Be Excellent To Each Other

Agree +1



No, not true.

Fuck it, I'm voting green.

I watched the whole thing, I call it like I see it.

Thought Milliband really did well towards the end. Absolutely answered Paxman's made up attempts at anecdotes and newspapers. Then smashed it on Syria and standing up to people.

And getting him back with,
"Are you okay?"
"Yeah, are you?"

Surprised that something on C4 was so right wing though (I know Sky too, but...)

@troops I watched the whole thing too, and you're wrong.

Ooooh, and Newsnight agrees with me.

Also, I am still fucking fuming at Cameron being low enough to answer the NHS question by saying that everything in it is now perfect and he wouldn't ever do anything nasty as his son is dead.

Fucking shameless.

Pretty much word for word what I said. Her question was the best one of the night and he didn't sodding answer it, and just tugged on heartstrings cos he had a disabled kid. The cunt.

Yes. He is a man with title and confidence and did well. Very well.

I thought it was a sky production that C4 are allowed to show, in effect.

Caroline Flint vs Liz Truss - Flinty wins.

Guardian poll has it at 54% Cameron, 46% milliband. If that's on the guardian of all places, that's not good for labour at all...

Read the comments on the Mail and most of them seem to be lefties.

Poll of Tumbledown Mansions has it as 100% Millibead.

That depends entirely on what kind of vote it is.

"An instant Guardian/ICM poll found that David Cameron had narrowly “won” the contest with 54% saying that the PM came out on top once the don’t knows were excluded, compared with just 46% who felt that Miliband had the edge.

The sample of viewers, who were weighted to bring them in line with the broader population, were asked to put aside their party preference and concentrate only on what they heard during the programme, 46% felt that Cameron had the best arguments, as against 44% who said the same of Miliband. Cameron was also judged slightly more convincing – by 48% to 43% – and to have the more appealing personality, by 46% to 42%. He chalked up a clearer win on “actually answering the questions asked”, by 44% to 37%.

There was better news for Miliband when it comes to the crucial question of shifting votes: 56% of the sub-sample who said they might change their mind will now plump for Labour, as against just 30% for the Conservatives.

David Cameron retains his lead as best prime minister in this survey - but by a smaller margin than in many past polls – he is preferred on this count by 48% as against just 40% for Miliband.

ICM interviewed 3,650 adults aged 18+ online on 24-26th March. All agreed to watch the Cameron vs Miliband Live: the Battle for Number 10, and to complete a second interview immediately after it finished, which 1,123 did in the first few minutes. The data on both waves were weighted to the profile of all GB adults, including to recall of 2010 General Election voting. In essence, the post-wave data is ICM’s best guess on what a representative sample of the voting population would say had they all watched the programme."

PFFFFFFFFFF

In what world did he answer the questions more clearly? Surely even the bluest Tory knows he was steering them to things he prefers to talk about!

Democracy in action, dude.

in short, our only hope is open insurrection.

Twitter had miliband well ahead

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-32071377


I imagine that was a lot of sympathy for the unfair mauling he was getting.

The BBC analysis afterwards was amusing.
Paraphrasing : "the icm poll we have shows Cameron to be in the lead, but we think miliband won as he was smiling in the spin room afterwards"

LOL. Right.

yes, that amused me too

Well, you can ask

Good tough questions from Paxman to Dave, and unlike the weekly PMQs he had to answer instead of either changing the subject or asking a question back.


I'd have liked Paxman to say "Why wont you do a proper debate with the guy in the next room - are you a coward?"

Otherwise the night went pretty much as expected.

Poll of Polls puts it 33% Labour 33% Conservative still, its looking just as much a hung parliament as in 2010. I dont expect it to change much over the next 6 weeks.

If youre doing ok and havent been too hard hit by austerity with a relatively secure employer or are retired with a pension you'll vote Tory, if youve been hit by benefit cuts, unemployment, job insecurity, pay reductions or been in hospital lately you'll probably vote for another party.

No I fucking won't.

More of a hung parliament, as apart from Tory/Labour there are no two parties who can even get a majority in coalition.

Also, on the last part, I am okay and not hit by austerity, but I wouldn't vote Tory as I don't think the people already doing okay need more help!

Indeed. If you are doing ok, you can afford to vote for a more socialist party.

Not sure if anyone (even me) has linked to this previously

http://fullfact.org/

Ok change that to:

"You may be more inclined to vote Tory".

I'll vote for Labour. Even though the bloke is terrible, he's less terrible than the MP, who I am fully expecting to move to UKIP straight after the election.

