I was wondering about the election that really matters, who has been elected the new headmaster over at Hogwarts?

 

[DreamSparrow]

Did anyone read David Yelland's article on how the ascent of the Lib Dems will be troubling to Murdoch and the media elite in general?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/18/clegg-media-elite-murdoch-lib-dem

They've been trying to smear him unsuccessfully by claiming he's made 'Nazi slurs' for saying anti-German prejudice was unpalatable, by presenting him as corrupt over payments he declared in the register of members interests long before he was even leader... and instead Twitter has reacted with #NickCleggsFault.

 

[prof_porn]

Clegg seems an ok bloke. As do Dave and even Gordon. Just nice guys you could grab a drink and talk Cricket with.

Re: Cricket. Last week Cameron used the phrase "coming down the wicket" and this week Clegg spoke of "batting" for the UK. Love how civil it all is.

 

[DreamSparrow]

Why do people always focus on the bad side of Europe? If we were in it properly, instead of just being on the edge as we are now, there would be many benefits, such as no exchange rate, little to no passport issues (free roaming), international healthcare and probably best of all we would all have the same rules instead of our parliament changing European suggestions and screwing things up for British businesses. :wave2:

Many of those benefits have their drawbacks too. Uncontrolled immigration from former Eastern bloc countries has put a big strain on our economy - the number of British 'NEETs' vs immigrants is pretty shocking. Do they get more out of the union than we do? I'd say so.

There's also the small fact that it's a vast, tyrannical bureaucracy with very little democratic mandate. Many people all over Europe find the whole system abstruse and alien to them, hate the idea of surrendering sovereignty to a federal authority, and just feel like they're being dragged into it with little say in the matter. I'm definitely not opposed to European co-operation in principle on some issues, but this lifelong leftie has become increasingly Eurosceptic the more he's delved into it.

 

[larss]

I can vote in this one, yey! Not sure who i like at the moment tho.

Visit this site http://voteforpolicies.org.uk it can really help to decide.

 

[Rattrap]

Did anyone read David Yelland's article on how the ascent of the Lib Dems will be troubling to Murdoch and the media elite in general?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/18/clegg-media-elite-murdoch-lib-dem

From the article:

In so many ways, a vote for the Lib Dems is a vote against Murdoch and the media elite.

That alone is almost enough to secure my vote.

One thing I'd like to ask, and perhaps this is a discussion that warrants a different thread (I'm sure one exists somewhere already), but is a nuclear attack by another nation really something we need to worry about in this day in age? Is it really in any nation's interest (as opposed to an independent terrorist group)?

I'm not really educated on the subject, hence the question, but it seems reasonable to think that it isn't a big danger - I would think that even countries like Iran, if they had nuclear missiles, would keep them as a deterrent rather than a tool of aggression (thereby threatening themselves to be bombed into oblivion by countries with a lot more nuclear options).

To bring it into the debate, concerning Trident: does any nation have any reason to bomb Britain, other than in retaliation?

 

[mrtrebus]

From the article:


That alone is almost enough to secure my vote.

One thing I'd like to ask, and perhaps this is a discussion that warrants a different thread (I'm sure one exists somewhere already), but is a nuclear attack by another nation really something we need to worry about in this day in age? Is it really in any nation's interest (as opposed to an independent terrorist group)?

I'm not really educated on the subject, hence the question, but it seems reasonable to think that it isn't a big danger - I would think that even countries like Iran, if they had nuclear missiles, would keep them as a deterrent rather than a tool of aggression (thereby threatening themselves to be bombed into oblivion by countries with a lot more nuclear options).

To bring it into the debate, concerning Trident: does any nation have any reason to bomb Britain, other than in retaliation?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4805768.stm

 

[Ulysses31]

From the article:


That alone is almost enough to secure my vote.

One thing I'd like to ask, and perhaps this is a discussion that warrants a different thread (I'm sure one exists somewhere already), but is a nuclear attack by another nation really something we need to worry about in this day in age? Is it really in any nation's interest (as opposed to an independent terrorist group)?

I'm not really educated on the subject, hence the question, but it seems reasonable to think that it isn't a big danger - I would think that even countries like Iran, if they had nuclear missiles, would keep them as a deterrent rather than a tool of aggression (thereby threatening themselves to be bombed into oblivion by countries with a lot more nuclear options).

To bring it into the debate, concerning Trident: does any nation have any reason to bomb Britain, other than in retaliation?

There is a lot of scaremongering perpetuated by the media to make us feel like we're gonna get attacked, the same was done in the states with that whole colour code thing. We only got attacked by Islamic extremists after the illegal invasion of Iraq as did Spain (Madrid) and Australia (Bali). These were likely new terrorist groups set formed to retaliate the Iraq invasion rather than pre 9/11 existing groups. The media would have you believe someone wants war with us (like they did with Saddam) but ask yourself simply why would another nation declare war on us?

