Strokes Posted 28 March 2015 Posted 28 March 2015 Everything these guys do is rehearsed. Cameron is just more convincing in it. I think Ed gets flustered trying to remember his lines. I bet his aides tested Hell Yeah, and found people think it makes the person saying seem more relatable and 'tougher'. Being tougher is clearly something he is working on. He just isn't convincing, he comes across as on the edge of being uncontrolled, rather than a strong leader.Apparently he was coached by a top yank before the interview, I would give credit to hell yeah to him/her.
Merging Cultures Posted 28 March 2015 Posted 28 March 2015 Apparently he was coached by a top yank before the interview, I would give credit to hell yeah to him/her.Interesting http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/steerpike/2015/03/has-ed-miliband-been-spending-10000-a-day-on-obama-debate-coach/I'm surprised he didn't teach him more Jamaican slang, given America and Jamaica are apparently synonymous!
Merging Cultures Posted 28 March 2015 Posted 28 March 2015 Don't think Kay Burley added anything to the programme other than show her inherent bias to Cameron. Perhaps what you surmised was more to do with how Ed is leading the Labour party rather than her bias to Cameron? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11497875/David-Camerons-biggest-worry-tonight-is-Ed-Miliband-looking-prime-ministerial.html Kay Burley’s political allegiances have also been raised – she once said Gordon Brown had done a “fantastic job” as prime minister
MooseBreath Posted 28 March 2015 Posted 28 March 2015 No wonder Cameron wouldn't answer about where the welfare savings were coming from: http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32084722 Why "no wonder"? Doesn't seem a particularly shocking set of options. In fact they all seem perfectly reasonable. The only one that sounds a bit questionable is carers allowance, because nobody wants to imagine that someone needing care will no longer be cared for, but that's a bit misleading because any carer who still needs benefits will still get them, they'll just be called something else.
Buce Posted 28 March 2015 Posted 28 March 2015 Why "no wonder"? Doesn't seem a particularly shocking set of options. In fact they all seem perfectly reasonable. The only one that sounds a bit questionable is carers allowance, because nobody wants to imagine that someone needing care will no longer be cared for, but that's a bit misleading because any carer who still needs benefits will still get them, they'll just be called something else. 'No wonder' because he knows that not everybody thinks the way you do. It is a minority of voters who are happy to see austerity targeting the sick, disabled, and the working poor.
Hirsty The Blue 94 Posted 28 March 2015 Posted 28 March 2015 Perhaps what you surmised was more to do with how Ed is leading the Labour party rather than her bias to Cameron? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11497875/David-Camerons-biggest-worry-tonight-is-Ed-Miliband-looking-prime-ministerial.html Kay Burley’s political allegiances have also been raised – she once said Gordon Brown had done a “fantastic job” as prime minister That quote must have been taken when she was pissed up . In all seriousness though if you watch it back Kay was much more interrogative of Miliband than she was of Cameron for whatever reason, which is why it came across as an unbalanced performance. Whether that was intentional or not only she knows where her current political allegiances lay. Even the questions 'selected' from the audience in that Burley segment were much more personal towards Ed than they were to Cameron. They asked Ed 'why are you so gloomy' but didn't ask David anything like 'How can a pompous Tory boy career politician be in touch with the electorate.' Despite classing myself as a Labour supporter I'm not sure I can cast a vote for them in May with Balls as the potential chancellor after his role in why we have such austerity for the past 5 years. I actually think Thursday night showed Miliband as being much more forceful than he has ever been, but in the actual debates against the other leaders in the coming weeks I think we will see him struggle to impose himself.
Guest MattP Posted 28 March 2015 Posted 28 March 2015 'No wonder' because he knows that not everybody thinks the way you do. It is a minority of voters who are happy to see austerity targeting the sick, disabled, and the working poor. How on earth has austerity targeted the working poor? The working poor are being taken out of the tax bracket more this term than from any other.
MooseBreath Posted 28 March 2015 Posted 28 March 2015 How on earth has austerity targeted the working poor? The working poor are being taken out of the tax bracket more this term than from any other. Same applies to the benefits for the disabled. The proposed change will make benefits eligible for income tax, but increases to the tax free allowance will mitigate that for the poorest. Only the wealthiest disabled people will suffer. Besides if you care about disabled people like I do then you should be about giving them opportunities to contribute and live normal lives, not throwing money at them to keep them quiet.
