[Archived] The General Election 2015

[jim mk2]

To explain it in more simple terms, there was a debate when Wembley needed rebuilding whether to move the national stadium out of London. Birmingham made a strong case because it is in centre of the country and has good road and rail links - unlike Wembley which is in the middle of an industrial estate and is very difficult to access.

[yoda]

To explain it in more simple terms, there was a debate when Wembley needed rebuilding whether to move the national stadium out of London. Birmingham made a strong case because it is in centre of the country and has good road and rail links - unlike Wembley which is in the middle of an industrial estate and is very difficult to access.

Birmingham is not in the centre of the UK, Manchester is nearer the centre

[Mike E]

I don't understand the applause thing. Politicians are accused of being out of touch, so you think they'd prefer to clap rather than bark like seals.

[adopted scouser]

I don't understand the applause thing. Politicians are accused of being out of touch, so you think they'd prefer to clap rather than bark like seals.

Tradition Mike 😊 Same reason they don't whoop like Britain's Got Talent

[thenodrog]

Birmingham is not in the centre of the UK, Manchester is nearer the centre

Probably nearer the centre (and certainly route centre) of England.

[yoda]

Probably nearer the centre (and certainly route centre) of England.

I was talking about the National state, as was Jim I believe, which would include Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and would make Manchester the most central of cities

[jim mk2]

I was talking about the National state, as was Jim I believe, which would include Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and would make Manchester the most central of cities

Why would the site of the English national football stadium include Scotlland, Wales and Northern Ireland ?

It isn't the point anyway, which you've missed (again).

[yoda]

Why would the site of the English national football stadium include Scotlland, Wales and Northern Ireland ?

It isn't the point anyway, which you've missed (again).

I see what you did there, renamed it the English National stadium, is your signature only relevant to England ?

[Biddy]

I see what you did there, renamed it the English National stadium, is your signature only relevant to England ?

But in this case Jim is right. Wembley is the home to English football so Birmingham would be more central to cater for English competitions. He only renamed it to stress that it is not the UK stadium.

I actually think there is a good debate also to be had over Westminster. Should the UK tax payer foot the bill for parliament to stay there? That's a lot of money that could be better spent. Parliament could actually be held anywhere and moving away from the capital would bring down the "London weighted" 2nd home costs and expenses. The "tourist attraction" would still be there if sold off to private investors. There could actually be more people able to get in and see the history of the building in that case rather than the stale, show you nothing tour there currently is. Plus the front is an absolute eye sore with all the crash barriers in place.

[Mike E]

But in this case Jim is right. Wembley is the home to English football so Birmingham would be more central to cater for English competitions. He only renamed it to stress that it is not the UK stadium.

I actually think there is a good debate also to be had over Westminster. Should the UK tax payer foot the bill for parliament to stay there? That's a lot of money that could be better spent. Parliament could actually be held anywhere and moving away from the capital would bring down the "London weighted" 2nd home costs and expenses. The "tourist attraction" would still be there if sold off to private investors. There could actually be more people able to get in and see the history of the building in that case rather than the stale, show you nothing tour there currently is. Plus the front is an absolute eye sore with all the crash barriers in place.

I often wonder why it can't be done in arenas and theatres in a similar manner to Question Time...

[yoda]

But in this case Jim is right. Wembley is the home to English football so Birmingham would be more central to cater for English competitions. He only renamed it to stress that it is not the UK stadium.

I actually think there is a good debate also to be had over Westminster. Should the UK tax payer foot the bill for parliament to stay there? That's a lot of money that could be better spent. Parliament could actually be held anywhere and moving away from the capital would bring down the "London weighted" 2nd home costs and expenses. The "tourist attraction" would still be there if sold off to private investors. There could actually be more people able to get in and see the history of the building in that case rather than the stale, show you nothing tour there currently is. Plus the front is an absolute eye sore with all the crash barriers in place.

There are not any arenas that I could think of that would house the commons and house of lords, not without significant cost for alterations and security, except maybe for the gov buildings in Edinburgh, even they are too small at present though.

Where ever they are housed the UK tax payer will foot the bill, the price of democracy.

I take it you would be against a British football team, wonder what Theno would think of that ?

[jim mk2]

I see what you did there, renamed it the English National stadium, is your signature only relevant to England ?

You really are a buffoon.

[yoda]

You really are a buffoon.

Charming,

Do you do that in the nursing home ?

[thenodrog]

I can't rem how often that I have informed the likes of Jim, Paul and the rest of the labour supporting left wing dinosaurs on here that their time has been and gone. It spluttered to life post war and strangely grew in strength during the Cold War but inevitably ended in a tail spin with Margaret Thatcher drawing the teeth of the communist led Unions and smashing the inept Old Labour under the Donkey jacketed and, largely incoherent Michael Foot (again the unions choice of Lab leader ending in tears) the fall of the Berlin Wall, the break up of the Warsaw Pact etc.

