Webbo Posted 4 May 2010 Posted 4 May 2010 Labours most intelligent candidate. : Brown worst PM says Labour candidateA Labour candidate has launched a personal attack on Gordon Brown, saying he is "the worst prime minister we have had in this country". Manish Sood, who is standing in North West Norfolk, added that Mr Brown was a "disgrace". Mr Sood called Labour ministers "corrupt" and said the party had allowed immigration to get too high. Labour said Mr Sood's remarks were "dreadful" and the latest in a series of "bizarre comments" he has made. The party has not suspended him, so as things stand his name will still be on the ballot paper for Labour. 'Owes apology' Mr Sood had been speaking to a local newspaper, Lynn News. He went on to say the prime minister "owes an apology to the people and the Queen". Mr Sood, who is a Labour councillor in Leicester, later told the BBC News Channel that he stood by his comments. "What he [Gordon Brown] is doing is basically making things worse and worse," said Mr Sood. "At the end of the day if he can't do the job properly, he should give it to someone else…it is as simple as that." Mr Sood claimed that some Labour activists in his constituency would be "happy" with his comments, because they were "fed up" with the current situation in the party. "Those who are obviously staunch supporters of Gordon Brown will feel affected, but those who want to change and those who believe in true social moral values are obviously on my side," Mr Sood added. David Collis, chairman of North West Norfolk Constituency Labour Party, said Mr Sood did not represent their views. "Manish has been divorced from this campaign for some time, but clearly determined to get as much attention for himself as possible," said Mr Collis. "Despite having such a dreadful candidate, loyal Labour members will continue to put the case for Gordon Brown as the best man to take Britain forward." He added: "We are fully in support of Gordon Brown as leader of our party and of the excellent campaign he is running."
Daggers Posted 4 May 2010 Posted 4 May 2010 Labours most intelligent candidate. Is that from that bias news organisation which always skews everything against the Tories?
Webbo Posted 4 May 2010 Posted 4 May 2010 Is that from that bias news organisation which always skews everything against the Tories? Typical, if a Tory candidate had said that it would never have been reported.
Guest Bilo Posted 4 May 2010 Posted 4 May 2010 One bright side if the Tories win. The last time we won the play-offs a Tory government was in power. Every cloud.
Shrenchel Posted 4 May 2010 Posted 4 May 2010 One bright side if the Tories win. The last time we won the play-offs a Tory government was in power. Every cloud. England only ever win the World Cup under Labour though.
dandannieldanok Posted 4 May 2010 Posted 4 May 2010 I know polls mean shit all at the end of the day but they can make interesting reading. YouGov have got the Tories holding a lead (albeit not large enough I'm afraid Dave) at 35%, Labour actually rising to 30%, Lib Dems falling away quite badly to 24%. Duffy-gate really hasn't had a negative effect at all.
Joe. Posted 4 May 2010 Posted 4 May 2010 I think I have an idea who I'm going for now on the basis that I can't bring myself to vote for the other two.
hairy Posted 4 May 2010 Posted 4 May 2010 The BBC does produce some quality programming, but you have to ask yourself what a tax payer funded organisation is doing covering such an huge range of activities, channels and langauges. It has grown well outside it's remit and needs to be severely cut. Bollox! The huge wealth of media you get for your annual fee is amazing! The programmes, the radio, the t'interweb, the world service. The rest of the media pale into insignificance for the value. They make so much by producing quality programmes and selling them to the world. There is no other channel in the world that can boast their success. And by the way, the tax payer has nothing to do with it!
Jon the Hat Posted 4 May 2010 Posted 4 May 2010 Bollox! The huge wealth of media you get for your annual fee is amazing! The programmes, the radio, the t'interweb, the world service. The rest of the media pale into insignificance for the value. They make so much by producing quality programmes and selling them to the world. There is no other channel in the world that can boast their success. And by the way, the tax payer has nothing to do with it! The taxpayer is paying for it. Try not paying your license fee and you will soon realise it is a tax like all the rest. The funding method just makes it harder for the competition to make any money from their work, and frankly it is unfair. The Brilliant parts of the BBC are more than good enough to stand on their own as subscription services and should do so.