Buce Posted 28 March 2015 Posted 28 March 2015 How on earth has austerity targeted the working poor? The working poor are being taken out of the tax bracket more this term than from any other. Raising the tax threshold is just an enormous con: for every £1,000 it is raised (and it was less than that) take-home pay increases by £200 per annum. £4 per week. What difference does £4 a week make? It doesn't even cover the changes in council tax relief, never mind changes to tax credits, or the bedroom tax. And if Cameron is telling the truth about the leaked changes (and there is no reason to believe he is) then the only way he's going to make the billions of savings from welfare that he proposes, will be to reduce Working Tax Credits, which again directly hits the working poor.
Buce Posted 28 March 2015 Posted 28 March 2015 Besides if you care about disabled people like I do... Priceless!
Benji Posted 28 March 2015 Posted 28 March 2015 Present for Moosebreath. image.jpg Surely with all the Tory cuts it only needs to be available in a small?
MooseBreath Posted 28 March 2015 Posted 28 March 2015 Raising the tax threshold is just an enormous con: for every £1,000 it is raised (and it was less than that) take-home pay increases by £200 per annum. £4 per week. What difference does £4 a week make? It doesn't even cover the changes in council tax relief, never mind changes to tax credits, or the bedroom tax.The tax free allowance has been increased by £4,000 since this government came to power. Combined with increases to minimum wage, it has resulted in the lowest paid being considerably better off. I've been through the exact numbers before, so can't be bothered to do it again, but from memory it works out to an annual increase in take home pay of more than 5% throughout the course of this term. You might not think that's significant, I doubt those affected would agree. I don't know why you go on to talk about those other benefits and the spare room subsidy. Making work pay means exactly what it means. People who work are better off. People who rely on benefits might not be but that was never the intention. This is not "giveaway Britain" anymore and most people are glad to see the back of that.
Alf Bentley Posted 29 March 2015 Posted 29 March 2015 Not sure if I should put these links in here or in the "Good News" thread..... IDS reckons Cameron WON'T stay for a full second term, if elected, and disputes his list of 3 potential successors (Osborne, May & Boris).... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/11502436/David-Cameron-will-not-serve-full-second-term-says-Iain-Duncan-Smith.html A Sunday Times poll gives Labour a 4% lead and 49% of respondents think Red Ed won the 1st TV debate (v. 34% for Call Me Dave) http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/general-election-2015-labour-gains-fourpoint-lead-over-conservatives-following-tv-debates-10141593.html A very long way to go still, of course...
Hirsty The Blue 94 Posted 29 March 2015 Posted 29 March 2015 Not sure if anyone caught the 'Coalition' show on channel 4 last night. Although largely fabricated it was very interesting and comical at points. Mark Gatiss was absolutely wonderful as Peter Mandelson.
sphericalfox Posted 29 March 2015 Posted 29 March 2015 Not sure if this has been posted here or elsewhere:
Strokes Posted 29 March 2015 Posted 29 March 2015 Not sure if this has been posted here or elsewhere: It was pretty funny, shame Russell brand popped up at the end, to attempt to make a serious point.
Alf Bentley Posted 29 March 2015 Posted 29 March 2015 Not sure if this has been posted here or elsewhere: https://youtu.be/vbLGG5UGEKw
MooseBreath Posted 29 March 2015 Posted 29 March 2015 The funny thing is that will probably actually influence your typical lefty
Carl the Llama Posted 29 March 2015 Posted 29 March 2015 The funny thing is that will probably actually influence your typical lefty Bit of an oxymoron there - if they're already a lefty how can this video influence their vote?
MooseBreath Posted 29 March 2015 Posted 29 March 2015 Bit of an oxymoron there - if they're already a lefty how can this video influence their vote? Not their vote as such, but just their way of thinking, as if a video that intentionally misrepresents the truth actually confirms their beliefs somehow
Carl the Llama Posted 29 March 2015 Posted 29 March 2015 Not their vote as such, but just their way of thinking, as if a video that intentionally misrepresents the truth actually confirms their beliefs somehow Furry muff, but you get the same idiots who just look to have their biases confirmed rather than challenged on each side of the political spectrum. Don't let them stop you enjoying a funny video.
Rincewind Posted 29 March 2015 Posted 29 March 2015 Moose no offence but did you come to the conclusion that the vid 'intentionally misrepresents the truth' before or after you saw it? Just because you disagree with it does not make it wrong.
MooseBreath Posted 29 March 2015 Posted 29 March 2015 Moose no offence but did you come to the conclusion that the vid 'intentionally misrepresents the truth' before or after you saw it? Just because you disagree with it does not make it wrong. Thanks for proving my point, ken.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.