Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > UK forums  > The Great Debate      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Jo van
Joined: 5/23/2009
Msg: 2
The Great DebatePage 1 of 8    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8)
I thought Brown was his usual "awkward in public" self,
I thought Cameron was a shiny faced podgy toff, who is only ever contrived and image conscious, with the usual lack of substance.
And Clegg was quite believable.

I was disappointed that no-one picked up on the fact that Cameron blushed when talking about the expenses scandal, and I would have liked to have seen Brown go for the jugular and ask him why the taxpayer pays over a grand a month for cameron's constituency home's mortgage, when he has an estimated £30 million of his own money, and doesn't need a fcuking mortgage!
He's as dishonest as the day is long.....£140,000 in 5 years , £21,000 a year of our money!
see his house here:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-556290/MPs-expenses-list-reveals-David-Cameron-used-claim-21-000-year-pay-mortgage.html

 Jo van
Joined: 5/23/2009
Msg: 4
The Great Debate
Posted: 4/15/2010 5:13:30 PM

Can you please explain what is 'dishonest' about acting within the parliamentary rules?

After all, the article clearly states:

"There is no suggestion that he broke any rules."


Well he was "parachuted" in to a safe seat, he didn't live there before, and never had.
The Tory party sent him there.
He has a personal wealth of some £30 million
So although not "breaking the rules", he was and is, mercilessly taking the piss!
And why not eh?
The taxpayer pays the mortgage, and he gets to keep the house, so it's another free house!
It just proves what a dishonest little slimeball he is, and only in it for himself!
An extra £140,000 that he didn't need.
I'd call that dishonest, and I hope the voters see through this shallow, vapid, opportunist little creep!

Many operated within "Parliamentary rules" but that doesn't stop the public from seeing through it, and if the "rules" were so good, why are they now being changed?

Oh! And by the way, it was Maggie who dreamed up the "extras" by way of expenses, -just another way of cheating the electorate, because she felt a pay rise for MP's would be "unpopular".
If it hadn't been for this Government's Freedom of Information Act, they would still probably be doing it.
HTH
 Strider886
Joined: 3/28/2006
Msg: 7
view profile
History
The Great Debate
Posted: 4/16/2010 1:41:48 AM
However both were squabbling like school boys, both trying to get one up on eachother.

Brown, usual self.... The guy never changes, for all his faults and failings you can always trust Gordon Brown to be Gordon Brown.

Cameron acting like a c0cky public school boy who's never done a hard days graft it his life. He has no mind of his own, he's unpredictable and in my opinion dangerous.

Clegg was calm, talking common sense and telling us what we want to hear, but showing a great deal of inexperience. Basically he took a knife to a gun fight.



Politicians are like the overly friendly staff at popular American holiday destinations, you see them as either being really nice/trustworthy or if your brain is switched on you see them as being really fake.

 ~Hams~
Joined: 9/18/2008
Msg: 9
view profile
History
The Great Debate
Posted: 4/16/2010 5:23:38 AM
I thought Nick Glegg won the debate on TV last night and spoke very well.

My only concern is that he wasn't questioned about The EU or the single currency.

We all know that The Lib Dems are in favour of both of them which most voters are not.

David Cameron started well but faded in the middle and must do better the next time.

As for Gordon Brown we had the usual rubbish and he wasn't convincing to me at all.

Labour have been in power for 13 years now but have failed to achieve much in that time.
 Jo van
Joined: 5/23/2009
Msg: 11
The Great Debate
Posted: 4/16/2010 5:52:57 AM
So what if he is worth £30 million, next you'll be saying he shouldn't be paid at all as he doesn't need the money. The extra £22,000 a year is available as they have to support two houses, just because Cameron is wealthy doesn't mean that he doesn't incur extra expenses that an extra property incurs.

Yes Pud, it is, but it was designed to allow people who lived too far away, to have a second home in the Capitol. Cameron already has a Home in London, the taxpayer has bought him one in a constituency which is a safe tory seat, so that he gets re-elected now he's leader.

He already lived in London, so why didn't he stand for a seat there?
If he's so good, he should have no problem getting elected anywhere.
If he'd been living in Witney, and then got elected and had to travel to London to work, I could kind of understand it, -although many people commute every day. I have worked in Basingstoke, Aldermarston, and Farnham, and Hour and a half's drive each way, every day, about the same as Witney to London. When you take a job on, you consider the logistics, and decide if it's possible. He lived in London, he should have stood there.
It just smacks of corruption to me.
He was straight from Oxford University and into a job a Tory Central Office, after a phone call from his Godfather, the Queen's Equerry, despite having absolutely no interest in politics, throughout his University life. And then he was 'fast-tracked' through the system, because the Tory Party felt he was "marketable"..
I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him!

