"Tory scum, here we come"

First topic message reminder :

I was at the DEMO in Manchester 29th September, my thread title was the chant from around 80,000 people, 40,000 inside the park and 40,000 OUTSIDE. We were kettled so we could not get into the park. IMHO the police were on instructions from the Tory gov't so people would not see 'THE TIDE TURNNG' against this VILE NASTY gov't.   People came from Aberdeen to Somerset and everywhere else in between and we were WELCOMED by the people who live in Manchester and some even joined in the march. There were BANNERS flying high from every Union within the UK; one which really caught my eye was from the N.U.S. from HALLAM SHEFFIELD, Cleggy's seat. (Just in case some on here may not know what NUS stands for it's 'National Union of Students'.)  It's been three & a half years and they have not forgot what the Prostitute party did to them with their signed photo pledge.
 
I myself want to thank the Unite Union here in Glasgow, Jack, Angela, Jackie, Sandra and everyone else on the coach from John Smith House to Manchester, this was my first DEMO and there are plenty more to come. I hear there is one in October and I will be there by hook or by crook because it gave me hope that at last the people in the UK 'HAVE AWAKENED FROM THEIR SLEEP'. There are some posters on here who have thought "would they wake in time?" My answer is a very loud "YES they have". They may have stopped us from getting into the park but we did not miss the Tories outside their conference. They heard us and we made sure with loud hailers, Brass Bands. whistles, rattles and of course our VOICES. They heard us FINE and no doubt Cameron will be worried today, but that is no one else's fault but ours. We were quiet for too long, so I am wondering if there will be more TOILET PAPER used today at their conference??:yeahthat:

Ivan wrote:If it hadn't been for the Liberal Democrats...

Says it all really  

I enjoyed playing with the predictor... My version has the liberals at <20 and Labour an overall majority of 70+. It doesn't think UKIP will win a seat. That would amuse me somewhat. I cannot stand farrage. He reminds me of a Spitting Image puppet  

Dan Fante wrote:It doesn't work like that though. I voted Lib Dem at the last general election and Labour got in where I live with a huge majority (12,000 / something like 30% of the votes polled, i.e. the majority was about 30% of the votes counted). How would voting Labour make a difference or increase their majority? I've already said I'll probably vote for them but that doesn't alter the fact my vote in a GE is comparatively worthless.

If your area is a safe seat for Labour, ok fine, you mention that the majority in the last G.E was roughly 12,000 but how many didn't turn out to vote? 12,000 majority has a clear message but if the percentage of those turning out to vote increases by even just another 1,000 in the area the message becomes crystal clear: People are not taking any risks and ensuring that Labour secure a bigger majority. Labour will as you say take the seat but the message leaves the sting in the tail for the coalition.

I can see the reasoning behind not bothering to vote against the Tory candidate in a place like Bournemouth - which has NEVER delivered anything else to Parliament, but it's an odd decision to abstain because everyone else is voting Labour, "so my vote doesn't count."

How's your family going to know you love them if you never say so?

Bellatori wrote:-
I cannot stand farrage. He reminds me of a Spitting Image puppet  

 
Nigel Farage reminds me of a bombastic character from 'The Wind In The Willows' who was sentenced to twenty years in the slammer for taking and driving away.....

Ivan wrote: Nigel Farage reminds me of a bombastic character from 'The Wind In The Willows' who was sentenced to twenty years in the slammer for taking and driving away.....

 
That is quite different to my opinion Ivan, to me he is just a DISGRUNTLED Tory thinks the same way as them (far right) and has the same Ideology and the UK would do well not to vote for them because they would just get Tory party mark II.:yeahthat:

Deadly Nightshade wrote: If your area is a safe seat for Labour, ok fine, you mention that the majority in the last G.E was roughly 12,000 but how many didn't turn out to vote?  12,000 majority has a clear message but if the percentage of those turning out to vote increases by even just another 1,000 in the area the message becomes crystal clear: People are not taking any risks and ensuring that Labour secure a bigger majority.   Labour will as you say take the seat but the message leaves the sting in the tail for the coalition.  