Also I vote based on what I believe is best for the majority of the country, not in a purely selfish way.

The missus and I actually to the time out to watch the entire thing on 4OD catch up last night, which is quite the break from the Friday night norm for us (and consequently why I have a much clearer head than usual )

Of course, I well appreciate that there's little point in my saying anything about it at all; most of my detractors here have me on super-dooper-permo-ignore or whatever, but hey.

Regardless, for me, the salient points were thus:


1. Miliband openly admitted that the "banking crisis" as it is euphemistically known in certain circles ("the worst Depression the UK has suffered in 60 years" for the rest of us) was due to the previous Labour administration's failure regulate said [UK] banks. No caveats about the "global financial crisis"; nothing about something the Tories supposedly did fifteen or twenty years previously. Just a load of guff about how he (and Ed Balls lol) had "learned lessons" from what was, by candid admission, a terrible, terrible error of political judgement. Full stop.

So then, vindication no less. Let's have no more talk about anyone (or anything) else being politically culpable; to those who watched this as I have, we've heard it from Miliband's own lips.

Personally, I applaud his candor and honesty; I doubt very much we'd have had the same from Messrs. Balls, Burnham, Flint et al. But as much as I applaud this honesty, the only conclusion to draw regarding his party's governmental competency, judgement and unequivocal culpability is that it was both appalling and unavoidable, and this brings into sharp focus the judgement of those who would seriously vote for more of the same, all to be as meted out by the very same individuals in many cases.


2. Miliband's candor wasn't just limited to the 2008 Depression; we had more of the same regarding the worst UK foreign policy disaster since at least Suez that was Iraq, not to mention the underestimation of EU immigration by two orders of magnitude, and even his alluding to some pretty hopeless governmental spending programmes to boot (I assume these would include catastrophically bungled defence, IT, health and public transport contracts, PFI and all the rest)

To me, the only sensible conclusion that can possibly be drawn was that this Labour administration was inarguably a total disaster and very possibly the worst of all time in British history? Which is, of course, exactly what I have been saying for many years.


So what we appear to have, people, is a political leader whose offer to the British people goes something along the lines of '... yes, I know we nearly destroyed the entire British economy through our failure to regulate the banks; our foreign policy was just as bad, and we got it utterly, utterly wrong on a host of other issues too, ranging from disastrous levels of unforeseen immigration to governmental contracts wasting many billions of taxpayers money that could've been spent towards helping to relieve all the social deprivation, suffering, food banks and all the rest that our own admitted political incompetence caused, even by our own candid estimation - but we've honestly learned our lesson, it'll be so much better this time'...? "Turkeys voting for Christmas" doesn't even start to cover it, as I've said before (resulting in much consternation and gnashing of teeth).

I suppose it's also worth mentioning that Cameron's claim that only 1 in 50 of the 2 million private sector jobs his government has created since coming to power is a so-called "zero hours" contract (i.e. a tiny minority) went completely unchallenged by Miliband, which does rather shoot that particular oft-used to ad nauseam fox that is wheeled out every time by Labour apologists and supporters, here as elsewhere.

To any fair-minded observer, Cameron's polished, unflustered performance had this by a country mile, then, which isn't bad going considering he was (gleefully) handed quite the most poisoned chalice (economic ruin) that any peacetime UK Prime Minister has ever had to deal with.

I'll sum up by saying to those here who still cling to the absurd notion that the only reason anyone would vote Tory is for selfish "I'm alright Jack" reasons and not, y'know, because the principal alternative is so rubbish, not least as evidenced by these very telling admissions that they themselves even make: This position is simply as untenable as it is ludicrous, irrational and purposely offensive.

Look, you're more than welcome to vote for anyone you see fit as far as I'm concerned, however poorly judged I may consider that to be, but don't you presume to accuse the rest of us as being somehow 'selfish' or even worse, when all we want to see is a competent government that can actually do the job that we all of us need it to do, and to do it well.

I can understand why people have you on ignore Cavey.

You know as well as most intelligent people know it started in USA.

Lehman Brothers.

http://www.economist.com/news/schoolsbr ... rs-article


So why blame the Labour Party for that when the Conservatives applauded lax regulation of UK banks and wanted even LESS regulation. I dread to think what would have happened if the banking crisis would have occured with Cameron and Osborne at the wheel. Remember Omnishambles budget guy?

