Cameron (like Ted Heath beforehand) is a (moderate) Peelite and not a (right-wing) Thatcherite, as like his closing statement last night inferred he (at least pays sound bytes) to caring for the poorest in the country and a degree of social welfare. A far cry from the vile old woman's personal and political beliefs.

 

Or may be you have forgotten when he won the eternal Party Leadership election in 2005; when a certain Margaret Thatcher campaigned for her "chosen one" (the Euro-sceptic, homophobic) David Davis who was expected to win the vote who lost in the final battle against David Cameron.

 

Likewise his days at University where he spoke, pointed out in debates against the all too obvious weaknesses of the policies of that vile old witch have made him palatable to a generation of late 30-somethings/early 40-somethings who hate(d) Thatcher with a passion. Whilst since being made leader of his party he has been at pains to stress that he does not agree with many of her old policies and values on numerous occasions. Indeed that is why a number of former Tory councillors switched to UKIP on his appointment, because he was too moderate for them!

David Cameron may seemingly have changed, but his party certainly has not. Take a look at ratemytory.org.uk - or, even the David Cameron before he was elected party leader. The David Cameron that: dismissed SureStart, one of the greatest tools available for reducing the rampant inequalities present today, as a 'microcosm of government failure' (and, given he's throwing out tax cuts like candy, is likely to be axed under a Tory government); made opposition to Section 28 as one of his key pledges in his election campaign in Witney in 2001 and campaigned fervently against its scrapping in 2003; compared tax credits to the 'failed nationalised companies of the 70s'...I could go on. Or, you could just look at Hammersmith and Fulham, a Tory council that Cameron has named as a model for how he will rule. H+F Council have:

 

- paid for tax cuts by shutting down 12 homeless hostels

- increased the cost of Meals On Wheels for poor pensioners by 60%

- Started charging disabled people who need home help £12.40 an hour

 

Additionally, the council's leader, Stephen Greenhalgh, says he wants to abolish council housing and let rents rise to market levels, saying that council estates today are 'barracks for the poor' and that their residents are "hard to get rid of". A meeting of Tory policymakers – plus Cameron's housing adviser Owen Inskip – dismissed council housing as a 'dead end' and mooted charging market rents. Which would raise rents for the poorest people in London to between £150 and £650, pricing most of them out of the market.

 

Caring for the poorest in the country?

And don't forget who wrote the last Tory manifesto. It was David Cameron. The man who now claims to have dumped just about every policy in that document. So did he believe it was rubbish at the time? Or does he still agree with it but claim to believe something different to try to get elected?

I thought Clegg came across like an opportunistic spiv meets a University student debater tonight. He was lightweight compared to the big guns for the first time in three contests. But hey his Party voted and refused to support a minimum tax on alcohol in Scotland. Yet voted the very opposite way in Parliament for the rest of the country. Even though alcoholism is greater in Scotland than any other part of the UK.

 

 

Errr, no, not quite.

Clegg has nothing to do with the way the Scottish Liberal Democrats vote or are run. They have a similar feel to their policies but have different aims. Scotland has a extremely valuable whisky/scotch sector that would be adversely affected by said tax, and the SNP's proposals [as i understand them] are flawed. Some people say it's ridiculous other say the bill doesn't go far enough [as in what it covers not just tax].

 

The SNP's bill failed at holyrood because it was $h!t.

I stand corrected, you are entirely wrong. There hasn't been a vote in the Scottish parliament. The other parties are calling on the SNP to name it's minimum price ahead of a first vote according to the paper today.

 

So you can shove your anti-Liberal Democrat agenda up Camerons arse.

 

 

You recent posts in this thread wouldn't look out of place in the Scum or the News of the World. A paper so bias it's incredible people actually read it seriously.

That's another reason why the electoral system is so awful. The Tories could win without a single seat in Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Hull, Leeds, Leicester, Sheffield, Bradford or Cardiff. The only major cities where they would have any seats are London and, perhaps, Bristol and Wolverhampton. So there's no reason why they should care about people in the major cities if they can win an election without their votes.

