Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Gordon Brown was the only one who looked statesmanlike and had gravitas. The other two do not look like men who have the character or sufficient experience of life to lead a country.

I hope people don't have short memories and forget what the Tories did to this country when they were in power.

"Cameron loses credibility for me on the use of the word "waste" time and time again - what he is referring to is public sector salaries and real people's jobs."


Totally agree Mick Mac. I though 'Dave' came across as a bullshitter. Also agree with your views on Clegg: it's easy to perform when there's no pressure and you're unlikely to be held to account.


Having said that, I thought Marmora Man's views were very sound. It's about who spends the 6 billion and where, not about it disappearing.


My view is that it's currently more likely to be sucked up in grand finance if it's in private hands, and more likely to keep people in work if it's in the public purse. That's only that particular 6 billion, and only at the current time BTW, not a generic view of tax and spend.

Of course Clegg's in the 'easiest' position but he can't do anything about that other than use it AND he was the most convincing in terms of delivery and presentation. As for style and no substance, the Liberal Democrats:


- uniquely voted against the Iraq war

- proportionately had by far the least MPs censured for expenses

- manifesto uniquely does have some actual numbers in it on their spending plans. Looks like substance over style to me.


Brown's gravitas! I think people are confusing his chippy inarticulacy and barely contained unpleasantness with something else. He's an old school, dour socialist IMO.


Cameron looked a man of no substance to me.

The frustrating thing for lib dems is that if all the people who wanted to vote for them actuall did, they would stand a chance. But because most people vote tactically (or my understanding is they do ? I do) the always get squeezed


I agree with quids that Clegg was the most comfortable and handled himself the best ? but I took against the man almost from the outset. Pointing the finger at the other two and holding his nose and saying ?we?re not like them? is a) unlikely to be true and b) childishly obvious

Agreed with most of that, but I do think that the last two [of Sean's] points aren't necessarily killers.


I'd like to see Lib Dems doing an Obama: a concerted grass roots campaign aimed at the under thirties.


I work in the online industry and met with the chap who ran the Democrats online campaign. I'm really struck that none of the major parties are grabbing hold of the learnings.


For the Tories and Labour it's understandable that they would see youth as a threat to entrenched support, but for the Lib Dems? Those votes are theirs for the taking - engaged and 'worthy' twenty somethings driving local voters to the polls with online support could make this election for them.


The UK is, like, so tired.

There's two more debates to go, so plenty of time to make up your minds. Now most people have heard of Nick Clegg, he might not find it so easy next time.


Also, bear in mind that in Dulwich and West Norwood, the Lib Dems have no chance of winning. So if you want to get rid of Gordon Brown, you'd be better off voting Tory.

And they are admirable positions to hold quids - I just wished I believed they would continue to hold them if they gained power - I know.. cynical me!


Jeremy- there are many reasons to balance and weigh up who to vote for - that bonus cap is hardly the most pressing issue of the day (notwithstanding the ongoing threats of the rich bankers - who benefited from govt policies - to leave the country)


Why can't well-off people never say "fair play, it was a good run while it lasted?" - Why is it always "threatening to leave the country"?

Jeremy - I do think the cap is bit of electioneering and I'm a bit uncomfortable with it. However, it's not a complete scrap its just on cash bonuses, bonuses related around share options etc WOULD create a more long term mindset and commitment towards sustainable less risky behaviour by bankers. Nevertheless the cap should be far higher.

MitchK Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> There's two more debates to go, so plenty of time

> to make up your minds. Now most people have heard

> of Nick Clegg, he might not find it so easy next

> time.

>

> Also, bear in mind that in Dulwich and West

> Norwood, the Lib Dems have no chance of winning.

> So if you want to get rid of Gordon Brown, you'd

> be better off voting Tory.



Well the Liberal Democrats came 2nd last time.....

More specifically...


It only takes less than ten percent of voters to move to Lib Dem, and they're in. Or, alternatively since turnout was less than 60%, a much smaller swing of existing voters, and a new gang of twenty-somethings.


Swing required : 9.88%


The 2005 general election:


Tessa Jowell, Labour 19,059 45.4%

Jonathan Mitchell, Liberal Democrat 10,252 24.4%

Kim Humphreys, Conservative 9,200 21.9%

Jenny Jones, Green Party 2,741 6.5%

Ralph Atkinson, UK Independence Party 290 0.7%

David Heather, Veritas 241 0.6%

Amanda Rose, Socialist Labour 149 0.4%

Judy Weleminsky, Fit Party For Integrity And Trust 57 0.1%


If you want to vote Lib Dem, then vote Lib Dem, They'd be in.


The only problem is that Mitchell doesn't seem to be showing his nose at the moment.

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Jeremy- there are many reasons to balance and

> weigh up who to vote for - that bonus cap is

> hardly the most pressing issue of the day


Of course there are lots of issues to weigh up... but for me, that one is a deal breaker.


Not just on a personal level, but on a fundamental level - I don't agree with that level of govt interference in industry. It is also a dangerous game to play with a large wedge of the country's income.


There are more effective ways for reducing risk and safeguarding the industry than a crude cap on bonuses, but I guess they think it taps into public sentiment.

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> Not just on a personal level, but on a fundamental

> level - I don't agree with that level of govt

> interference in industry. It is also a dangerous

> game to play with a large wedge of the country's

> income.


That?s a sticky point. There is a difference between heavy handed state control of industry (we really aren't going the way of Soviet Russia despite what anyone tries to say) and industry obeying the laws that are there to protect society from dangerous behaviour.