I didn't see it, but I read this morning that David Cameron, when asked about immigration had claimed to have met a 40 yr old black man who moved here when he was 6 and has spent 30 years serving in the navy ...... if he can't do basic maths do we want him running the country?


I saw that Nats! I just put it down to a "Typo"
He's obviously too thick to work out what a plonker that made him look!

And what relevance did the shade of the man's skin have to anything..?
He could have just said "a man"... "who was an immigrant"....
 badge73
Joined: 1/17/2009
Msg: 12
view profile
History
The Great Debate
Posted: 4/16/2010 8:48:39 AM
i thought it was a bit bland to be honest, didnt think the chairman of the debate helped as well as thought he was a bit favourable to the clown. clegg has to do well as hes got nothing to lose as most know he will never win the election, but found the clown a bit desperate when he said i agree with nick half a dozen times, and still thinks he had nothing to do with the past 13 years.

what cameron has to do is nail him on the defence cuts a bit more by asking why did he lie to the enquiry and his role in the recession plus why would the public trust him over the public debt.
 Jo van
Joined: 5/23/2009
Msg: 14
The Great Debate
Posted: 4/16/2010 10:46:45 AM
It does seem to me though that we have entered X-factor style politics with these debates and the Piers Morgan interviews. There also has been the cynical use of the wags, except for Nick Clegg's as she wouldn't go down well with the electorate being Spanish.

Couldn't agree more!
I started a thread on another forum entitled "personality politics"
(But no-one posted, because politics is as boring as sh1t to most people )

I'm just worried that because Cameron has the easy charm of Eton-educated people, who are brainwashed into believing they are "superior", he may fool some people.
It's becoming more like American politics, where being photogenic, and having 'good teeth', is more important (for votes) than the policies are.
Could a "complete munter" ever get elected....?
 Jo van
Joined: 5/23/2009
Msg: 15
The Great Debate
Posted: 4/17/2010 4:16:43 AM
Then he became the successful Tory candidate for Stafford, but lost to Labour in 1997


So, not all that "successful" then........?

but also ensuring that I don't look a complete twat when posting.....


...And how's that working out for you....??

He had to stand on his own two feet to get where he is today.


Eton, Oxford, Then A job at Tory Central Office, (which was obtained via a Phone call from "The Palace" and he is a distant cousin of the Queen!)
The only job he ever had outside of politics, was a 2 year spell at Carlton TV in a PR role!

He has inherited all of his wealth (or his wife's!) and will do very nicely from his Tory Policy of Tax cuts for the very rich, which will benefit the richest 3000 estates with some £1 billion in tax benefits.

After all, wouldn't we rather have an educated 'toff' running the country,

Nope!
It's about time we got rid of all the Toffs, they have been bleeding this country dry for centuries, while contributing nothing. They are by definition, a class of parasites, and a remnant of a feudal society, which "Dave" would love to bring back.
Hence;Tax breaks for the mega-wealthy estates,
and a repeal of the foxhunting ban are high on his list of priorities.
-Just what we need now...?
He is a sleazy, opportunist, sound-bite, photo opportunity, shallow, privileged little tw@t.
He rides his bike for the pictures, while his limo follows behind.
That sums him up!
HTH

 Jo van
Joined: 5/23/2009
Msg: 17
The Great Debate
Posted: 4/17/2010 5:04:01 AM
It did NOT guarantee him that position, as you are implying.

I'm not "implying" anything, just stating the FACTS

The phone call in question was made by someone who had tried to dissuade him from applying for the job - it then recommended that his services be used.


Perhaps if you could supply a source for; "by someone who had tried to dissuade him from applying for the job "
Because I'd never heard that part before!
All I know is that he had absolutely no interest in politics at Oxford, and Boris Johnson, (who had been very politically active at University, for a wide range of parties! ), was devastated that it was Dave who got straight into Tory Central Office as a first Job.
I saw it all on that "when Boris met Dave " program.
Dave was quite active in the "Bullingdon Club" though!
The "Uniforms" alone are alleged to have cost £3,000! -That was a lot of money in the eighties!
But money was no object to the members of the Bullingdon Club, they only drank the finest Vintage Champagne, and were very 'exclusive' about who they let join... none of your "nouveau riche", just "old money", like Dave's!