 

Depressingly, the Tories are due to get one seat in Greater Manchester - MINE, Altrincham & Sale West -_- Bloody Graham Brady, he came to my school the other day and was apparently quoted as saying that B&B owners had the right to turn away whoever they wanted, regardless of sexuality or race :o

Depressingly, the Tories are due to get one seat in Greater Manchester - MINE, Altrincham & Sale West -_- Bloody Graham Brady, he came to my school the other day and was apparently quoted as saying that B&B owners had the right to turn away whoever they wanted, regardless of sexuality or race :o

 

Oh god, you poor thing. Down here in South West Surrey it's a safe Conservative seat - Jeremy Hunt is like Cameron 2.0 :puke: but still, he seems to keep his nose clean when it comes to those kinds of issues.

 

 

Oh god, you poor thing. Down here in South West Surrey it's a safe Conservative seat - Jeremy Hunt is like Cameron 2.0 :puke: but still, he seems to keep his nose clean when it comes to those kinds of issues.

Actually, not necessarily. The Lib Dems could get SW Surrey off a 5.5% swing - given they're consistently polling at a 7+% swing, that's very doable.

My predictions for next week

 

Conservative - 354

Labour - 165

Lib Dem - 102

Others - 29

 

Conservative majority of 58

 

Cameron (like Ted Heath beforehand) is a (moderate) Peelite and not a (right-wing) Thatcherite, as like his closing statement last night inferred he (at least pays sound bytes) to caring for the poorest in the country and a degree of social welfare. A far cry from the vile old woman's personal and political beliefs.

 

Or may be you have forgotten when he won the eternal Party Leadership election in 2005; when a certain Margaret Thatcher campaigned for her "chosen one" (the Euro-sceptic, homophobic) David Davis who was expected to win the vote who lost in the final battle against David Cameron.

 

Likewise his days at University where he spoke, pointed out in debates against the all too obvious weaknesses of the policies of that vile old witch have made him palatable to a generation of late 30-somethings/early 40-somethings who hate(d) Thatcher with a passion. Whilst since being made leader of his party he has been at pains to stress that he does not agree with many of her old policies and values on numerous occasions. Indeed that is why a number of former Tory councillors switched to UKIP on his appointment, because he was too moderate for them!

 

I personally wanted Liam Fox to win the tory leadership election, Davis (minus the homophobia) represents the more traditional conservative values that I believe in but has an incredibly dull personality that makes Brown seem like Obama in the charisma stakes and Fox at the time was campaigning on a right wing agenda and unfortunately Cameron got chosen but I guess in todays day and age Fox and Davis would not win an election whereas Cameron is about to so I would rather have watered down conservatism than Labour or Lib Dems

Edited May 1, 201015 yr by B.A Baracus

My predictions for next week

 

Conservative - 354

Labour - 165

Lib Dem - 102

Others - 29

 

Conservative majority of 58

 

My optimistic guess:

 

Conservative - 240

Labour - 278

Lib Dem - 103

Others - 29

 

More pessimistically:

 

Conservative - 310

Labour - 218

Lib Dem - 93

Others - 29

 

A hung parliament is all but inevitable, I would be mortified if Cameron got a majority now but at least I could say in five years time that my first vote helped bring him crashing down ^_^

Edited May 1, 201015 yr by BLVD

Depressingly, the Tories are due to get one seat in Greater Manchester - MINE, Altrincham & Sale West -_- Bloody Graham Brady, he came to my school the other day and was apparently quoted as saying that B&B owners had the right to turn away whoever they wanted, regardless of sexuality or race :o

They won't win anything in Manchester itself though.

They won't win anything in Manchester itself though.

 

True, we up north have some sense :D

 

That we look down on Rochdale and the like says it all, the general consensus here was that this woman WAS a bigot but Gordon should have said it to her face :P

I stand corrected, you are entirely wrong. There hasn't been a vote in the Scottish parliament. The other parties are calling on the SNP to name it's minimum price ahead of a first vote according to the paper today.

 

So you can shove your anti-Liberal Democrat agenda up Camerons arse.

You recent posts in this thread wouldn't look out of place in the Scum or the News of the World. A paper so bias it's incredible people actually read it seriously.

