Times poll sees Gordon Brown ahead of the Cameron

Cannon_Fodder

huntersc wrote: »

And this is why I argue so strongly against full voting rights for every person in this country.

Although off topic your post absolutely highlights why staggered or powered voting is something we should consider. Not very politically correct I know but I think it's difficult to argue against.

Are you saying your vote/opinion is more valid than mine?

Very Nulab.

huntersc

Cannon_Fodder wrote: »

Are you saying your vote/opinion is more valid than mine?

Very Nulab.

Well, it's difficult to say, maybe you're being argumentative on the forum and not writing what you really believe, I don't know your background or qualifications but, as a general point I would suggest that my opinion is based on a greater knowledge and experience than some others and thus my vote ought to count for more.

The same goes for me, there are some people who's vote should count more than mine.

I mean, in the office, when a difficult decision needs to be made, do we ask the temp about their opinion? If we do does it hold as much sway as the CFO or VPD? Why? Because the temp is not as knowledgeable.

It's not a popular idea because no one wants to admit their limitations but I think it's the way we need to head to ward off the possibility of someone like Sarah Palin getting into office

Crikey I'm being controversial

Cannon_Fodder

huntersc wrote: »

Second, you say that the IMF says Brown is wrong and that Britain is not best placed, where? (defining 'best placed' might also be worth doing)

The UK will see growth at 1 per cent in 2008, says the IMF, and will shrink by 0.1 per cent in 2009,
The US will see growth at 1.6 per cent and 0.1 per cent,
and the EU 1.7 and 0.6 per cent respectively over the next two years


Of the 3 major areas, only UK is predicted to shrink...

I leave the nitty-gritty to the IMF. They know all about the UK and debt, courtesy of successive Labour governments.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/imf-predicts-uk-.htmlssion-and-house-price-falls-up-to-30-955511.html

ad9898_3

Lets face it, a month ago Brown was history, even by his own party. He has managed to riggle out of it by continuing to blame everyone else (America specifically) and take no responsibility himself.

Pension raid, doh
Gold sell off, doh
In '97 he said 'I will not allow house prices to get out of control and destabilize the economy, HELLO:hello:, is there anybody in their <taps Brown on the head>.

He has not caused the issue as a whole, granted. However his policies over the last 11 years have put us in a much worse position than we would have otherwise been.

huntersc

Cannon_Fodder wrote: »

The UK will see growth at 1 per cent in 2008, says the IMF, and will shrink by 0.1 per cent in 2009,
The US will see growth at 1.6 per cent and 0.1 per cent,
and the EU 1.7 and 0.6 per cent respectively over the next two years


Of the 3 major areas, only UK is predicted to shrink...

I leave the nitty-gritty to the IMF. They know all about the UK and debt, courtesy of successive Labour governments.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/imf-predicts-uk-.htmlssion-and-house-price-falls-up-to-30-955511.html

Well again, that's very relative and it doesn't take into account interest rates, debt, taxation, unemployment, productivity and industry focus.

At no point does it suggest that Britain is not best placed. Certainly Britain will face difficulty but long term growth is still expected and moreover there's a natural negative swing from starting point gains.

Again, we can't just look as GDP, GNP or GDI as an indicator. Let's put it into context, I'd rather be here right now than America, Spain, Italy, Iceland, Norway, Denmark, Poland, Sweden or Germany.

huntersc

ad9898 wrote: »

However his policies over the last 11 years have put us in a much worse position than we would have otherwise been.

How do you know that? Surely that's total guesswork. What is that opinion based upon? And in any case, compared to what? If IDS was in power, or if Darling was Chancellor instead of Brown? Or maybe Osbourne? lol

I have massive issues with Labour, especially about child poverty, I think they should be strung up (as should the rest of the political plonkers) but stating that we would be better off without Brown over the past 11 years as a fact is crazy. How would we ever know this????

StevieJ

huntersc wrote: »

And this is why I argue so strongly against full voting rights for every person in this country.

Although off topic your post absolutely highlights why staggered or powered voting is something we should consider. Not very politically correct I know but I think it's difficult to argue against.

And some were more equal than others.
Where are Napoleoon and Fatpig? they should be popping up about now.

Microstar_2

If there is one thing that frightens me more that Brown and Darling getting re-elected its the thought of our 'Dave' Cameron and 'boy' George Osbourne getting their mitts on the levers of power. Two perfectly nice ex-public schoolboys who'd do the country a favour if they went off and did a work placement in a jolly nice PR company, or something.......

And yes, the Tories were calling for more deregulation (in 2003 - 'FSA getting in the way of business' and Cameron in 2007, to name but two occasions) .

What we are actually seeing is the endgame of the 1980's economic policies - the end of Thatcher/Joseph/Reagan/Friedmann economics. Not just in the UK but around the world.

Dan:_4

ad9898 wrote: »

Lets face it, a month ago Brown was history, even by his own party. He has managed to riggle out of it by continuing to blame everyone else (America specifically) and take no responsibility himself.

He can blame America as all this mess IS THEIR FAULT.

neverdespairgirl

Dan: wrote: »

I am not a fan of Brown whatsoever, however, I would rather have him as our leader then that other knob Cameron.

yeah, but what a choice.....!