Did anyone else just see

[MrsRuffdiamond]

The Party Political Broadcast for Labour on BBC1?

It was stunning, and kind of appalling, but I can't make my mind up whether it was in a good or a bad way!

It was certainly very funny, with Nick Clegg as the Incredible Shrinking Man in a spoof Cabinet meeting dominated by Tories:

"He's shrunk!"
"What shall we do with him?"
"Shall we hunt him?"

[Isitmebut]

Spin ... are you still flogging that dead 'orse re Cameron might have to go if Scotland, having taken down the devolution path by Labour for votes (never thinking in a million years they'd lose power to the SNP and get so close to losing in a yes/no referendum) loses Scotland?

Cameron did the right thing allowing the Scottish people a referendum, but think about it, if Scotland goes, Labour will lose 41 seats, the Tories 1 seat - in time the Conservatives will sing songs about him around camp fires, during power cuts.lol

He has already said he will resign after the 2015 general election if the Conservatives, as the largest party, but with no majority, can not offer a 2017 referendum - as if we have to wait for a Ukip majority in Westminster, we'll still be in the EU approaching the 2025 general election.

If anyone is stupid enough to get Ukip fruits elected to their own doorstep (what's that well know precautionary saying involving pooh?) running their council, it serves them right.

Few will trust Ukip at the next general election b4 seeing their policies, and there is no way Ukip can please all their supporters in one manifesto, so that's when the fun starts as it will be the most wishy washy event, since the Aladdin panto in Bournemouth.

[Spinflight]

I suspect they had fun making it, in a student union sort of a way...

The result of the general election may well hinge on the Scottish referendum and the local elections next week... If Yes, Labour cannot win. That however doesn't mean the tories could either. Could Cameron really continue to lead the conservative and Unionist party if he lost Scotland from the Union?

If UKIP take lots of council seats, and therefore gain lots of statistical insights into their core vote, they may well be able to win enough seats by targeting labour voters to make a difference to the likely hung parliament...

There is also the possibility of the lib dems being annihilated both in the EP and councils, which could even split the party.

Interesting times...

[thegambler]

Here's a neat little summary for Isitmebut, www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/blog/britain-debt-deficit-confusion-coalition-new-labour/#.U3EgsShur-w


If all you do is look at numbers without the causes then you end up missing what is actually happening.

Read it in conjunction with this if you want.www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/apr/25/uk-public-spending-1963

[Isitmebut]

Thegambler …… Ah now I understand what you think is electorally “strange” about dodgy boundary lines favouring Labour; it’s that you don’t understand that whether the voting turnout in 10%, 60%, or 100% - it takes a shed load more votes to give the Conservative Party a majority, which gives Labour an unfair advantage in ANY general election.

Now lets add some 'meat' to your incorrect throw away statements above, you clearly know little about.

Re my thoughts on a hypothetical Labour handling (or the coalitions) of the Royal Mail sell-off, they wanted to under Mandelson but I believe he could not do it for two main reasons; Labour would not guarantee the Royal Mail pension fund deficit of around £9 billion (that Osborne did) and the trade unions – as explained in the first link below.
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/politics/2042121-The-Royal-Mail-Sale-kafuffle
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/in_the_news/2042436-Why-are-the-government-being-blamed-for-the-Royal-Mail-share-price-being-set-too-low

Re Labour’s banking, financial and economic mess; in 2010, it was already too late as the damage was done and I can guarantee that the Conservative would not have done the same, as they’d either been doing the OPPOSITE to Labour e.g. trimming the Public Sector to what we could afford throughout the 1990’s, or Brown’s new policies from 1997 directly contributed to the financial and economic crash.

Brown taking away Financial controls that were solely with the Bank of England and formed a TRIPARTITE of the BoE, The Treasury (Brown influenced) and Brown’s newly formed and totally overstretched Financial Services Authority (Brown influenced), WAS DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE or CONTRIBUTED for bank lending growth multiplying and the collapse of the Royal Bank of Scotland.
www.theguardian.com/business/2011/dec/12/labour-regulations-city-rbs-collapse

Don’t take the FSA’s or my word for it, ask Mr Gordon Brown who had thought we was a financial demi-god who had “cured boom and bust”, yet gave us the largest boom and bust, on his and most of the current Labour shadow cabinets, watch.
metro.co.uk/2011/04/11/gordon-brown-i-made-big-mistake-on-banks-before-financial-crisis-650630/

Labour/Brown’s reckless spending on unreformed public services that could have been better spent for votes, was diametrically opposed to the Conservative policies since Thatcher, and certainly in 1997 – and books were being written about it well before 2010.
www.taxpayersalliance.com/economics/2009/09/new-book-reveals-the-total-cost-of-gordon-browns-mishandling-of-the-economy-as-3-trillion-or-3000000.html