 

How f***ing dare you!!!!!!! That is the f***ing biggest insult anyone can say to me!!!!!! :angry:

 

I hate the News Of The World and The Sun (and therefore Kelvin MacKenzie and a few of his cronies including Gary Bushell & especially that media whore/turncoat Piers Morgan) with a passion after Hillsborough.

 

When you've been in a Sheffield stadia (albeit with the Nottingham Forest supporters, thank god - because it was easier to get a ticket and an old mate of mine at college was a Forest supporter), as a 17 year old a few months before my A-Level exams and seen what I saw, then you you would be f***ing insulted by what you have just said.

 

For the record as you should know via my numerous Charlie Brooker references I'm a Guardian reader (although when they don't have it in WHSmiths I buy the Independent). And before you ask, no I'm not going to desert the paper now that it has declared its support to the Liberal Democrats today.

 

But I'm old enough and intelligent enough to make my own opinion up on things.

 

But Clegg's Party pro-European; pro-Euro; pro-immigration policies; Nuclear disarmament policies are a disaster waiting to happen IMHO. A far cry from the days of Paddy Ashdown when they had far more sensible moderate policies.

 

Clegg's Liberal Democrats are a naive Utopian idealism that is completely unrealistic, rendering them unelectable in the real world, because they have so many ideas that are nice in theory/principle, but utterly unworkable in reality.

 

My predictions for next week

 

Conservative - 354

Labour - 165

Lib Dem - 102

Others - 29

 

Conservative majority of 58

Your delusion never ceases to amaze me. The Tories need around 150 gains to get to 354. That would require a swing of roughly 8% from the incumbent if they were to win the first 150 seats on their target list. However, if you assume they won't win any from the Lib Dems they need to get to around number 200 on the list which requires a swing of 10.5% from Labour. Exclude the seats where they start third and which the Lib Dems may well take from Labour and you have to go even further down the list. Add the fact that they may lose some to the Lib Dems and a net gain of 150 seats becomes even more of a pipe dream.

 

I'll post my prediction some time before Monday night.

How f***ing dare you!!!!!!! That is the f***ing biggest insult anyone can say to me!!!!!! :angry:

 

I hate the News Of The World and The Sun (and therefore Kelvin MacKenzie and a few of his cronies including Gary Bushell & especially that media whore/turncoat Piers Morgan) with a passion after Hillsborough.

 

When you've been in a Sheffield stadia (albeit with the Nottingham Forest supporters, thank god - because it was easier to get a ticket and an old mate of mine at college was a Forest supporter), as a 17 year old a few months before my A-Level exams and seen what I saw, then you you would be f***ing insulted by what you have just said.

 

For the record as you should know via my numerous Charlie Brooker references I'm a Guardian reader (although when they don't have it in WHSmiths I buy the Independent). And before you ask, no I'm not going to desert the paper now that it has declared its support to the Liberal Democrats today.

 

But I'm old enough and intelligent enough to make my own opinion up on things.

 

But Clegg's Party pro-European; pro-Euro; pro-immigration policies; Nuclear disarmament policies are a disaster waiting to happen IMHO. A far cry from the days of Paddy Ashdown when they had far more sensible moderate policies.

 

Clegg's Liberal Democrats are a naive Utopian idealism that is completely unrealistic, rendering them unelectable in the real world, because they have so many ideas that are nice in theory/principle, but utterly unworkable in reality.

 

i thought that would gain your attention, i know fine well your objections to the sun/notw. I have no idea who Charlie Brooker is, i don't read the Guardian even if it is a Liberal paper. I prefer to laugh at the tabloids and read the Times as i have Tory leanings but will be voting Liberal Democrat because they are the best choice for me locally. My MP is fantastic [sir Ming Campbell, former LibDem Leader] and has done a lot for my region.

 

I personally am Pro-Europe and Pro-EU. If we left the EU i would be at the German consulate seeing if i could get dual nationality despite being born at a British RAF camp in the country, i'd do the national service to keep my EU Citizen status.

 

As far as i am aware, the scrapping of Trident is referring to tridents £100bn replacement [which is insane, if you cut that that's a nice chuck of our deficit gone]

 

The thing is while they seem unworkable, they really are just looking at things in a different way to the other two ie in a way we aren't used to.