 
Since when do the Tories care what the North East of England thinks?

 my vote in a GE is comparatively worthless.
 
 
No vote is useless. I live in the leafy lanes of Surrey and am surrounded by Tories. My belief is that if people continually vote tactically, the party of their choice will never get a fair deal. Each time we have an election many people vote tactically in order to give the second highest (normally Lib-Dem) a chance of ousting the present incumbents, by doing this the Labour vote will never get any bigger. If people vote with their consciences and for lets say the Labour party, as the Tories vote shrinks and Labours grows albeit slowly, the day will come when the fence sitters see the Labour party in with a chance of winning and put their cross in the Labour Box.

Indeed bobby, too many "fence sitters" do Labour no favours. As you know I have always thought this.

"Since when do the Tories care what the North East of England thinks?."

Never have,never will.
Salt of the earth those in the North East IME.

bobby wrote: my vote in a GE is comparatively worthless.
 
 
No vote is useless. I live in the leafy lanes of Surrey and am surrounded by Tories. My belief is that if people continually vote tactically, the party of their choice will never get a fair deal. Each time we have an election many people vote tactically in order to give the second highest (normally Lib-Dem) a chance of ousting the present incumbents, by doing this the Labour vote will never get any bigger. If people vote with their consciences and for lets say the Labour party, as the Tories vote shrinks and Labours grows albeit slowly, the day will come when the fence sitters see the Labour party in with a chance of winning and put their cross in the Labour Box.

the 2015 election will not be a fair vote because the stakes are too high. The overriding priority is the removal of this current government. Labour are coasting because they know this, while pandering to the same media led opinions as the tories. I am absolutely disappointed in the useless Rachel Reeves, Miliband couldn't lead his way out of a paper bag, and Balls is a waste of space. But they are not the tories, and that's - for now - all that matters. But if people are expecting them to instigate real change and real improvements I think they will be bitterly disappointed.

ghost whistler wrote:-
Miliband couldn't lead his way out of a paper bag

 
Clement Attlee wasn’t photogenic and didn’t peddle soundbites and bullshit in the way that Winston Churchill did. Churchill would regularly mock Attlee, calling him such things as “a sheep in sheep's clothing” and “a modest man, who has much to be modest about”. He also quipped that “an empty taxi arrived at 10 Downing Street, and when the door was opened, Attlee got out”.
 
All very funny, but the underestimated Attlee was arguably the best Prime Minister this country has ever had, and in three successive general elections more people voted for him and Labour than voted for Churchill and the Tories. Attlee only lost power in 1951 – when Labour won nearly two million more votes than in 1945 – because of our quirky electoral system.
 
Time will tell if I’m right, but I think Ed Miliband has also been underestimated. He has stood up to Murdoch, the banks, the energy companies and ‘The Daily Mail’, and he also stopped a UK attack on Syria. Please give the man a chance!
 
You might consider that this article is worth a read:-
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/azeem-ibrahim/ed-miliband-strong-leader_b_3661956.html

QUOTE: "I think Ed Miliband has also been underestimated."

The comparison with Attlee may be a fair one - capable and honest without being flashy. The last two Labour Prime Ministers have betrayed a not entirely desirable Prima Donna tendency.

Ivan wrote: Clement Attlee wasn’t photogenic and didn’t peddle soundbites and bullshit in the way that Winston Churchill did. Churchill would regularly mock Attlee, calling him such things as “a sheep in sheep's clothing” and “a modest man, who has much to be modest about”. He also quipped that “an empty taxi arrived at 10 Downing Street, and when the door was opened, Attlee got out”.
 
All very funny, but the underestimated Attlee was arguably the best Prime Minister this country has ever had, and in three successive general elections more people voted for him and Labour than voted for Churchill and the Tories. Attlee only lost power in 1951 – when Labour won nearly two million more votes than in 1945 – because of our quirky electoral system.
 