He rides his bike for the cameras, while his limousine, and chauffeur follow behind
It's all for show!
 Jo van
Joined: 5/23/2009
Msg: 18
The Great Debate
Posted: 4/17/2010 6:01:17 AM

"On the day a young unknown called David Cameron was due to attend a job interview at Conservative Central Office, a curious phone call was received from Buckingham Palace.

'I understand you are to see David Cameron,'said a man with a grand voice. 'I've tried everything I can to dissuade him from wasting his time on politics but I have failed.

'I am ringing to tell you that you are about to meet a truly remarkable young man.' "


Well no-one had to try and "persuade him from wasting his time on politics" while he was at Oxford, despite studying it, he played no part in the World renowned Oxford Union Debating Society, which I think Boris was finally a chairman of...?
Dave wasted absolutely no time at all on politics , before the "mystery" phone call.

Still no comment on him being shown to be a fraud on his bike then...?
"funny that".....

But please keep providing us with the evidence of how strings were pulled by the Palace to get Dave into politics, I'm sure more people will vote for him when they realise he comes from the "ruling class".
And polls show that the Nation's greatest concern at the moment, is the repeal of the awful ban on fox-hunting
 Jo van
Joined: 5/23/2009
Msg: 20
The Great Debate
Posted: 4/18/2010 1:05:17 PM

http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/8098030.Sussex_Tory_candidates_would_scrap_fox_hunting_ban/

"Leader David Cameron, launching the party's manifesto in London this week, pledged that a Conservative administration would give Parliament the opportunity to repeal the 2004 Hunting Act on a free vote, with a government bill in government time. "

Dontcha just love facts?

Yes!
Thank you!
 Jo van
Joined: 5/23/2009
Msg: 22
The Great Debate
Posted: 4/18/2010 1:50:40 PM
Well there's no argument from me!
We are both agreed that the Tories have announced they plan to scrap the fox-hunting ban!
(The four that didn't, out of that ^^^16, probably didn't have any horses,
or perhaps they were allergic to dogs.....?)

Dave was caught out on his bike! - Trying to "show his green credentials", unfortunately the chauffeur driven limo was belching out even more pollution by driving slowly behind.

It's one of the most quoted "gaffs", that people who don't like the posh tw@t cite.
He was shown to be one thing in public, another in private. Quite typical of his 'sort'.
An imposter,
A sham.
A charlatan.

 badge73
Joined: 1/17/2009
Msg: 25
view profile
History
The Great Debate
Posted: 4/19/2010 1:21:04 PM
fair enough if the liberals are getting support as they do have some decent policies, but the question both clown and cameron have to ask is whose votes are going to them? and more importantly if the voters are switching to the liberals then it must mean theres quite a few votes to be nicked [no pun] off them as quite a few floating voters.

the next debate im sure they will pick up on a few of the liberals policies or lack of them, be it europe, immigration and trident. could this mean more tactical voting?

or more dirty tricks campaigns

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8630001.stm
 badge73
Joined: 1/17/2009
Msg: 28
view profile
History
The Great Debate
Posted: 4/20/2010 12:48:14 PM
this is the type of thing cameron should be bringing to the fore front of the debate

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article7102298.ece

this is the type of thing that happened over the past 13 years and now we dont even batter an eyelid, as if its exceptable

The two “vulnerable girls” who were in care were plied with drink and on one occasion Naveed had sex with one of them on the back seat of his car while the second girl remained in the front with Hussain.

Both men were caught after social workers raised the alarm and in 2007 Hussain was jailed for five years and eight months after being convicted of child abduction, sexual activity with a child and supplying drugs.

He is about to be released on licence after serving half his sentence.

Judge Andrew Gilbart, QC, said when he sentenced Hussain at Preston Crown Court in August 2007: “This is a truly shocking offence. When young girls such as these are placed in care it can be because they need protection from themselves. They need nurturing. They need help.”

Both men were ordered to be deported back to Pakistan after their release, but while Naveed has accepted his fate, Hussain appealed.

Hussain entered Britain legally in 1990 as the spouse of a British citizen. He was subsequently given indefinite leave to remain although he remained a Pakistani national. He had lived in Blackburn for about ten years.

His appeal against deportation was accepted by the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal on the grounds that his right to respect for family life would be breached if he was sent back.

A Home Office spokesman confirmed that they are seeking to appeal the decision to allow him “leave to remain”. The spokesman added: “We always seek to remove those foreign nationals who break the law, focusing on the serious offenders as a priority.”

Chris Grayling, shadow home secretary, said: “Most people will be absolutely horrified by this decision.