 

 

Now i do have your attention by calling you a sun columnist [sorry for any offence i caused you, i know there will be some] will you answer the original point on the Minimum drink prices? You present me the evidence i'll more than happily admit i was wrong.

Your delusion never ceases to amaze me. The Tories need around 150 gains to get to 354. That would require a swing of roughly 8% from the incumbent if they were to win the first 150 seats on their target list. However, if you assume they won't win any from the Lib Dems they need to get to around number 200 on the list which requires a swing of 10.5% from Labour. Exclude the seats where they start third and which the Lib Dems may well take from Labour and you have to go even further down the list. Add the fact that they may lose some to the Lib Dems and a net gain of 150 seats becomes even more of a pipe dream.

 

I'll post my prediction some time before Monday night.

 

I agree. The maximum the Conservatives can hope for in a pyrrhic victory is around the 280-290 seats mark.

 

Tell you what I'll post a General Election Prediction Game Thread in the Lounge Forum later today/tomorrow.

 

Anyway, this is very significant, a highly respected independent international weekly news and affairs magazine has spoken with their view on this election. And their key point for supporting this particular party is exactly the same as my number one concern:

 

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

General election 2010: The Economist magazine backs the Tories

 

The Conservatives' election campaign received a boost yesterday as The Economist magazine switched its support to the party.

Daily Telegraph.co.uk

Published: 7:30AM BST 01 May 2010

 

The Economist argued that Mr Cameron should be judged over the past four years, having done a 'great deal' to modernise the Tories.

 

Having backed Labour in 2005, an editorial in the latest edition said it was siding with David Cameron because the Tories were the party most committed to scaling back the size of the state.

''The Economist has no ancestral fealty to any party, but an enduring prejudice in favour of liberalism,'' the editorial said.

 

''But in this British election the overwhelming necessity of reforming the public sector stands out.

''It is not just that the budget deficit is a terrifying 11.6% of GDP, a figure that makes tax rises and spending cuts inevitable. Government now accounts for over half the economy, rising to 70% in Northern Ireland. For Britain to thrive, this liberty-destroying Leviathan has to be tackled.

 

''The Conservatives, for all their shortcomings, are keenest to do that; and that is the main reason why we would cast our vote for them.''

 

In the edition out tomorrow, the editorial said the "exciting possibility" that the rise of the Liberal Democrats could lead Britain's "electoral geometry" to be redrawn had "overshadowed" the campaign – taking focus away from policies and party leaders.

 

It argued that Gordon Brown was "underappreciated" for standing firm on Afghanistan, keeping Britain out of the euro and having "mostly made the right decisions" during the economic crisis.

"But a prime minister should not get too much credit for climbing out of a hole he dug himself as chancellor," it added, criticising him for pouring money into the public sector.

"This is a time-bomb of a legacy, and one that Mr Brown is ill-equipped to defuse," it said.

"There are mutterings about choice in Labour's manifesto, but Mr Brown too often reverts to old-fashioned statism."

It described the Government as "tired", criticised Mr Brown's "grim" campaign, and said New Labour has "run its course".

"It is better for the country that Labour has its looming nervous breakdown in opposition. A change of government is essential."

 

The editorial hailed Nick Clegg as "clever and charming" and praised some Liberal Democrat policies on civil liberties and reform of the electoral system.

But it criticised the party's stance on Europe, the Trident nuclear deterrent, tuition fees, opposition to nuclear power and tax.

"This newspaper has been looking for a credible liberal party in Britain for nigh on a century," the editorial said.

"To the extent that elections are holidays from normal politics, Mr Clegg has been a delightful holiday romance for many Britons; but this newspaper does not fancy moving in with him for the next five years."

 

Mr Cameron did not emerge without criticism, however, with the editorial saying the Conservatives "clearly have faults" – a "europhobic fringe" and "exaggerations about Britain's broken society" among them.

The Tory leader is "prone to bouts of complacency", was wrong to oppose the economic stimulus and "has not done enough to convince voters that he is the man to bring change".

But the magazine argued that Mr Cameron should be judged over the past four years, having done a "great deal" to modernise the Tories, and it praised shadow chancellor George Osborne for being the first to commit his party to an austerity programme.

