Brown wastes more of our tax pounds on Labour propaganda website

Rochdale_Pioneers

I just find it funny that the "Brown wasn't elected/has no mandate" argument is still doing the rounds.

I think by now that this has been explained enough timmes that those still; parroting this have had plenty of opportunities to avail themselves of a basic understanding of how our parliamentary system works.

Someone else also attacked this and was accused of snobbery. Is it snobbery to call a spade a spade? Some people are either morons or are deliberately lying because it fits their personal political narratives. How is stating the facts snobbery? Shall we pander to the morons then?

ad9898_3

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

Shall we pander to the morons then?

Did you know that 'Gordon is a moron'.:D

lostinrates

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

Some people are either morons

Agreed, but they vote too.

nickmason

SGE1 wrote: »

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.

Sorry, gov, I wasn't lying, I just didn't think to tell you all the facts of the case...
it's not really a defence is it. You stated X which is wrong (sorry, incomplete), and in the same post berated someone else for being ll-informed and made the deeply patronising point about a lie being a factual inaccuracy.
Hoisted by your own petard, I'd suggest.

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.

Let's knock this on the head shall we? Indirectly elected is how it is normally described in the academia. Not directly elected, not unelected.

Our constitution allows changes of PM between elections. That it is perfectly constitutionally legitimate doesn't detract from the fact that individuals get p***ed off with it happening, especially in the light of the presidentialisation (??) of the UK government.

Given that you've told me off for being a pedant, I'd suggest you could extend the similar laxity of wording to others - you know what they mean by unelected, even if it's not correct to your pedantic mind.

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.

You asked someone else, I believe.

kennyboy66_2

I've voted Labour in every general election since I was entitled to vote but this is the most horrible piece of propaganda I have come accross.

It is not an appropriate use of taxpayers money.

kennyboy66_2

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.

.

The "how did we get here", "how do we get out of this situation" section at the bottom is neither lies or facts.

It is political / economic opinion and Labour party spin - it makes it sound like Northern Rock was the unfortunate victim of some far flung events. In hindsight it was a business model (as was much of the UK's) that was never likely to be able to stand up to any downturn.

Fine if Labour wish to spend party funds on this - not if its my money.

handful

ad9898 wrote: »

SGE1, do you support the Labour party ?

Whatever gave you that idea??;)

It seems to me that the strain is starting to show on SGE1 and Rochdale Pioneers valiant attempts to support our illustrious leader. Chill out guys for god's sake.

Whilst you are both obviously correct about the 'unelected' comment I made earlier being inaccurate, would you accept that mr average, joe public, whatever you want to call them will vote at the next election with a view to getting their local MP a seat or will they view it more important to vote for the person/party who they believe is best qualified to get the country out of this mess?? If it is the latter then I stand by the inference of GB being unelected. I actually think that if we had proportional representation for the next election, there's a fair chance Labour would end up as the 3rd most popular party. (with the current leader)

nickmason

I really didn't think I had time to wade through the site. But it seems really flimsy. There's:

• a "good news" scroller, which as others have pointed out doesn't really relate uniquely to how to get out of this trouble, but is full of nice "we're spending money on you" platitudes and spin.
• some generic advice lifted from other sites - pretty hollow.
• a ridiculously spun "isn't Gordon important and saving the world, and in case you haven't got the message none of it's his fault" bit.

That's about it, unless I can't find the gateway to the rest.

I suppose again it's a matter of perspective - does the cabinet office REALLY think that this is a fair and decent piece of public service? I can't see how they can, to be honest. But I'm sure SGE1 etc does, all the same.

nickmason

I was thinking about those signs from WW2 - "keep calm and carry on", etc

I've just got it - move over "stiff upper lip, and we'll get out of this" - this is the "quivering lower lip" approach.

ad9898_3

handful wrote: »

Whatever gave you that idea??;)

I was being a bit smart:D, she( i think it's a she), was really offended when I mentioned Scargill, like it was her dad or something.:D