“It seems like hardly a week goes by without yet another case of a serious foreign criminal getting away with flouting our immigration system. Ministers should be ashamed of the absurd situation they have allowed to develop in our legal system.”
 Jo van
Joined: 5/23/2009
Msg: 29
The Great Debate
Posted: 4/20/2010 1:56:17 PM

this is the type of thing cameron should be bringing to the fore front of the debate

Maybe Badge, but instead, in that debate,
I forgot Cameron said we need Trident Nuclear weapons because of the "threat from China"

I bet the British Ambassador in China must be having a good time explaining that away!

And this man wants to be Prime Minister....?

I don't fancy a war with China that much!
 Jo van
Joined: 5/23/2009
Msg: 30
The Great Debate
Posted: 4/20/2010 5:02:38 PM
Please tell us more about EU Legislation,

I, for one, am fascinated by all those numbers....

It's all irrelevant I'm afraid; If Cameroon gets elected,

we'll be at war with China!

But at least we'll have fox-hunting back again....

So swings and roundabouts........really
 Jo van
Joined: 5/23/2009
Msg: 31
The Great Debate
Posted: 4/21/2010 3:04:31 AM
You have already helpfully provided evidence of the Tory plans to repeal the fox-hunting ban , so let's not go over it again, it will bore people!

From your link:

Random movie references aside, I do, however, have a serious point to make. Cameron is not qualified to be prime minister. The self-professed "heir to Blair", like Tony Blair before him, edges towards Downing Street with little knowledge of the world beyond the white cliffs of Dover. He is, as President Obama is alleged to have remarked, a "lightweight". Labour strategists have smiles on their faces. The Foreign Secretary David Miliband was quick to say that the Leader of the Opposition had issued "an insult to a fellow permanent member of the UN security council and to a country with whom we have just announced a close strategic relationship," adding: "David Cameron should withdraw this slur now."

Brown is fond of remarking that this is no time for novices. Given the state of the economy, and the "fragile recovery", he argues, we have to stick with an experienced leader who can handle crises and has proven judgement. The same applies on the international stage, where uncertainties, threats and conflicts abound.

Can we trust Cameron to handle Britain's foreign policy? He might do more damage than Blair ever did.

This, after all, is not his first gaffe . Last night, he suggested nuclear confrontation with China. In 2008, he implied that Britain, via Nato, would go to war with Russia over Georgia


He says it much better than I could!

Incidentally, Miliband is NOT a "commie",
you seem a little confused,
he is The Labour Foreign Secretary
 Broken Meat
Joined: 3/22/2010
Msg: 33
view profile
History
The Great Debate
Posted: 4/21/2010 8:48:25 AM
My opinion is that all politicians will spout promises all day and all night pre election.

I have no interest in listening to their empty words.

Once elected they all have their own best interests at heart.

The Who said it best....

"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss"
 Forrest Grump
Joined: 6/2/2007
Msg: 34
view profile
History
The Great Debate
Posted: 4/21/2010 4:14:22 PM
Zeegary Msg 62


The choice of whether a nation can leave lies with the EU, not with the people of that country.



If the EU cannot reach that agreement, then the country in question is unable to leave.


I disagree.

I know you are a stickler for facts.

Article 50 (3) states -

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

To my mind this means either the member state agrees to the withdrawal agreement, or, after 2 years the member state can ‘opt out’ if they so wish by not agreeing to extend this period. In other words the member state can go with the wishes of the country, if that is the wish of the country.

Do you agree?
 Jo van
Joined: 5/23/2009
Msg: 36
The Great Debate
Posted: 4/22/2010 3:43:18 AM

"The Tories claim that the ban had been an "abject failure" and that MPs should be allowed a free vote on repealing it.

The Conservatives have signalled that, if elected, it would make time available during the next parliament for a vote on the issue, but have not indicated how soon this might happen."


Why waste any more parliamentary time at all on this?
They have already spent 700 hours of parliamentary discussion time on this, and the vast majority of people see it as a cruel and barbaric remnant of a feudal society, and wanted it banned.
Which it is...
The fact that Cameroon has it in his manifesto at all, just highlights who's interests the Tories care for, a very small, rich, privileged minority.
He also intends to give £1 billion in tax relief benefits to the richest 3000 estates in the country!
So I think we can see exactly where "call me Dave"'s priorities lie


From the link:

"In 2008, he implied that Britain, via Nato, would go to war with Russia over Georgia. "

There is no evidence that Dave said that.