Zingari Posted 5 May 2010 Posted 5 May 2010 I'm undecided , Running this great country is far too complicated to allow us a vote on who should do it . anyway If we are not intelligent enough to allow for referenda on single issues such as the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty , how can we possibly be intelligent enough to vote for a government that has to deal with not only this, but a whole raft of other issues that are too complicated for us to understand ? It's madness . ( Even the countries that did allow referenda on the treaty, were only allowed on the express understanding that the vote was eventually for ratification ) We end up just voting for who we like best , who we've always voted for , who gets the best media portrayal or who just happens to say the right things on the right day, and afterwards the elected government becomes just a puppet in the grand scheme of the globalists anyway
Guest Bilo Posted 5 May 2010 Posted 5 May 2010 Bollox! The huge wealth of media you get for your annual fee is amazing! The programmes, the radio, the t'interweb, the world service. The rest of the media pale into insignificance for the value. They make so much by producing quality programmes and selling them to the world. There is no other channel in the world that can boast their success. And by the way, the tax payer has nothing to do with it! Completely agree. I shudder to think how much that kind of service would set you back if it was in the private sector, especially if it was advert-free as the BBC is.
Jon the Hat Posted 5 May 2010 Posted 5 May 2010 It's a public service and presents in an unbiased fashion. It makes such a welcome break from the vested interest driven news of ITV and SKY. It may have it's failings but is still a damn sight better than anything else. I don't think cuts need made - the BBC provides a massive and disparate range of programming to accommodate most sections of society thereby fulfilling its remit. Channel 4 is a close second to the BBC in terms of quality programming and news (I think they are subsidised too ). It is no more unbiased than those two, just in a different direction. The BBC is notoriously liberal leaning, anti american and pro palestinian. What makes you think the BBC doesn't have vested interests? There are other motivators than money. The BBC should not and does not have the remit to move into every area it possibly can just becuase it can. Take for example the BBC Website. Why? Why is it there? It has moved into this space with no oversight, and provides for free, Worldwide, a service which anyone else has to make money from. This is clearly not fair on other players in the market.
hairy Posted 5 May 2010 Posted 5 May 2010 It is no more unbiased than those two, just in a different direction. The BBC is notoriously liberal leaning, anti american and pro palestinian. What makes you think the BBC doesn't have vested interests? There are other motivators than money. The BBC should not and does not have the remit to move into every area it possibly can just becuase it can. Take for example the BBC Website. Why? Why is it there? It has moved into this space with no oversight, and provides for free, Worldwide, a service which anyone else has to make money from. This is clearly not fair on other players in the market. But you just said we were taxed for it............................ I would rather pay £145.50 per year for the BBC and what I consider unbiased (as it can be) coverage in al the mediums than £480 per year for American TV on Sky. I do not consider it unfair. The British people (who have TVs) pay for it and expect it to meet their needs. That is what it does hence the diversity that you criticise. If it fooks others off then too bad. Why should it change because others find it difficult to make money in that area, well they need to provide something unique and appealing. Rupert Murdoch is waging war on the BBC as they provide a 'free' service. He realises his empire of newspapers is doomed thanks to the internet and wants to charge people to read his websites instead. The only way he can do this is to take out the opposition so he buys them. But he cannot buy the BBC. He has forced many changes at the BBC in recent years including them giving part of their licence fee to other broadcasters but still he goes on. The only way he can take the next step is if the Torys win and he calls back his 'favours'. The BBC have already geared up for this by looking to axe 6Music and the Asian Network, two relatively popular channels compared to 1 Extra. They have now created a public uproar by announcing this with the people stating don't cut our services, you work for us etc etc. The only way they will be cut is by the government stepping in saying they have to and I would suggest there is only one possible government who will go in the face of public opinion and do that to help their major donator. The BBC is one of the very few things left that I feel being British I can be proud of.
FoxyPV Posted 5 May 2010 Posted 5 May 2010 It is no more unbiased than those two, just in a different direction. The BBC is notoriously liberal leaning, anti american and pro palestinian. What makes you think the BBC doesn't have vested interests? There are other motivators than money. The BBC should not and does not have the remit to move into every area it possibly can just becuase it can. Take for example the BBC Website. Why? Why is it there? It has moved into this space with no oversight, and provides for free, Worldwide, a service which anyone else has to make money from. This is clearly not fair on other players in the market. :crylaugh: :crylaugh: :crylaugh: :crylaugh: Thank you, Jon. You have made my day. It's been a long time since I've heard such utter bollox.
