Heres what a hung Parliament will do

I'm sorry about that conclusion you have been forced to leap to Claig. I can only tell you I'm not projecting, and I don't feel furious. Telling people to 'calm down' is always daft, and is an attempt to wind them up further! I'm sure you know this, but it isn't working! Sorry.

During the course of this thread I came to understand what yours and Lincs terms of reference were. It helped me to understand where you were both coming from.

What you are calling debate - was actually ranting. He disliked being challenged, and when he was became increasingly vitriolic.

He is entitled to these views, as are you. But it's v wrong - and slightly insidious - to pretend this was JUST a reasonable, passionate conversation about the effects of a hung parliament.

It wasn't. It seethed with a different agenda which slowly became clearer the more it went on.

And it's fine for anyone to acknowledge that.

lololol omg.....you don't even understand what I'm saying, and I'm nowhere near as good as them....

give up what?

Flight;

If you don't think there's been a debate on a thread with Linctash, Claig, & Alouiseg...( 3 of the best posters on MN atm) then you need to give up....

Oh another thread telling me my potential choices are bad ones

If you don't want a ung government vote for the aprty I want tehn becuase I am not changing my vote to soemthing I disagree with to allow others their own choices

ahundredtimes thanks for describing me in the following way
"His - and I think Claig's too actually - viewpoints appear to be calm and reasoned, but they're not. They seethe with fear and fury, it's volatile and highly charged"

I think you are getting over emotional as you say that you think that way
"It's an incredibly emotional argument. And that is VERY difficult to debate with. I think much more that way, than the other."
I think you need to calm down and stop thinking that different viewpoints to your own mean that they are "seething with fear and fury". The fact that you have described my posts in that manner, leads me to conclude that you can only be projecting your own fury.

Why do you think that the 1992 election was never won by labour as was commonly predicted. Who do you think was behind that?

It was much more to do with the powers that be fearing that Neil Kinnock wouldn't have the necessary balls to keep Russia behaving.

I don't think it's been a debate, I think it's been a farce. Not many of us can be bothered to engage with such radical and tightly clasped views

there are huge self contradictions

there is mud slinging from both sides

the whole thing makes me feel a bit ill.

It's a very commonly held view, apparently "the illuminati" is a hierarchical structure which starts with groups such as the Masons because it encompasses all professions.

You probably wouldn't have to look much further than your local police/fire service before you would hear a bit more about it.

bnpfacts.wordpress.com/

There was a great documentary about the 60th anniversary of the Dunkrik evacuation a few years back. The guys who ran the boats across the channel, ordinary people, spoke about how right wing Tories and Moseleyites came to the harbours to plead with them not to go. Because they wanted Germany to invade and sort out immigration (the Jewish problem), socialism and so on.

But the left prevailed, kicked out Churchill after the war and created the NHS (despite physical attacks, threats and abuse from the right wing elite who run the media), created free education for all (despite physical attacks, threats and abuse from the right wing media) and we still face the same problems today. The façades about free markets, wealth creation and we are all middle class now are illusions.

Are you a socialist or a fascist?

I think that lincstash has started a debate on this thread. As daftpunk says, lincstash is passionate about politics and that is why he starts these threads and tries to get his views across about what he sees as the dangers of Labour for the country. I don't think that that is a bad thing, this thread has had more posts than most of the other threads in the politics topic. If lincstash and others like him didn't start threads like this, then we would have nothing to discuss.

Fliight says about lincstash
"I do wonder where a mindset like that comes from, how it is engendered, because it's so completely bizarre".
His views sound bizarre because they are rarely heard or discussed, but that doesn't mean that all of his views are wrong. He adds a different perspective which is worth considering, such as what is the influence of the unions on Labour. He is entitled to be wrong in his opinions, we shouldn't try to stop him expressing them. I think it is good to hear views from all perspectives from both left and right. I think if people start attacking others and asking them to leave the site etc., this will obviously descend into mud-slinging. Let's discuss political opinions instead of name-calling.

Fliight says
"And then the stupid, stupid stereotypes start flying out, 'you loony lefties' etc etc"
I think phrases such as 'loony lefties' are just the knockabout phrases of political argy-bargy. This phrase is in the dictionary and newspapers use it, so it is not really a big deal. I don't see it as any different to TheHeathenOfSuburbia's use of the term 'barking' when applied to right-wing thinking i.e.
"ultra-right-wing anti-Europe barking".
I don't think we should get too upset by this type of political knockabout, it's often used to get the other side to join in the debate.

Louise - he thinks there are secret powers working with the masons towards a One Government world. That the EU is part of a plot to make this happen. He is entitled to hold this view. I'm not sure though that it is one that would make me consider him either well-informed or indeed, sane.

re voting:

Yes. You vote for your local constituency MP. When you go in the booth the ballot paper, it will be their names on the paper, along with the party they represent. Not the leader's names.

It's fair to say, that a lot of people do vote for the 'wider picture' too though. They might vote Conservative, because they like the Conservative party, not just because of the local candidate. If that makes sense.

Not sure I understand the second bit about PR? Can you explain what you mean?

You vote for who you would like to represent you as parliament. Some parties would like to change the way the votes are counted though.

I know alot more than you think aitch...

Wyn;

Who do you want to run the country..?

'Which is very different to the the me,me,me postings from people who are terrified that they will lose their handouts.'

Who are you referring to there Louise?

Lincstash appears to have a sound understanding of the economy and how the machine actually works.