"Since then, like the other parties, the Tories have gone quiet on the question of cuts," it said.

"But, more than their rivals, they are intent on redesigning the state. They would reform the NHS by bringing in more outside providers; their plans to give parents and teachers the right to set up schools are the most radical idea in this election.

 

"Centralisers under Margaret Thatcher, they now want to devolve power to locally elected officials, including mayors and police chiefs. Some of this is clouded in waffle about a Big Society. Other bits do not go far enough: it is foolish to rule out letting for-profit companies run schools and wrong to exempt the NHS from cuts.

"But Mr Cameron is much closer to answering the main question facing Britain than either of his rivals is. In this complicated, perhaps inevitably imperfect election, he would get our vote."

 

 

i thought that would gain your attention, i know fine well your objections to the sun/notw. I have no idea who Charlie Brooker is, i don't read the Guardian even if it is a Liberal paper. I prefer to laugh at the tabloids and read the Times as i have Tory leanings but will be voting Liberal Democrat because they are the best choice for me locally. My MP is fantastic [sir Ming Campbell, former LibDem Leader] and has done a lot for my region.

 

I personally am Pro-Europe and Pro-EU. If we left the EU i would be at the German consulate seeing if i could get dual nationality despite being born at a British RAF camp in the country, i'd do the national service to keep my EU Citizen status.

 

As far as i am aware, the scrapping of Trident is referring to tridents £100bn replacement [which is insane, if you cut that that's a nice chuck of our deficit gone]

 

The thing is while they seem unworkable, they really are just looking at things in a different way to the other two ie in a way we aren't used to.

Now i do have your attention by calling you a sun columnist [sorry for any offence i caused you, i know there will be some] will you answer the original point on the Minimum drink prices? You present me the evidence i'll more than happily admit i was wrong.

 

Please except my apologies, but you touched a bit of a raw nerve. I went to one or two games shortly after Hillsborough. But then I suffered from Glandular Fever in the summer after my A-Levels exams (which doctors put down to stress of my exams and I guess the enormity of what I had seen at the 1989 FA Cup Semi Final). And I went into (what in retrospect was clearly) a post-traumatic stress disorder; whereby I got anxious being in a too crowded environment, and frequently left clubs and bars if they became too full, resulting in me not attending a major Football match between 1990 and 1999.

 

Getting back to the subject in hand, sorry if I come across as belittling you regarding your support of the LibDems. But unfortunately for them due to the nature of British Politics lack of some sort of Proportional Representation system, all their good ideas get nicked by the other two parties, usually leaving them with either impractical or borderline lunatic policies.

 

I greatly admire Sir Ming Campbell - a very decent man (unfortunately in this media driven celebrity culture X-Factor age he is not so great at simple sound bytes), as I did his two predecessors Charles Kennedy (great to see him on the Politics Show with Michael Portillo & Diane Abbott) & Paddy Ashdown. But I don't like Nick Clegg, as he comes across as someone who should be a car or insurance salesman (fully of great sound bytes, but lacking substance). As I think he makes Tony Blair look like the Dr David Owen in comparison. But his behaviour in the three TV debates seems to have worked a treat on the British public to a depressing effect, proving that the Great British public are gullible.

 

And some of the TV interviews with "the man in the street" going on how they are going to vote LibDems because they don't like the other two, and how lovely that Nick Clegg seems to be, even though in some of these interviews they then expose the person they are talking to, to be anti-Immigration & anti-Europe! :lol:

 

And it irritated the hell out of me in the debates going on about how new his party is, when the Whigs (as they were originally known) were formed (1678) the same time as the original Conservative (Tory) Party!

 

But the bottom line is at these elections is, I think everyone on Buzzjack or where ever should vote for the Party that they think will best represent their beliefs, and be of benefit to themselves/their families/their country. As everyone's personal situation is different, then it is only right and proper for posters here to come to different outcomes. It's called democracy.

Yeah, I've sent off my vote - it's a shame I don't live in a three-way marginal, as I voted Tessa Jowell (Labour) almost by default (the Tories would get Dulwich and West Norwood if they had the sort of landslide they need to get a majority), but I might have voted Lib Dem if it was a realistic choice in my constituency.