Time will tell if I’m right, but I think Ed Miliband has also been underestimated. He has stood up to Murdoch, the banks, the energy companies and ‘The Daily Mail’, and he also stopped a UK attack on Syria. Please give the man a chance!

 
Miliband hasn't stood up to anything. A 20 month freeze is nothing. It's a pathetic sop to the electorate. He should be talking about renationalisation. Nothing less. Granted he stood against the insanity of military action on Syria, but that's all. Even then he didn't rule out military action he simply argued to wait for the final report.
 
You argue that I'm being unfair, yet the Labour oppositions hasn't been silent. They are being judged on their words and deeds. it's taken them this long to say they will repeal the BT, meanwhile labour councillors are using the situation to enforce this policy to score points. They are still in bed with the likes of Unum who have dictated welfare policy in this country for too long. Getting rid of this vile Reeves woman would be a start.
 
I don't have a choice as to who to vote for in 2015, but I don't have to like it. Maybe Miliband will start acting like a socialist and not a red tory, but so far the Labour party has proven to be completely hopeless in opposition. They have been completely sidelined on almost every issue by the tories because they fight for the same political space.

Ivan wrote: The underestimated Attlee was arguably the best Prime Minister this country has ever had, and in three successive general elections more people voted for him and Labour than voted for Churchill and the Tories. Attlee only lost power in 1951 – when Labour won nearly two million more votes than in 1945 – because of our quirky electoral system.
 
Time will tell if I’m right, but I think Ed Miliband has also been underestimated. He has stood up to Murdoch, the banks, the energy companies and ‘The Daily Mail’, and he also stopped a UK attack on Syria. Please give the man a chance!

 
The difference was that Attlee was essentially a Chairman, not a Fuhrer. We had a democracy.

bobby wrote: my vote in a GE is comparatively worthless.
 
 
No vote is useless. I live in the leafy lanes of Surrey and am surrounded by Tories. My belief is that if people continually vote tactically, the party of their choice will never get a fair deal. Each time we have an election many people vote tactically in order to give the second highest (normally Lib-Dem) a chance of ousting the present incumbents, by doing this the Labour vote will never get any bigger. If people vote with their consciences and for lets say the Labour party, as the Tories vote shrinks and Labours grows albeit slowly, the day will come when the fence sitters see the Labour party in with a chance of winning and put their cross in the Labour Box.

I didn't say it was useless, did I? I said it was comparatively worthless; which it obviously is where I live, in the context of the current voting system. I.e. people in other constituencies have more say. Sorry to repeat myself but you seem to be ignoring the points I've previously made in this thread. I've also made it clear that I have voted in the past and will probably do so at the next election. I have never voted tactically either. So I'm not sure what your point is in relation to my posts in this thread (you did quote me).

Anyhoo, I think some interesting points on voter apathy, amongst other things, are raised here:

I always thought Russell Brand was a complete and utter pillock.   I may have to have a bit of a rethink.  

I'm not his greatest fan by any means but I saw that posted elsewhere and I was pleasantly surprised by it.

George Carlin had it right: the people that don't vote aren't the ones responsible for putting scumbags into power knowing what they will do.

Thank you Dan for that Paxman vs Brand interview.

IMO although he says he is "not a voter" he sounds like a true Labour thinker. Rather impressed with his thinking.

I would love to see an interview between Brand and Mr"con man"
Cameron. Cameron would be torn to shreds.
Unfortunately it would never be allowed to happen.

"George Carlin had it right: the people that don't vote aren't the ones responsible for putting scumbags into power knowing what they will do.."

Apathy is dangerous ghost, as it IMO can assist Tories into power.

The current situation is a direct consequence of Voter apathy in 2010.

"A plague on all your houses" is a curse that includes those who utter it.

Mel wrote:"George Carlin had it right: the people that don't vote aren't the ones responsible for putting scumbags into power knowing what they will do.."

Apathy is dangerous ghost, as it IMO can assist Tories into power.