I would certainly argue contrary to pretty much everything you said there, Cavey. Especially since Miliband clearly said that whilst banking deregulation exacerbated the global financial crisis, trying to put the entire global economy failure at the feet of Labour is not realistic, and that the Tories argued that there should be MORE deregulation. So whilst Labour were wrong, the Tories were more wrong.

He also showed that his foreign policy would be better than both Blair/Brown and Cameron, since he is the one who prevented us getting stuck into Syria, whilst Cameron openly advocated turning it into Iraq Mk 2.

So, by those yardsticks you can clearly say he and Labour are more competent than the Tories, who have borrowed more money in one term than Labour did in three!

Heh, so can I, that's for sure.

I'm not even going to restart the whole tedious debate again; if you don't believe that Miliband expressly said that the previous Labour administration specifically failed to regulate the banks, in response to a very specific question from the audience regarding what had he and Ed Balls learned since they'd cocked things up so badly last time, then that's your problem, not mine.

You can quote corrupt bankers/banking organisations at me all day, thinking I am either stupid and/or you're making some dynamite revelation (or even that I in any way disagree with your presumed assessment of said bankers, or that I loathe them any less than you do), but as ever you entirely miss the utterly key point - and the only one I was actually making - about the NOW ADMITTED culpability of government in respect of failure to regulate said banks.

Sorry, I seriously can't be bothered; take or leave my post as you like, I just wanted to make a final point following Miliband's remarks.

It's not a matter of whether you agree or disagree, I'm simply stating what the man said, in plain terms, in response to a plain question. So if that doesn't fit your world view, I'm afraid I can't help you here. One either deals with things, or one doesn't.

As for your other points I really don't want to be drawn yet again, but very briefly, it is fair to say that London, as was, represented a huge chunk of the total world financial sector; between it and New York, they were pretty much it. So in terms of Miliband's response to a question which concerned the UK banks and their UK collapse due to poor/non-existent regulation and regulatory framework, the implication seems clear enough?

If London had got its house in order through governmental regulation, would the world (and us) have had to go through anything like as much pain, would the American banks have been able to get away with what they did to such an extent, would the contagion have spread as much as it did? Clearly not, so this is, in fact, plenty "realistic".

Your point about what the Tories would or would not have done - done to death previously. You may or may not be right, who cares, who can know - it is irrelevant. They were not the ones in charge (for 11 years in fact at this point), so can't be blamed for anything on this occasion, no matter how often you, or anyone else keeps protesting to the contrary. (FFS, even Ed Miliband himself seems to grasp this not-very-difficult-to-understand point?)

Similarly, the question being responded to in connection with Iraq was regarding the previous Labour administration's record and competence, so it's hardly relevant to talk in terms of Miliband's subsequent opposition to Syria as Leader of the Opposition (which by the way, was entirely laudable and correct IMO).

Sorry Curio, this isn't an 'old times' opening post where I take on all-comers, I can't be arsed. I well appreciate that my assessment won't be taken on board, which is fine, I just wanted to say it anyway - for me.

By all means enjoy your world view Cavey. I hope it keeps you warm and fed.

For millions of people it could be this:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... nefit-cuts

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... ked-emails


Dont hear much about "The Big Society" or "Compasionate Conservatives" in the past few years do we?

Both are a myth.

I'm sure the disgraceful tenfold [*] rise in food bank use over the last parliament is entirely unrelated to Conservative policies.

[*] it went up again in 2013-13, although that isn't shown on this graph.

I think the fact the polls are where they are says it all, if the Tories were delivering half the miracle that Cavey's espousing above they'd be riding high, instead they're duking it out with Labour with a couple of percentage points one way or the other. (Plus Miliband is an unpopular leader, if they had another Blair (except not a lying smarmy warmongering cunt like Blair), I suspect Labour would be well ahead.)

Also, the cuts the Tories are proposing after the next election should they get in again are genuinely frightening (not that they really got in last time, it was only the astonishing cuntery of the Lib Dems that's enabled them to stick the knife into anyone and everyone that isn't them), and I suspect the British public aren't going to let it happen.

I'm sure I've said this before but I'll say it again, it's such a shame that John Smith died when he did

Anyway that's history now, the reality of the current situation is we're starting down the barrels of another Con/Lib coalition or possibly an outright Conservative majority, but at the same time I think enough people know in their hearts what the Tories really are, and that they're not going to get in.

I'm reminded of Kinnock's speech - 'I warn you not to be ordinary. I warn you not to be young. I warn you not to fall ill. I warn you not to get old.' Although you can add to that list the disabled, and take the old off to an extent, since Cameron knows full well wealthy pensioners are his best bet, which is why he's promising left, right and centre not to take anything off them whilst cheerfully gouging the disabled literally to death.