Please except my apologies, but you touched a bit of a raw nerve. I went to one or two games shortly after Hillsborough. But then I suffered from Glandular Fever in the summer after my A-Levels exams (which doctors put down to stress of my exams and I guess the enormity of what I had seen at the 1989 FA Cup Semi Final). And I went into (what in retrospect was clearly) a post-traumatic stress disorder; whereby I got anxious being in a too crowded environment, and frequently left clubs and bars if they became too full, resulting in me not attending a major Football match between 1990 and 1999.

 

Getting back to the subject in hand, sorry if I come across as belittling you regarding your support of the LibDems. But unfortunately for them due to the nature of British Politics lack of some sort of Proportional Representation system, all their good ideas get nicked by the other two parties, usually leaving them with either impractical or borderline lunatic policies.

 

I greatly admire Sir Ming Campbell - a very decent man (unfortunately in this media driven celebrity culture X-Factor age he is not so great at simple sound bytes), as I did his two predecessors Charles Kennedy (great to see him on the Politics Show with Michael Portillo & Diane Abbott) & Paddy Ashdown. But I don't like Nick Clegg, as he comes across as someone who should be a car or insurance salesman (fully of great sound bytes, but lacking substance). As I think he makes Tony Blair look like the Dr David Owen in comparison. But his behaviour in the three TV debates seems to have worked a treat on the British public to a depressing effect, proving that the Great British public are gullible.

 

And some of the TV interviews with "the man in the street" going on how they are going to vote LibDems because they don't like the other two, and how lovely that Nick Clegg seems to be, even though in some of these interviews they then expose the person they are talking to, to be anti-Immigration & anti-Europe! :lol:

 

And it irritated the hell out of me in the debates going on about how new his party is, when the Whigs (as they were originally known) were formed (1678) the same time as the original Conservative (Tory) Party!

 

But the bottom line is at these elections is, I think everyone on Buzzjack or where ever should vote for the Party that they think will best represent their beliefs, and be of benefit to themselves/their families/their country. As everyone's personal situation is different, then it is only right and proper for posters here to come to different outcomes. It's called democracy.

It's no worries, twas my fault. That sounds awful :( When that was happening my parents were still in Germany and we didn't come back until October of 89 a few months after i was born.

 

The first past the post system is greatly unfair, PR works in Scotland and the only reason we currently have a minority government is because the Greens [with 2 seats] were the only people willing to work with the SNP, everyone else refused on the grounds of their flagship xenophobic policy. [The Scottish Sun had a poll in it on Thurs that showed Lib Dem and SNP equal in polls up here with Labour ahead and Tory a distant 4th] On the plus side, at least the few brilliant ideas they have actually make it onto a ruling parties manifesto. Shame it isn't their own.

 

In North East Fife LibDems are the best choice, not only do we get the fantastic Sir Ming who has been the MP for longer than i've been alive, but their MSP is brilliant as well. It's a shame he stood down as he was seen to be 'too old' i hope that he might make the cabinet in a coalition government as he spent quite some time as the depty leader and as the Liberals Foreign affairs spokesman [almost a decade]

 

:lol: Nice to see how educated the british public are on the third party.

 

In all fairness, the Liberal Democrats are a 'new' party, they formed from a merger a few years back. Sir Ming originally won NEFife as a Liberal MP [AFAIK]

 

I agree, not everyone on this forum was going to have the same or similar political views.

In North East Fife LibDems are the best choice, not only do we get the fantastic Sir Ming who has been the MP for longer than i've been alive, but their MSP is brilliant as well. It's a shame he stood down as he was seen to be 'too old' i hope that he might make the cabinet in a coalition government as he spent quite some time as the depty leader and as the Liberals Foreign affairs spokesman [almost a decade]

I remember when Ming first won the seat so you're making me feel really old :(

I remember when Ming first won the seat so you're making me feel really old :(

He won it 2years and just under 2months before i was born if that helps? May 87 he won it and i wasn't born until June 89, and didn't move to Fife/The UK till Oct 89. He's the only MP i've known and a bloody good one at that.