 

[om3ga]

Did anyone read David Yelland's article on how the ascent of the Lib Dems will be troubling to Murdoch and the media elite in general?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/18/clegg-media-elite-murdoch-lib-dem

They've been trying to smear him unsuccessfully by claiming he's made 'Nazi slurs' for saying anti-German prejudice was unpalatable, by presenting him as corrupt over payments he declared in the register of members interests long before he was even leader... and instead Twitter has reacted with #NickCleggsFault.

'Sun' censored poll that showed support for Lib Dems

They nust be really scared of the Lib-Dems....

PS: I thought Clegg was ok in the second debate.
Cameron sometimes still comes over like a "smooth operator" (and we've had enough of that with Tony Blair), but he did well by calling Gordon Brown a liar with the leaflets.

As for Gordon...he was Gordon (sorry, Gordon)

 

[marquis2]

Clegg came over OK but there still was no substance in what he said.But political parties must be more than a charismatic leader.We don't need someone photogenic with a good TV image we need someone who will get the job done. Pity that Kenneth Clarke isn't the Shadow Chancellor though.

 

[Ulysses31]

They are all rather boring to be honest and there seems to be a feeling of desperation amongst all of them, I think they all feeling the pressure which is why they resorted to squabbling and name calling on the last debate. Still Clegg for me, I had a lot of respect for the Lib Dems when they protested the Iraq war from the outset and when you look at all the money spent (which we don't have and can barely afford equipment) as well as loss of both UK troops and Iraqi civilians they made a brave call to stand up to the US (Bush) pressure on us at the time.

 

[marquis2]

They are all rather boring to be honest and there seems to be a feeling of desperation amongst all of them, I think they all feeling the pressure which is why they resorted to squabbling and name calling on the last debate. Still Clegg for me, I had a lot of respect for the Lib Dems when they protested the Iraq war from the outset and when you look at all the money spent (which we don't have and can barely afford equipment) as well as loss of both UK troops and Iraqi civilians they made a brave call to stand up to the US (Bush) pressure on us at the time.

To be honest, Blair misled Parliament over the Iraq business and most politicians voted on the "evidence" placed in front of them.A few more experienced and less gullible MPs like Kenneth Clarke and Robin Cook refused to vote for the war.The Tories backed the government after taking Blair at face value and isn't hindsight a wonderful thing?

 

[mrtrebus]

Whatever happens I hope election night goes a little something like this -

 

[Ulysses31]

To be honest, Blair misled Parliament over the Iraq business and most politicians voted on the "evidence" placed in front of them.A few more experienced and less gullible MPs like Kenneth Clarke and Robin Cook refused to vote for the war.The Tories backed the government after taking Blair at face value and isn't hindsight a wonderful thing?

The recent Iraq enquiry showed how far all the government departments were 'pushed' into pushing the case for war when even the lawmakers weren't convinced, the Tories were always going to go along with the Republicans as that it their political brethren. Blair must've thought that Saddam and his troops would be easily defeated which they were but had no Plan B to deal with the ensuing civil war between the Sunni and Shia, they were hardly gonna just shake hands and agree to live side by side in a liberal democracy after years of brutal dictatorship. Rather embarassing for British foreign policy which is renowned for being just and fair and meticulously thought out.

 

[mrtrebus]

Election Q&A: Nick Clegg
'How often do I have sex? Those who count, clearly aren't enjoying it enough'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/24/general-election-2010-nick-clegg-interview

Election Q&A: Gordon Brown
'My guiltiest pleasure? Online shopping'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/24/general-election-2010-gordon-brown-interview

Election Q&A: David Cameron
'The worst thing anyone's said to me? If you want to cut carbon emissions, stop breathing...'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/24/general-election-2010-david-cameron-interview

 

[DreamSparrow]

To be honest, Blair misled Parliament over the Iraq business and most politicians voted on the "evidence" placed in front of them.A few more experienced and less gullible MPs like Kenneth Clarke and Robin Cook refused to vote for the war.The Tories backed the government after taking Blair at face value and isn't hindsight a wonderful thing?

There was no substantive evidence, which is why most of the country opposed it. Labour got whipped into following it because of Blair's threat it could bring down the government, and the Conservatives didn't want to appear weak.

They should have turned when Robin Cook (RIP) came out and said in as polite terms as he could muster, that it was all bullshit.

For four years as Foreign Secretary I was partly responsible for the western strategy of containment. Over the past decade that strategy destroyed more weapons than in the Gulf war, dismantled Iraq's nuclear weapons programme and halted Saddam's medium and long-range missiles programmes. Iraq's military strength is now less than half its size than at the time of the last Gulf war.

Ironically, it is only because Iraq's military forces are so weak that we can even contemplate its invasion. Some advocates of conflict claim that Saddam's forces are so weak, so demoralised and so badly equipped that the war will be over in a few days. We cannot base our military strategy on the assumption that Saddam is weak and at the same time justify pre-emptive action on the claim that he is a threat.

-- Robin Cook's resignation speech to Parliament, 17 March 2003.

The Lib Dems ranged from requiring multilateral UN agreement in the form of a second resolution (which we never got) to opposing it outright.