Which is very different to the the me,me,me postings from people who are terrified that they will lose their handouts.

Lincstash clarifies the points that are not fluffy enough for some mn posters and looks at the real basic issues that underpin the country. The one issue that will effect everything is the economy, without clever handling and understanding of that there will be no education, no health service, no maternity/paternity leave.

I want a leader who can understand incredibly complex financial transactions, because they will be the one to lead us into recovery. Any Government that causes Sterling to be downgraded will immediately have to find more money to reduce the record breaking debt that TB, GB and co have saddled us with because our interest payments will automatically go up overnight.

Can someone clear something up for me please as not very clued up on politics and need to make sure I have understood our political system correctly.

When I vote am I supposed to be voting for the person standing in my constituency that I feel will do the best to represent my ward in parliament and not for the party (and party leader) I think will do the best job for the country ?

If so that is without doubt the Lib Dem candidate as she is our current MP and I'm impressed with her and the Conservative candidate in my opinion is a much weaker option.

I have got the impression from this
campaign that the Conservatives are
against PR so if I have understood the
system correctly then they want me to vote
according to the current system, which
means I would be voting Lib Dem. Is this how it works ? Many thanks to anyone who can explain this to me.

och, you know fuck all dp. fuck all.

Asylum seekers get free NHS treatment and we have to provide education for their children, that all costs millions....illegal immigrants shouldn't even be in the country...the word "illegal" is the clue...

I know Fliight. I thought about this for ages last night.

I sort of decided in the end the problem was the opposite of what DP says. The arguments Lincs put on here were very emotional.

The language was all about fear, collapse of a country, disrespected history and the secret world of the masons.

It's an incredibly emotional argument. And that is VERY difficult to debate with. I think much more that way, than the other. This wasn't reasoned intellectual discourse. It was moving and fermenting with paranoia and fear. I think that's why he insulted everyone so quickly and so readily, threw all the punches and started spouting about women and was so rude to secondcoming.

It's the opposite of what you think DP. His - and I think Claig's too actually - viewpoints appear to be calm and reasoned, but they're not. They seethe with fear and fury, it's volatile and highly charged. That's why his language was too.

Fliight - he's always sounded more UKIP than BNP to me, sort of ultra-right-wing anti-Europe barking, rather than racist barking.

By daftpunk Tue 20-Apr-10 10:21:36
Flight....You have just said you laughed in his face because you know of no other way to react to such immense bigotry......??

If you know of no other way to react, then perhaps you shouldn't be trying to enter into a conversation that is clearly beyond you..

And what bigotry is that exactly...?

The mere fact that he isn't a Labour supporter...?

Well Dafty, where do I start. Yes, I probably should have kept out of it, but tbh I wanted to do something to register that I thought what he was writing was wrong, even without going to enormous lengths to explain why to someone who almost certainly wouldn't listen.
it's beyond me from a poiint of view of tiredness and preocupation with other issues, not from a lack of intelligence or an inability to engage with the topic at hand - I just haven;'t the strength or desire to take on someone who is such a hard nut to crack. I think that's allowed.
There you go assuming I support labour...just like I assumed he supported the BNP - but then, you have less evidence of my political beliefs. I was commenting on the fact he was speaking as though he was reading out their manifesto.
I have already said I'll be voting Liberal.

Yes, you see, DP, this is the problem. You have a very odd concept of what a debate is. And also of what facts are.

And yes, there are rights and wrongs. For example, LS has said 'Unite are going to do X, Y and Z'. Policywonk has pointed out that's just a motion going before their conference, so it's not actually a 'fact'. So it's wrong. Do you see?

You've had pointed out to you, god knows how many times on how many threads, that biological and psychological research shows that being gay is a combination of genetics and upbringing, and not something poeple have a choice about. This is a fact. It is right.
And then you say, 'well, i still think they're just doing it to piss me off, so it's Ok to persecute them.' Now that is an opinion. It's also wrong. Do you see?

And I can sit here and tell you that illegal immigrants are not entitled to benefits, council houses, or anything except deportation - and that is a fact. But you will still believe that they are welcomed out of the back of lorries with champagne and caviar. And that is wrong.

Do you see the difference?

Flight....You have just said you laughed in his face because you know of no other way to react to such immense bigotry......??

If you know of no other way to react, then perhaps you shouldn't be trying to enter into a conversation that is clearly beyond you..

And what bigotry is that exactly...?

The mere fact that he isn't a Labour supporter...?

I have been thinking about why I was rude to him from the outset, and it's just sheer incredulity I think that someone can believe such nonsense.

It's not my usual habit to laugh in someone's face, it really isn't. But I know no other way to react to such immense bigotry. I don't like my reaction but feel so shocked that part of my brain thinks he must be joking, because surely nobody reasonable thinks that way.

And then the stupid, stupid stereotypes start flying out, 'you loony lefties' etc etc and incredulous generalisations about what or who we are and so on, which is just beyond ridiculous and just not worth responding to - which is why I buggered off last night. It was a waste of time even trying to talk to someone who is clearly so caught up in their tiny little belief system that nothing can breach the barricades.

I do wonder where a mindset like that comes from, how it is engendered, because it's so completely bizarre. But mainly it's just depressing and pointless to try and converse with.

Daftpunk, how can you think he is a 'breath of fresh air'? He is talking nonsense. I thought you had a rational brain but perhaps you're just easily impressed by provocation.?