Well, it was your link!!! ,
-are you saying that your links are not factual.....?




you seem a little confused, he is The Labour Foreign Secretary



How can I possibly be confused when I stated:

"Miliband claimed that we have enjoyed 60 years of good relations with China....it's an odd comment from a commie Foreign Secretary who appears to have forgotten on whose side China was during the Cold War."

Was it....... the "commies"....?
 Jo van
Joined: 5/23/2009
Msg: 37
The Great Debate
Posted: 4/22/2010 12:58:08 PM
Actually, thousands of ordinary people rely on foxhunting for their income.

Of course, Labour doesn't care about them in the slightest........no surprise there.


And how does actually killing wild animals , (as opposed to scent-trail hunting,)
actually generate the "extra" money they are paid..?
If rich people can afford "Hunter horses", and "hounds" and their kennels, stables and grooms etc., when they are hunting,
-they they can also afford them if they're not.
If those snooty toffs sack all their staff, it's just in a fit of pique, because they can't "blood" their children's faces with the dead animals. No-one's stopping them from riding their horses, wearing their stupid red coats, or running about with their dogs.
And the "thousands of ordinary people" will have to "get on their bikes" as Norman Tebbit was fond of saying, when hundreds of thousands of people lost their jobs under Maggie.
Times change, ask any former miner.




I chose the link primarily because it destroyed another of your statements.

And it ended up destroying your own, because he also said





"Cameron is not qualified to be prime minister. The self-professed "heir to Blair", like Tony Blair before him, edges towards Downing Street with little knowledge of the world beyond the white cliffs of Dover. He is, as President Obama is alleged to have remarked, a "lightweight"
And
"Last night, he suggested nuclear confrontation with China. In 2008, he implied that Britain, via Nato, would go to war with Russia over Georgia!




You even quoted him, although the history on that isn't too good, is it?

You are correct, his history is appalling!

FYI when I use quotation marks, I'm not always quoting actual people , sometimes I am using "vernacular" words or phrases, as above, or "paraphrasing". I generally use the "quotes facility" for quotes.
Everyone who watched that debate, heard the "dimwit toff" make that massive "gaff" (Note use of ""!) and he made himself look "a complete tw@t".
To throw the word "China" into a sentence as a justification for keeping Trident, was an "idiotic mistake". And just shows him for the actor that he is,
he didn't think it through.
A bit like when Bush said "Crusade" in the context of the middle east, those kind of "mistakes" cost "lives"....

<---- See, he is making "air quotes"
 Forrest Grump
Joined: 6/2/2007
Msg: 39
view profile
History
The Great Debate
Posted: 4/22/2010 3:09:16 PM

So, the European Parliament must first consent to the action, then the Council of Ministers have to have a majority in favour of the action.



If the EU cannot reach that agreement, then the country in question is unable to leave.


This does not mean the the EU can object to a member state leaving.

If a member state wishes to leave the EU, there is nothing the EU can do to stop it.

All it can do is decide the terms on which it can leave. If it fails to do so after 2 years the member state can leave.

End of….
 Forrest Grump
Joined: 6/2/2007
Msg: 43
view profile
History
The Great Debate
Posted: 4/22/2010 3:40:36 PM
Msg 83

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

<div class="quote">So, the European Parliament must first consent to the action, then the Council of Ministers have to have a majority in favour of the action.


<div class="quote">If the EU cannot reach that agreement, then the country in question is unable to leave.

Sorry, I am not sure what you mean by "the action."
 Jo van
Joined: 5/23/2009
Msg: 44
The Great Debate
Posted: 4/22/2010 3:57:17 PM
The simple point that appears to be beyond your comprehension, is that the vast majority of the population don't give a flying fook about posh people chasing small ginger dogs all over the countryside.
And yet Cameroon has made this pledge to repeal the Fox-hunting ban.
He also wants to give the 3000 richest families an extra ONE BILLION POUNDS
These are all part of his "vote for change" (That's a "change" BACK to Fox-hunting)
Does he really think that that will "fix broken Britain"...?




You are correct, his history is appalling!

Of course! One thing that commies hate is reporting history accurately.......apparently, the history of commies isn't that wonderful.


So "Dave" is a "Commie"...?
Well, if you say so it must be true....

So why does he want a Nuclear War with China then....?
 Forrest Grump
Joined: 6/2/2007
Msg: 45
view profile
History
The Great Debate
Posted: 4/22/2010 4:44:52 PM
The action of leaving the EU, obviously.


I think you will find that neither the Council, nor The European parliament have the power to vote on whether a Member State can or cannot leave.
Show ALL Forums  > UK forums  > The Great Debate