Brown wastes more of our tax pounds on Labour propaganda website

SGE1

handful wrote: »

Now who's being the intellectually superior snob?? I understand why he is PM but it doesn't alter the fact he is unelected and has no mandate. As for spouting the usual Daily Mail illinformed nonsense....do you mean as opposed to your equally illinformed Daily Mirror nonsense??

(The emoticon is there to show I'm really not that bothered about getting into a personal attack as seems to be the order of the day at the moment!!)

What do you mean, the "fact" that he is unelected?? We're going around in circles here. And how amd I ill-informed? I've given you a perfectly legitimate explanation for why you're wrong, but you're just telling me I'm wrong. Unless you plan on hypnotising me, I'm unlikely to believe that just because you say it...:cool:
(see, I've added a smiley too)

nickmason

handful wrote: »

... illinformed Daily Mirror

God have you seen that paper recently. Quite seriously it makes the Daily Mail look high-brow.*

Just take a look at the front page:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/
and how about this for political commentary:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/columnists/routledge/2009/02/20/tories-born-to-rule-attitude-will-be-their-downfall-115875-21136938/

"Freud was Labour’s adviser on how to drive people off benefits, but he’s jumped ship to sail with the pirates of the Cameroons. Why the government ever had anything to do with this toffee-nosed banker I don’t know.
But at least he’s with his own kind now, exposing them for what they are. That “could be good news” for Labour.
Because the w****r banker’s gaffe tells us a great deal about the Conservatives. They’re behaving as if they’ve already got the next election in the bag.
Dodgy Dave Cameron and his crew of nonentities posing as a Shadow Cabinet have demanded – and presumably got – top-level briefings with Whitehall civil servants to talk about what they’ll do when they’re in Downing Street.

as mentioned in a different post - this is about time; it's a convention that Downing Street has been withholding.


* and while it is trendy at the moment to knock the mail (a trend I subscribe to) I think it interesting to note that a senior voluntary sector academic has credited (in a lecture, so no link) the daily mail for being the newspaper most responsible for recent improvements in the emancipation of women.
Apparently the femail section, which most feminists detest, has had a greater reach at changing perspectives than all the intellectual w***ing in the guardian etc. Not saying it's true, but it's an interesting suggestion.

lostinrates

SGE1 wrote: »

What do you mean, the "fact" that he is unelected?? We're going around in circles here. And how amd I ill-informed? I've given you a perfectly legitimate explanation for why you're wrong, but you're just telling me I'm wrong. Unless you plan on hypnotising me, I'm unlikely to believe that just because you say it...:cool:
(see, I've added a smiley too)

TBF you've said everybdy knows how it works....and now are being clear that it is not you who are ill informed.

I agree with your point that its how it works but I don't agree everybody really understands the finer points of how it works after that tick in the box.

nickmason

SGE1 wrote: »

What do you mean, the "fact" that he is unelected?? We're going around in circles here. And how amd I ill-informed? I've given you a perfectly legitimate explanation for why you're wrong, but you're just telling me I'm wrong. Unless you plan on hypnotising me, I'm unlikely to believe that just because you say it...:cool:
(see, I've added a smiley too)

How about if I have explained it to you?

SGE1

nickmason wrote: »

I believe that second paragraph to be a factual inaccuracy. I think you'll find the PM to be the individual MP who can obtain the permission/confidence of the house to form a government. Typically the leader of the party with a majority, but not always.

Obviously this doesn't help the earlier comment about unelected PM, as it illustrates that, constitutionally, the electorate (not citizens - urgh) are even more removed from the selection of the PM than you suggested.

Mind you, he's right - the PM is unelected. So I suppose he has earned more credibility than you...

Two can play the pedant game. I never claimed to be explaining the process along with every minute detail of every possibility. As you say, typically, the process I described is the process that takes place - so my description was not factually inaccurate, it was, at best, incomplete.

And again, in theory you may be right about the distance between citizen (I insist) and PM, but in practice, your comments sound a bit hollow.

So, to conclude, PMs are elected, as per the election process established in this country. The statement that PMs are unelected is misleading, as it implies a missing democractic process.

Oh and I noticed you couldn't come up with any factual inaccuracies from the website, as I originally asked. Not a bad shot at trying to divert attention from that.

SGE1

lostinrates wrote: »

TBF you've said everybdy knows how it works....and now are being clear that it is not you who are ill informed.

I agree with your point that its how it works but I don't agree everybody really understands the finer points of how it works after that tick in the box.

Fine - but then in that case, shouldn't people say "I know I voted for John Brown MP, my local Labour MP, but I was really voting for Tony. I'm a bit annoyed that Gordon is in now" rather than "Gordon was unelected!"
??

brummybloke

matthewcb wrote: »

I know this doesn't add much to the thread, but I detest this Government with every part of my being.

The day they get banished from office will be a joyous, fantastic occasion. Even if the Tories aren't the greatest opposition (and they're not, frankly), *anything* is better that this corrupt bunch of wasters, in the death throes of office and trying to grab everything they can.

Gordon Brown cares only about being in power, and he doesn't give two hoots if future generations are still paying for it when he's six feet under. He's like a petulant child who will try anything to get what he wants.

I've learned my lesson, I will never vote Labour again. I feel ashamed that I fell for Blair's spin in '97.

i think it sums up how the majority of voters now feel. many of us were sick of the corruption under the tories but it pales into nothing compired to Phoney.B.liar and his band of merry thieves.

lets hope they can be removed before they can cause any more damage to the honest hard working people of this country they so clearly despise.

beecher

SGE1 wrote: »

Fine: I challenge you to find one lie on the website. A lie, by the way, is a factual inaccuracy, not just something you disagree with, just to be clear.
.

I'd call it a lie to link to work which the devolved parliament/assemblies has carried out, and say it was an example of work being carried out by HM Government. I wouldn't say it was deliberate though - just part of the malaise of Westminster which hasn't quite caught up with the concept of devolution.

ad9898_3

SGE1, do you support the Labour party ?

itsnever2lateisit?

Which ever way I look at the site it is a Party Political message, funded by the taxpayer, which AFAIK is unlawful. It makes the 'Protect and Survive public information films look like hollywood blockbusters!