As distinct from 'letting Labour in"   

You might like to look at the following data analysis of the last election. The real worry for Labour is the line near the bottom that says
C2 41 25 25 9 (Con Lab LD Other)

This is the analysis for Women voters. A, B, C1 all show a Tory preference but C2 is almost 2:1. What is it about Labour that women are less than keen on. This group C2 is identified as 'The skilled Working Class'. You would expect them to be solidly Labour.

Do women ever seriously "organise" in a political sense, Bellatori? If they ever did, they could probably take over governing the Country.

But that doesn't seem to be what they want.

Russell Brand, eh?

Just goes to show what can be done if you get off the funny stuff and apply yourself. If only he could curtail the outwardly-displayed emotion just a little , slow down on the delivery, and package the compelling bits by adopting a bit more 'collar and tie', we might have a more valuable and persuasive icon.

But a good base from which to work...

Dan Fante. Wow, thanks for that video, really powerful stuff from Russell Brand. It’s always good to hear someone with real fire in their belly, in preference to so many career politicians.
 
Brand was born in 1975, the year that Thatcher became leader of the Tories. He said that “when I was a child she was just a strict woman telling everyone off and selling everything”. I must say I’ve never liked him, and the sick stunt he pulled on Andrew Sachs was beyond the pale. More recently, he's cracked jokes about how boring it was to have sex with Katy Perry when he was married to her. However, he writes very well and makes some shrewd and pertinent comments, as these comments show:-
 
"Norman Tebbit, one of Thatcher's acolytes and fellow 'Munsters evacuee', said when the National Union of Mineworkers eventually succumbed to the military onslaught and starvation over which she presided: "We didn't just break the strike, we broke the spell." The spell he was referring to is the unseen bond that connects us all and prevents us from being subjugated by tyranny. The spell of community."

"When all the public amenities were flogged, the adverts made it seem to my childish eyes fun and positive, jaunty slogans and affable British stereotypes jostling about in villages, selling people companies that they'd already paid for through tax."

"If you can't criticise Hugo Boss at the GQ awards because they own the event, do you think it is significant that energy companies donate to the Tory Party? Will that affect government policy? Will the relationships that 'politician of the year' Boris Johnson has with City bankers – he took many more meetings with them than public servants in his first term as mayor – influence the way he runs our capital?"

"Is it any wonder that Amazon, Vodafone and Starbucks avoid paying tax when they enjoy such cosy relationships with members of our government?"
 
I part company with Brand on two counts. Firstly, by not voting he helps to allow scum like Iain Duncan Smith to gain power and inflict immense cruelty on the poor, sick and disabled. Tories will “hold their noses” and vote, however detestable they may find some aspects of their party and its leaders (don’t believe for one minute that there will be a mass exodus to UKIP in 2015).
 
Secondly, Brand wants to see a revolution in the UK. Sometimes revolutions improve the lot of a nation’s people, as in Cuba, which can be proud of its educational standards and improvements in healthcare since the overthrow of Batista in 1959, despite sanctions from the USA. However, history shows that revolutions often replace one tyranny with another, as they did in France in 1789. After the ‘Reign of Terror’, which even saw the brilliant chemist Antoine Lavoisier guillotined (“the Republic needs neither scientists nor chemists”), France descended into a military dictatorship under Napoleon. Nevertheless, these articles by Brand are, in my opinion, well worth reading:-
 
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/apr/09/russell-brand-margaret-thatcher
 
http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2013/sep/13/russell-brand-gq-awards-hugo-boss

A few years ago, there were people who thought of Vince Cable as saviour of the nation.

I have always thought of Russell Brand as a highly intelligent individual displaying symptoms of a severe underlying mental health problem (bipolar illness or ADHD) which often leads him into very regrettable behaviour - the very fluent and cogent arguments in the above clip seem to me to bear out this thesis

"This is the analysis for Women voters. A, B, C1 all show a Tory preference but C2 is almost 2:1."