Most obvious change of all, albeit largely ignored by the left wing loons is the changed identity of the 'working man'. A term which is trolled out time and again without any thought. The world has move on and today the majority of working men would not go near a pair of overalls and an oily rag. Today the term 'working man' is not particularly wide sector of society but rather a massively wide generalistation. Teflon Tony recognised this and began the move to make New Labour the party at the centre of politics, only for his and of course Gordon Brown's disastrous periods in charge to re-ignite old Labour as the Unions saw the Marxist Little Ed as the man to steer the country to the left again.

However the panel on Question Time last night (51 minutes in) were treated to a frank question from Becky Hall a working Mother... "What exactly is the point of the Labour Party now?" http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b05y0124/question-time-04062015

Most revealing comment of all came from the Labour MP and wannabee Labour leader Mary Creagh (the lady whose main claim to fame to date is to label Thomas the Tank engine as sexist because their are no female trains ) , "we are an analogue party in a digital age".

Quite honestly I don't know who thought up the term she quoted but I couldn't have put it better myself. BUT if she really has the quality required to lead a major political party she should perhaps have come out with that statement a couple of years back rather than subjecting childrens TV to lunatic left wing doctrines .

[jim mk2]

Agree with parts of this.

Week after week the Labour leadership boasts of how it will be tougher than the Tories – on immigrants, on welfare benefits, on public spending: in a word, the poor. What we never get are thought-out policies and political principles on social housing, higher taxes on the rich, rolling back the privatisation of the NHS, the abolition of nuclear weapons and returning the railways to public ownership. The list is almost endless. These are the sort of policies the Labour party should stand for instead of some sort of vacuous belief in "fairness", which people might agree with but do not understand.

As for dinosaurs the next 18 months should prove very interesting as the Thatcherite dinosaurs come out of the Tory party woodwork in advance of the Euro referendum. There is a faction within the Tory party that wants to exit Europe at any cost - and if it means voting against their own government and bringing it down they will almost certainly do so.

[Gav]

Someone said recently that the Tory party exist for the rich and the Labour party exists to hate the Tory party, in some cases thats absolutely bang on for me.

I see politics very much like modern day football these days, full of people out to feather their own nests and don't really care about the people they represent. This clearly isn’t the case across the entire political spectrum but parliament is full of career politicians and that can’t be a good thing.

The Labour leadership is a bit of a farce already for me, just give it Andy Burnham and lets get on with it. I'm not a massive Burnham fan myself, I don't like the way he feels the need to talk over everyone in any debate he's part of, and his record on NHS/private companies is less than impressive but I’d rather have him than Yvette Cooper.

[thenodrog]

Someone said recently that the Tory party exist for the rich and the Labour party exists to hate the Tory party, in some cases thats absolutely bang on for me.

I see politics very much like modern day football these days, full of people out to feather their own nests and don't really care about the people they represent. This clearly isn’t the case across the entire political spectrum but parliament is full of career politicians and that can’t be a good thing.

The Labour leadership is a bit of a farce already for me, just give it Andy Burnham and lets get on with it. I'm not a massive Burnham fan myself, I don't like the way he feels the need to talk over everyone in any debate he's part of, and his record on NHS/private companies is less than impressive but I’d rather have him than Yvette Cooper.

Doesn't sound like you are giving labour much hope in 2020 then? Seems you think it's up to the Tories to lose it rather than Labour win it gav.

[thenodrog]

Agree with parts of this.

Week after week the Labour leadership boasts of how it will be tougher than the Tories – on immigrants, on welfare benefits, on public spending: in a word, the poor. What we never get are thought-out policies and political principles on social housing, higher taxes on the rich, rolling back the privatisation of the NHS, the abolition of nuclear weapons and returning the railways to public ownership. The list is almost endless. These are the sort of policies the Labour party should stand for instead of some sort of vacuous belief in "fairness", which people might agree with but do not understand.

You say you agree then trot out the same old suicidal left wing diatribe that virtually guarantees to scare the electorate off.

Tell you what Jim. If the Labour party can redefine the term ' working man' that they trot out so often (and which no one and I mean NIO ONE appears able to define) and represent that chap then I might even vote for them. Lets not forget at this point that most of 'the rich' which you see as convenient milch cows are also in the 'working man' category. In fact rather more so. tbh I'd wager most people who continue to work beyond 65 are self employed business men.

[Gav]

Doesn't sound like you are giving labour much hope in 2020 then? Seems you think it's up to the Tories to lose it rather than Labour win it gav.

Things can change in politics very quickly, a couple of scandals just before an election can turn the tides, so you never know. what will happen in 2020.

Policies wise the 2 parties are so close to each other its becoming pointless. I still firmly believe the Tories look after the rich and Labour would look after the most vulnerable in society, but the last election showed that the country are not interested in looking after the vulnerable, they’re interested in looking after themselves and who can blame them.

With record numbers of people visiting food banks, welfare being cut and taken off genuine claimants and some sections of society really struggling to make ends meet you’d think people would recognise that and vote this lot out. But being fed the Tory line of a strong economy, unemployment down, apprenticeships up and an NHS that isn’t as bad as some would have us believe, people have fallen for it and voted Tory. I’m not saying some of this isn’t true, but its not being felt across the country thats for sure.