You know I started off this post in reasonably good spirits, and now I'm fucking angry. Fuck the Tories.

has the number of foodbanks open been constant?

No, it's gone from about 70 to 400+ becausecthey are so in demand.

That's sad.

The young dont vote Conservative unless they are freaks like a young Rees Mogg or Hague (we've all seen that clip of him with hair when he was 16)

As they dont vote they get royally screwed over, so they dont vote and so the cycle continues:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 53560.html

Why is unemployment at 5.7%?

http://www.michaelmeacher.info/weblog/2 ... ant-count/


That's why.

Shame Paxman didnt ask him what the Sanction count was after he didnt know what the Food Bank count is. They are very related.

Actually, Fuck it. CBA.

Oh man, the food banks argument.

Seriously, did anyone think that after the economy had tanked 10% - a depression, not a recession - that people, especially poor people, wouldn't suffer as a result? People love quoting this unfortunate food bank stat with what is to my mind very unfortunate glee (almost as much as Liam Byrne with his infamous "there's no money left!" note), blaming the hapless Tories (and Lib Dems) who had to clean up the aftermath, but never the Labour Party who, y'know, actually *caused* said depression, as even Miliband himself now even admits..?

It's just all so depressing to be honest; the usual "fuck the Tories!!11" nonsense, the bar charts and all the rest. I could say until I'm blue in the face that even Labour themselves were promising "cuts deeper than Thatcher" in their 2010 election campaign, like as if these somehow would not have similarly hit people in more or less the same way, but I'm wasting my breath.

By the same token, they'll not give any credit whatsoever for the fact that within just 4-5 years of taking over, we're now the fastest growing western economy, 1000 private sector jobs have been created for every single one of those days (more than for the rest of Europe put together), inflation is zero, crime is massively down, wages are now outstripping inflation and so on. Rome wasn't built in a day; no-one from my side of the political divide is remotely saying the current work in progress is anything like ideal, that many people are not still suffering or that there's not work still to be done. Things are, however, vastly better than they were; the trajectory is unquestionably upwards and if anyone was offering what we now have back in the terrible, dark days of 2008-2010, we'd have bitten their hands off. But still, "fuck teh evil Tories" etc. blah blah. How childish, how irrational, how stupid. I could excuse angry teenagers/young people such sentiments and comments (and do), but not fortysomething blokes, sorry.

I also love the implication that somehow, people like me are uncaring about the fact that many people have to use foodbanks? For the record, I take the trouble to check with the nearest foodbank around here; I buy bags and bags of expensive tinned meat and the like, not crisps and rubbish and take the trouble to take it to them every week; my wife bought and gift wrapped loads of pretty expensive presents and took them down last Christmas. No, we're not saints; there's plenty more I could do, along with many others. But at least I don't think doing the right thing, performing a genuine social service comprises of being a sanctimonious 'social justice warrior' at the end of a computer keyboard, railing impotently, idiotically and above all uselessly at the world about absurd, obsessive, politically correct nonsense that's of no consequence - and much more importantly, butters no parsnips and is of precisely nil practical, or indeed any other value?

Yeah dont let the facts, like bar charts get in the way Cavey.
Labour would not have sanctioned the unemployed and disabled on an industrial scale like has happened in the past few years.

Dont take my word for it:

Did you watch either of these two Dispatches programmes?


Britain's Benefits Crackdown

Reporter Liz MacKean investigates Britain's new benefits regime and asks what life is really like for those hit with penalties

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/disp ... /59670-004


Benefits Britain

The government say their flagship new benefit, Universal Credit, is working well and is helping people into work. Critics say it is a shambles. Dispatches goes undercover to investigate.

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/disp ... /61526-001


If you haven't then maybe you should, it could open your eyes even if it doesn't change your opinion.

The global finacial apocalypse was entirely Labour's fault, the global finacial recovery is solely due to the Tories, food bank usage still rising sharply after five years of Tory rule is also Labour's fault, and jet fuel can't melt steel beams.

Hey Doc, how about sardonically posting a pie chart showing me how many food banks there are (again), or perhaps one that shows earnings haven't, quite, yet recovered to 2008 values with inflation factored in (again), like as if it's some hitherto unseen pearl of wisdom that in any way counters the points actually being made by the grownups in this discussion, is in any way helpful or relevant whatsoever, or indeed is anything remotely beyond the utterly banal?

Thanks.

And, as always, the truth is somewhere in the middle of both sides of this never ending argument...