Bell, firstly women read the Daily Mail in their masses. There are I am told by my wife that there are some interesting femanine articles in the rag. Whilst reading these articles, it would be impossible for them to miss the Tory propaganda machine at work via the rag.
Second, they did not like Brown's looks, (very important to women, looks) Perhaps why Clegg received votes from women.

Now that many have been hit by Tory policies in many circumstances, add their dislike of Cameron's arrogance and now having seen so much of the toff recently, day after day on the TV news, perhaps his face does not now fit.

I realise that you are not a Tory Bell however, I have to say that often you sound like one, with respect of course.

"I have always thought of Russell Brand as a highly intelligent individual"
I have thought the opposite boatlady, thinking Brand to be an uncouth drug takijg idiot. I have now had to change my mind having seen that interview with old Paxo. 

Mel wrote:(very important to women, looks)

You'd never find a man who'd be easily won over by someone's appearance. This is why there are no attractive women in the media being used to advertise things and so on

"This is why there are no attractive women in the media being used to advertise things and so on ."

May I suggest a swift visit to Specsavers Dan?  

Mel wrote:...Bell, firstly women read the Daily Mail in their masses. There are I am told by my wife that there are some interesting feminine articles in the rag. Whilst reading these articles, it would be impossible for them to miss the Tory propaganda machine at work via the rag. Second, they did not like Brown's looks, (very important to women, looks) Perhaps why Clegg received votes from women.

...and how did your wife respond when you pointed out how shallow she is being swayed by the Tory propaganda machine at work and by Clegg's good looks.? Do you get through a lot of wives I wonder?  

Mel wrote:I realise that you are not a Tory Bell however, I have to say that often you sound like one, with respect of course.

I presume that comment is because I think about things and do not automatically worship at the altar of left wing dogma.

My wife Bell takes the Daily Tory rag to see what the devils are up to by counting the lies printed. She is very well educated and takes politics seriously. I was talking about the masses and not the missus who incidentally reads your posts with a big grin and says "some people can never be satisfied with any political party. These are the ones who are in danger of putting this evil lot back in in 2015."
 
I'm sure she does not include you Bell.

Never been much of a fan of Russell Brand, but watched his Newsnight interview and found I agreed with a great deal of what he was saying and the passion in which he delivered it..and this is coming from a Tory

Perhaps there is a place for Mr Brand to continue on this path, either as an MP, or at the very least a political interviewer who would not tow the party lines when interviewing politicians

People change, and there's always hope. Otherwise we'd all be tories, dead, or both.

Mel wrote:My wife Bell takes the Daily Tory rag to see what the devils are up to by counting the lies printed. She is very well educated and takes politics seriously. I was talking about the masses and not the missus who incidentally reads your posts with a big grin and says "some people can never be satisfied with any political party. These are the ones who are in danger of putting this evil lot back in in 2015."
 
I'm sure she does not include you Bell.

Well that post came across as a man furiously typing whilst trying to appease his wife who is reading over his shoulder.   ... Oh and I'm sure she doesn't  

The question then is ... Which evil lot? The evil Tories (capital T) or the other evil tories (small t). At least we can be reasonably certain it won't be the pathetically evil Clegg or 666 Farrage    

oftenwrong wrote:A few years ago, there were people who thought of Vince Cable as saviour of the nation.

 
Now we know different OW,he is nothing more than a Tory lackey doing whatever Osborne and Cameron tell him to do, like selling off our Royal Mail for peanuts.

We can only hope that the majority will speak with a single voice in May 2015, Redflag.

"the other evil tories (small t). " Indeed Bell, (The Tories Capital T)
Clegg and Co (tories small t). Then of course we have Labour and the silly Farrage lot.
No choice but to go with Labour as overall you must know it makes sense, even though you undoubtably " think about things".   

"People change, and there's always hope. Otherwise we'd all be tories, dead, or both.."

Good point Penderyn, perish the thought, "dead and a Tory" No heaven in that case.