Re Housing, Labour were told in the Barker Report of 2004, WITHOUT EVEN KNOWING ABOUT LABOUR’S SECRET IMMIGRATION PLANS to “diversify” the UK, that we were not building anywhere near enough homes – but chose to spend all that money above of the like of Quango’s, with their apparatchiks getting patronage with £100,000 plus salaries.
www.theguardian.com/money/2004/mar/17/business.housing

But THIS is what Labour left; read this Shelter Report and tell me WHO DID NOT PLAN AHEAD, a Labour Government will £trillions to spend, a Report in 2004 telling them to build a lot more and a secret immigration policy that was to let in 2.5 million new citizens to find accommodation – or the Coalition inheriting a £157 billion annual deficit, massive accumulating National Debt who in desperation, seeing several hundred thousand bedrooms free, was more worried about the 1.7 million Labour left NEEDING ROOMS?????
england.shelter.org.uk/campaigns/why_we_campaign/the_housing_crisis/what_is_the_housing_crisis

That is why there are rising home prices, based on demand, NOT Osborne’s attempt to free up a ‘log jammed’ housing market, where people could not move as banking finance wasn’t available – as governments were telling banks to SHRINK their balance sheets and LOAN MORE 9which grows their balance sheets) in the worst recession in over 80-years.
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/in_the_news/1977704-UK-Interest-Mortgage-Rates-WHO-S-in-control

Re the Rich and taxation, without you qualifying ‘sweetheart deals’ you’ve heard somewhere, all I can say is that under the Conservatives, the rich are paying far more taxes than under Labour – which I can qualify, even if you can’t – and on the “Who runs Britain” link below, it explains Labour’s agenda with their (now mainly past) rich ‘sweethearts’ and why Brown lowered Capital Gains Tax to a tapered low of 10%, versus Osborne’s current 28%, likely to go higher/closer to the top rate of income tax, where it should be.
www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/robertpeston/2007/10/a_speculators_budget.html

“Who Runs Britain?” by (the BBC’s) Robert Peston
www.socialismtoday.org/122/peston.html

Back to this thread, JUST THE LABOUR RECORD MENTIONED ON SEVERAL ISSUES ABOVE PROVES, Labour can not campaign on the past record, and without detailing any new policies – is why Labour will conduct a ‘negative’ campaign, mainly based on ‘class’, as they do when trying to deflect from their own incompetence, past and present.

[thegambler]

Crikey Isitmebut (and it probably is), strange as in getting a majority position on a minority of the, not only popular vote, but the possible vote. Dread to think what you'd be like had Labour handled the Royal Mail giveaway. Labour's mess up would have happened regardless of who was in government as Davey boy pledged to carry on with Browns spending plans to 2010.

A government in the real world wouldn't allow billions to leave the economy through sweetheart tax deals , a government in the real world would plan ahead before introducing things like the spare room subsidy or the benefit changes that penalised families on £50,001 but still paid out to families on £99,000, that created a housing bubble before putting into place the necessary house building programme, that would place in charge of the city someone funded by offshore tax avoidance. Tip of the iceberg, I could go on and on and on and on.................

[Isitmebut]

thegambler ... well DEFINE strange if you feel I have not answer e.g. Labour boundary advantage is an act of God???

But re the BBC as a whole, don’t take my word for it, the BBC has already apologised for their ‘liberal’ coverage (by like minded presenters and production staff) of both the dangers of the E.U. and migration into this country, which COULD have made a huge difference to the outcome of previous elections after 2004.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2354713/BBC-chief-admits-We-deep-liberal-bias-migrants--changed.html

www.thecommentator.com/article/1953/exclusive_bbc_left_wing_political_bias_illustrated_through_uk_political_funding_revelations


FYI I have very strong views on Labour that I can qualify with facts, so just ask if you want to see them, I rarely have an opinion based on head-up-bum ideology and hearsay from Thatcher's reforms, rather than cold facts.

P.S. I see you are another 'partyless' poster, ready to make incorrect sweeping statements like the one above on the Conservatives who only seem to be elected to FIX Labour's mess ups, which is hardly "self serving" taking tough, unpopular decisions Labour can not/will not.

A government in the real world has to create a vibrant Public Sector, with domestic and inward investment to provide jobs to even begin to worry about pay rates - so if that makes them "self serving thieves", then that is a head up botty throwback to the 1970's.

[thegambler]

You didn't answer the strange bit, you replied but didn't answer.

The Conservatives had The Mail, Express, Telegraph. So for a spell of about 5 yrs in my living memory things were evenish and I'd dispute the BBC bias, it's easier to critique those in power so they will always claim bias. A bit like claiming Private eye is biased against the Government as it criticises it more than the opposition.

I'm no Labour supporter by the way, I see them as incompetent where as the Conservatives are self serving thieves.

[Isitmebut]

What? And I've answered "strange".

Blair had Murdock's Sky (and arguably The Times), the BBC's left wing bias, The Sun, The Mirror, The Guardian and Observer etc etc.