This shit bleated out by the financial sector about ?government interference? trying to stop it behaving irresponsibly is like someone who has been caught doing 200mph down the motorway sitting in the dock and arguing that the government is interfering in his life, his car can do 200mph and so he should be allowed to do so.

IMO Gordon Brown was the winner - with Cameron the big loser. Cameron looked out of his depth and outflanked on both sides. How the Tories must wish they had Boris Johnson up on the podium not Cameron.


Clegg did very well - but I thought much of that was from scoring cheap points, plus Cameron and Brown aimed their fire at each other although that may change a little next week to pour cold water on the Lib Dems.

The Lid Dems* have good ideas but don?t have enough supporters therefore I won?t support them.


If that is a valid argument in most people?s wee ?eads then they bloody well deserve whatever crap devious government they end up with.


*In this instance but it could be any reasonable voice otherwise sidelined by money and power taking advantage of a weakness in the status quo to make itself heard.

Hmmm... it's not quite the same thing. I don't for a second advocate a laissez-faire economy, we obviously need sensible regulation and intervention. But it needs to be appropriate, and in this case it really needs to be coordinated with other major financial centres. Legislation also needs to come from a body which understands the industry, not from an election campaign "brainstorming" session.


To take the car analogy further... wouldn't a better solution be to put a speed limiter on all cars sold in this country, rather than to fine offenders? Similarly, there are measures which could be put in at a lower level in the financial industry, but instead we focus on cruder, simpler measures which the public will understand.


Anyway, I will step aside as we have gone off topic...

I thought Brown sounded the most intellectually able of the 3 of them, Clegg was pretty good, and Cameron was pleasingly rubbish.


I don't really like Clegg, but I think I shall vote Lib Dem. I believe that this time, that vote will do something.


Question time on BBC2 afterwards was awful, especially the word chart bit!

I watched the ITV debate, with David Blunkett responding to Alex Salmond boast of putting 1,000 Police on the streets in Scotland..


"When I was Home Secretary I put 15,000 new Police on street.." - quickly followed by his KitKat joke


"David Cameron reminds me of the boy who once asked me when I was 14 yrs old if I wanted a KitKat, I said Yes, and he said there is a shop down the road where I could get one"

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Thanks for your message — I actually took the time to look into what CityHive does before posting my original comment, and I’d encourage anyone with questions to do the same. Yes, the Companies House filings are overdue — but from what I’ve gathered, this seems likely to be an accountant or admin issue, not some sign of ill intent. A lot of small, community-based organisations face challenges keeping up with formalities, especially when they’re focused on immediate needs like food distribution. Let’s not forget CityHive is a not-for-profit, volunteer-powered CIC — not a corporate machine. As for the directors, people stepping down or being replaced is often about capacity or commitment — which is completely normal in the voluntary and community sector. New directors are sometimes appointed when others can no longer give the time. It doesn’t automatically mean bad governance — it just means people’s circumstances change. CityHive’s actual work speaks volumes. They buy most of the food they distribute — fresh produce, essential groceries, and shelf-stable items — and then deliver it to food banks, soup kitchens, and community projects across London. The food doesn’t stay with CityHive — it goes out to local food hubs, and from there, directly to people who need it most. And while yes, there may be a few paid staff handling logistics or admin, there’s a huge volunteer effort behind the scenes that often goes unseen. Regular people giving their time to drive vans, sort donations, load pallets, pack food parcels — that’s what keeps things running. And when people don’t volunteer? Those same tasks still need to be done — which means they have to be paid for. Otherwise, the whole thing grinds to a halt. As the need grows, organisations like CityHive will inevitably need more support — both in people and funding. But the bigger issue here isn’t one small CIC trying to make ends meet. The real issue is the society we live in — and a government that isn’t playing its part in eradicating poverty. If it were, organisations like CityHive, The Felix Project, City Harvest, FareShare, and the Trussell Trust wouldn’t need to exist, let alone be thriving. They thrive because the need is growing. That’s not a reflection on them — it’s a reflection on a broken system that allows people to go hungry in one of the richest cities in the world. If you're in doubt about what they’re doing, go check their Instagram: @cityhivemedia. You’ll see the real organisations and people receiving food, sharing thanks, and showing how far the impact reaches. Even Southwark Foodbank has received food from CityHive — that alone should speak volumes. So again — how does any of this harm you personally? Why spend time trying to discredit a group trying to support those who are falling through the cracks? We need more people lifting others up — not adding weight to those already carrying the load.
    • Well, this is very disappointing. Malabar Feast  has changed its menu again. The delicious fish curry with sea bass no longer exists. There is now a fish dish with raw mango, which doesn't appeal. I had dal and spinach instead, which was bland (which I suppose I could/should have predicted). One of my visitors had a "vegetable Biriani" which contained hardly any vegetables. Along with it came two extremely tiny pieces of poppadom in a large paper bag.   This was embarrassing, as I had been singing Malabar's praises and recommending we ordered from there. The other mains and the parathas were OK, but I doubt we will be ordering from there again. My granddaughters wisely opted for Yard Sale pizzas, which were fine. Has anybody else had a similar recent poor (or indeed good!)  experience at Malabar Feast?
    • Another recommendation for Silvano. I echo everything the above post states. I passed first time this week with 3 minors despite not starting to learn until my mid-30s. Given the costs for lessons I have heard, he's also excellent value.
    • Hi just got a player so looking for tapes  pm me thanks 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...