Webbo Posted 5 May 2010 Posted 5 May 2010 The BBC does have an unfair advantage in the fact that it has a guaranteed income and it cannot go bust. It's no different from any business trying to compete with somebody that gives away their product or service for free, obviously the business that charges will eventually go bust. We could end up with a situation in a few years time when there is only 1 provider of news in this country that decides which issues it covers and what spin it puts on those stories. That's bad for democracy.
Shrenchel Posted 5 May 2010 Posted 5 May 2010 The BBC does have an unfair advantage in the fact that it has a guaranteed income and it cannot go bust. It's no different from any business trying to compete with somebody that gives away their product or service for free, obviously the business that charges will eventually go bust. We could end up with a situation in a few years time when there is only 1 provider of news in this country that decides which issues it covers and what spin it puts on those stories. That's bad for democracy. Bollocks we could. There's been a massive proliferation in the places you can get news from in recent years and that'll only increase as technology continues to develop.
Guest DavidJCW Posted 5 May 2010 Posted 5 May 2010 Don't forget to head over to the final campaign day poll to cast your vote. http://www.foxestalk.co.uk/forums/index.php?showtopic=65817
hairy Posted 5 May 2010 Posted 5 May 2010 Don't forget to head over to the final campaign day poll to cast your vote. http://www.foxestalk.co.uk/forums/index.php?showtopic=65817 Will BBC or Sky be covering the results?
Guest DavidJCW Posted 5 May 2010 Posted 5 May 2010 Will BBC or Sky be covering the results? Hopefully the BBC... no stupid ad breaks!
Dr The Singh Posted 5 May 2010 Posted 5 May 2010 Hopefully the BBC... no stupid ad breaks! It's either Al Jazeera or the God Channel!!!!
breadandcheese Posted 5 May 2010 Posted 5 May 2010 Taking this back on topic, whoever wins the elections, even if by a majority, will not have a mandate for the necessary spending cuts and tax rises that are necessary to get our country's debts under control. All three major parties have hidden and shied away from discussing what needs to be done, instead arguing over window-dressing such as cutting trident, efficiency gains, etc. Today, Gordon Brown is still peddling this Tory cuts versus Labour investment routine, even though it has been shown by the IFS to be completely bogus. Indeed, the IFS are the only ones to come out with any credit in my book as they've attacked all the three parties over how misleading they're being by hiding the future pain. Now I know the obvious answer is that you don't get elected by spelling out spending cuts and tax rises but this is one of the most serious postwar elections this country has faced and effectively whichever of the three parties wins wins will struggle to carry the country with them when taking drastic action to correct our enormous debts. This is actually why I favour a hung parliament so that we can have some kind of national unity situation so that action is fully supported and there is no making of political capital by whoever forms the opposition, when when the action is necessary and unavoidable. I don't know if anyone watched the channel four panel show the other day discussing the bits of the election that none of the major parties want to discuss. It had former cabinet ministers and civil servants who could discuss the situation openly as they were not campaigning and did not have to tow any party line. It's an hour and a half but well worth a watch to give an idea of the scale facing the country (far better than the usual guff on question time).
Zingari Posted 5 May 2010 Posted 5 May 2010 this threat of mass unemployment could cause a big swing to the tories http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/election2010/2959490/Save-these-girls-brfrom-dole-queue.html
Jon the Hat Posted 5 May 2010 Posted 5 May 2010 Taking this back on topic, whoever wins the elections, even if by a majority, will not have a mandate for the necessary spending cuts and tax rises that are necessary to get our country's debts under control. The fact is the British people still want to be bribed with their own money, even when it has run out. (Quote from an article in the Times which I cannot be bothered to find).
Benji Posted 5 May 2010 Posted 5 May 2010 Oh how watching events in Greece makes me wish we'd listened to the lib dems and joined the Euro, it's just not fair that we're not helping germany in paying the bill
Alexikokopops Posted 5 May 2010 Posted 5 May 2010 Oh how watching events in Greece makes me wish we'd listened to the lib dems and joined the Euro, it's just not fair that we're not helping germany in paying the bill Conversely, though, couldn't it have aided us when we were going through the mire? I have no idea, I'm just speculating.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.