Thats why with those heavyweights manipulated by Mandelson and Campbell etc, so many of Labour's rubbish policies, especially in the first several years (including selling our god, buggering pensions and immigration) were ignored until it was too late.

[thegambler]

You don't think it strange that a system that can give a majority of seats to a party that gets only 35% of the popular vote ?

Also given that the media and money in this country overwhelmingly back one side, maybe it's a balance ?

[Isitmebut]

Thegambler …. I think that “strange” is the probably wrong word as it could not always have been so, so I suspect (without checking) that after 13-years of a Labour administration, ‘loaded’ might be a better one. lol

Apparently it is seen to be ‘unfair’ and reforms to boundaries; an equal number of citizens within each boundary and a reduction of MP’s were all planned by the Coalition (see BBC link below).

But in their first disagreement it appears the Lib Dems tried to include a Lords reform somewhere during the process and withdrew support – thus pointing to the likelihood of a perpetual (Labour or Labour/Lib Dem coalition) socialist administration for years ahead. Fine for spending money we don’t have, a bugger when we need a political party to reign it in and rebalance the economy.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21235169

And when you look at this electoral map on the right hand side of this link after the 2010 general election , it adds to the wonder why 35% of the vote gives Labour a honking large majority in parliament, and 36.1% in 2010, meant the Conservatives came up 20-seats short.

Although the 41 seats in Scotland to the ‘blue’s’ 1 seat, helps (for now), and maybe a uniform number of citizens in each constituency would reduce the blue mass over most of England.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2010

[thegambler]

Isitmebut, re boundaries etc. Is it not a strange system that gives anyone a majority of only 35% of the votes cast. Even less a percentage of the population able to vote ?

[TheHammaconda]

Thanks Mrs

[MrsRTea]

Well, if they weren't at least politically informative, I'd have fought to get off their email list. But I just scan them, then delete. They're always about new policies, though, so it's just a way of updating myself on what the Govt deems important. And, I dunno, they're well-written and presented, so not a pain to skim read. I suppose what I'm saying is that they consist of political information, not blatant propaganda. It would be of value if the other parties sent me similar. But propaganda and very overt lying would upset me.

[TheHammaconda]

In what way are the Tory emails so good MrsRTea?

[ironmaiden999]

urigeller. I agree with you! They are all jokers!

[UriGeller]

I thought it was funny. But then I generally think politics is the funniest thing on telly.

[ironmaiden999]

This broadcast although IMO funny, was dreadful for the labour Party. Full of stereotypes. I don't like Clegg, but to portray the man in this manner was in very poor taste and childish. It certainly wouldn't make anyone vote Labour!

[MrsRTea]

Fwiw, I've had to lobby my local tory MP on local issues, and as a result I get tory emails in my inbox regularly. They are very good. Their email strategy is imo superb.

[Isitmebut]

P.S. Although what happens if/when Scotland gains independence this year, for the March 2016 start - when Labour currently has 41 seats in Scotland? This needs to be sorted as the YES/NO vote is so close.

[Isitmebut]

Labour WILL get back in due to the dodgy boundaries; in 2005 a 35% share of the votes gave Labour a 64-seat majority. In 2010 the Tories won 36% of votes but were 20 seats short of a majority.

The Ukip vote in 2010 was 3.1% without Farage and meant the Conservatives needed a risky coalition, and likely to be between 6 and 10% with him in 2015.

Hence a vote for Ukip, is a vote for a Labour administration in 2015.

[claig]

Here is the advert together with Monty Pythonesque silly voices to patronise the public

[HercShipwright]

Labour need to get the vote out. Recent polls (in which they are ahead) have shown that they have the highest support among the people who are less likely to vote. If they get the vote out, they stand a better chance of winning. That PPB has arguably more chance of getting the vote out than some I've seen in the past.

[Viviennemary]

I haven't seen it but it does sound as if they have lost the plot. I agree Labour don't stand any chance at the next election. And rightly so. The lot of them are pathetic. Same old pie in the sky labour.

[Isitmebut]

Claig .... p-l-e-a-s-e stop accusing ALL mainstream parties of spin and then promoting Ukip when they have ONE POLICY on the EU/immigration they 100% CANNOT DELIVER, as they can't change British Law.

Although Mr Axelrod has been advising on the Labour campaign for over a year now, I doubt if this advert was his work - but if it was having analysed Labour’s record and policies - if that is the best Team America can do for a six-figure correspondence course, Douglas Alexander should get their money back. IMO

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/politics/2057186-Labour-signs-up-Obama-s-Axelrod-No-We-Can-t

[bobthebuddha]

ThinkAboutItTomorrow, this seems to be the deliberate direction Labour have taken. They have agreed soundbites that they think resonate with the electorate and must repeat them over and over and over. We had 'One Nation' and now 'cost of living crisis.' Milliband's stock response to Cameron is 'he just doesn't get it', 'same old Tories.' It's so fatuous and I'm sure most people find it annoying and tedious. And it's as if they think we all have the mental capacity of toddlers. No offence to toddlers