[jim mk2]

You say you agree then trot out the same old suicidal left wing diatribe that virtually guarantees to scare the electorate off.

Tell you what Jim. If the Labour party can redefine the term ' working man' that they trot out so often (and which no one and I mean NIO ONE appears able to do) and represent that chap then I might even vote for them. Lets not forget at this point that most of 'the rich' which you see as convenient milch cows are also in the 'working man' category. In fact rather more so. tbh I'd wager most people who continue to work beyond 65 are self employed business men.

Labour increased its share of the vote at the election but it is true to say the electorate was frightened by the scaremongering over the SNP put out by the right wing media.

The right thinks it has won the day because neo-liberal polices have dominated for the past 30 years or so and Conservatives are back in Downing Street. But they ought to know that nothing last forever. There are enough straws in the wind around the world to show labour is rising at the expense of capital again.

[Paul]

I can't rem how often that I have informed the likes of Jim, Paul and the rest of the labour supporting left wing dinosaurs on here that their time has been and gone.

As far as I can recall I haven't contributed to this thread since before the general election and then only briefly. Consequently I'm not quite clear about the attempt to drag me in to the discussion. I've reached the conclusion the half dozen or so more vocal right wing posters on BRFCC, and quite often in the real world, are quite swift to resort to insult and derogatory language. This post from thenodrog being a prime example. Overall I see little point in attempting debate when the eventual outcome is clear - insulting language - which is why I now avoid these discussions much of the time.

Just as an aside I have noted your frequent requests for GAV to define the "working man." Might I suggest he is no different from the "working mother" example you use in your post. Simply these are people who work. I agree to define Thomas the Tank Engine as sexist is daft, it is though sexist to define a woman by whether or not she works and is or is not a mother. Women work, men work. I no more think of myself as a "working father" than my wife sees herself as "working mother." Why would you wish to differentiate? Unless of course it is to suggest "working mothers" are in some way superior to their partners - given the attitudes which hold sway in some households I can imagine how that might be.

Whatever one's political views the world has moved on, and with respect, I'd suggest it is yourself and a number of others who hold views rooted in the past regardless of whether we are talking left, right or centre politics.

[yoda]

As far as I can recall I haven't contributed to this thread since before the general election and then only briefly. Consequently I'm not quite clear about the attempt to drag me in to the discussion. I've reached the conclusion the half dozen or so more vocal right wing posters on BRFCC, and quite often in the real world, are quite swift to resort to insult and derogatory language. This post from thenodrog being a prime example. Overall I see little point in attempting debate when the eventual outcome is clear - insulting language - which is why I now avoid these discussions much of the time.

Just as an aside I have noted your frequent requests for GAV to define the "working man." Might I suggest he is no different from the "working mother" example you use in your post. Simply these are people who work. I agree to define Thomas the Tank Engine as sexist is daft, it is though sexist to define a woman by whether or not she works and is or is not a mother. Women work, men work. I no more think of myself as a "working father" than my wife sees herself as "working mother." Why would you wish to differentiate? Unless of course it is to suggest "working mothers" are in some way superior to their partners - given the attitudes which hold sway in some households I can imagine how that might be.

Whatever one's political views the world has moved on, and with respect, I'd suggest it is yourself and a number of others who hold views rooted in the past regardless of whether we are talking left, right or centre politics.

Is Gordon not referring to the continuous use of the term working man by all the political party's who seem to use it to try and adhere themselves to a particular part of the electorate to the exclusion of others.

[Paul]

Is Gordon not referring to the continuous use of the term working man by all the political party's who seem to use it to try and adhere themselves to a particular part of the electorate to the exclusion of others.

Yes, I think he probably is but given the number of times he's made the reference it seems there is something more behind it. For me I would say the politician's reference (from any persuasion) to the "working man," "honest, hard working families" etc. refers to the ordinary, everyday people who, like most of us, get on with life, work hard, raise families, pay taxes etc. It's what I am, despite attempts to paint me otherwise, I am just ordinary and every day member of our society.

I would say though that these are phrases from any politician which make me want to hit them!! The phrase I presume is supposed to convey understanding, concern and so. It is to me sanctimonious clap trap which makes me squirm and feel as though I'm being talked down to.

[Al]

Strange you should say that Paul because "being talked down to" is precisely how many of your posts come across and what get's under one's skin.

[yoda]

Yes, I think he probably is but given the number of times he's made the reference it seems there is something more behind it. For me I would say the politician's reference (from any persuasion) to the "working man," "honest, hard working families" etc. refers to the ordinary, everyday people who, like most of us, get on with life, work hard, raise families, pay taxes etc. It's what I am, despite attempts to paint me otherwise, I am just ordinary and every day member of our society.

I would say though that these are phrases from any politician which make me want to hit them!! The phrase I presume is supposed to convey understanding, concern and so. It is to me sanctimonious clap trap which makes me squirm and feel as though I'm being talked down to.

What would you say is behind it, I can't think of any logical reason.

I think it is fair to say that the working man/woman could be of any political persuasion in the UK