Brown wastes more of our tax pounds on Labour propaganda website

lostinrates

nickmason wrote: »

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.

A local shop s selling Keep calm and carry on tea towels. I admit I'm tempted to buy one.

Rochdale_Pioneers

handful wrote: »

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.

Whatever gave you that idea? I am completely chilled out - its the people who sound so furious as they type and froth you should be worried about. Anyway, on the "is Brown legitimately the PM with a mandate" issue I don't need to support him. He is, its simple, if people chose to be politically illiterate thats their own problem.

Entertainer

SGE1 wrote: »

I really don't undertstand - how is this propaganda?

As far as I can tell, it's just a website linking various pre-existing resources together, and a information channel for the public about what's going on. You seem to have a very odd idea of what propaganda means.

The OP could easily be considered as an "opposition propagandist". Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but disagreeing with something and calling it propaganda are two very different things.

The problem is that this is soft advertising for the government paid for by public not party funds. The budget for this was £170 Million a year at last count. This is why you had all those adverts for the NHS, I mean, why do you need to advertise the NHS, it's a monopoly?!! This level of expenditure is beyond the finances of the Labour Party itself due to it being too broke/ not selling enough peerages.

dumby1

ad9898 wrote: »

SGE1, do you support the Labour party ?

:rotfl:

His use of manipulation and attempts to muddy the issue, to prevent just criticism in this thread alone, is in keeping with the gross spin and distortion that Blair/Brown's government are notorious for. He's probably in the cabinet.

That website just further proves that these crooks and liars would rather spend time on trying to con people into thinking that they are doing good, than to actually spend time attempting to do good.

And the greatest tragedy is that the Tories are now massing at our borders, ready to invade.:eek:

lynzpower

lostinrates wrote: »

A local shop s selling Keep calm and carry on tea towels. I admit I'm tempted to buy one.

Go on flower, treat yourself

Incidentally, are they made in the UK?

lostinrates

lynzpower wrote: »

Go on flower, treat yourself

Incidentally, are they made in the UK?

I'll have a look. Have been not going in shop to avoid reckless purchase of teatowels...I'm so domesticated these days... Its a very cool shop though.

purch

Putting aside the irrellevant banter about whether or not the PM is elected, which just clouds the issue.

We should not forget that the Office of Prime Minister is far more important than the actual person holding that office, just as Her Majesty's Government as an institution is far more important than the Party or the people who make it up. This is something that the current Labour administration, and probably the previous Conservative administrative sometimes forgets.

The person who hold the office of P.M. will change, as will the party who forms the Government. But the U.K. will still have a P.M. and a Government long after.

The website in question is a H.M. Government site, paid for by the Government out of U.K. taxes.

It should not be used as a platform for the person who holds the office of Prime Minister nor any other individual, nor the Labout party to spin events to put themselves in a better light, or to polish their egos.

This is not North Korea.

nickmason

purch wrote: »

Putting aside the irrellevant banter about whether or not the PM is elected, which just clouds the issue.

We should not forget that the Office of Prime Minister is far more important than the actual person holding that office, just as Her Majesty's Government as an institution is far more important than the Party or the people who make it up. This is something that the current Labour administration, and probably the previous Conservative administrative sometimes forgets.

The person who hold the office of P.M. will change, as will the party who forms the Government. But the U.K. will still have a P.M. and a Government long after.

The website in question is a H.M. Government site, paid for by the Government out of U.K. taxes.

It should not be used as a platform for the person who holds the office of Prime Minister nor any other individual, nor the Labout party to spin events to put themselves in a better light, or to polish their egos.

This is not North Korea.

One of those "wish I could thank twice" moments. Once for the point itself, and once for taking the appropriate, bigger picture view!

chris_spackman

I like the bit on the right of the home page that states RBS nad Natwest are going to put £250 million in to a fund. Our bloody money, why should Brown take any credit for that.

SGE1

nickmason wrote: »

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.

????

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.


You asked someone else, I believe.

I was going to for another round re the unelected comment, but handful has just admitted s/he was wrong, so I can lay the sword down (after this short rant below).

And re what people mean by unelected, I disagree. It's a very strong word, far more so than 'not directly elected', so I don't think it's fair to just let it pass. The reason I took such exception to it is because it's misleading to others. As you said, nothing unconstitutional has taken place, nothing even remotely unusual in fact, so let's be done with the childish "He's unelected!" cr*p. If I'm !!!!ed off about something, I say it, I don't shout a lie loud enough in the hope that it will somehow become true and then someone will come and fix it for me. And one can only be hoisted by one's own petard, if one is proved wrong; as I explained, my statement was accurate, though incomplete (if you're to be believed, you're probably only winding me up anyway), therefore I would argue that in trying to suggest that I have been hoist by my own petard, you have been hoist by that said petard which you alleged had hoisted me

And I wouldn't have to make such "patronising" comments about a lie being a factual inaccuracy, not an opinion, if others didn't vomit opinions without a sniff of evidence, and expect everyone to take their views as the gospel.

Frankly, I don't care whether people don't like the Government, or are against xyz policy, it's their right - but I think that sort of judgement needs to be made when all the facts are clear, and have been considered. People doing the 'unelected' speech are skewing things. So, all that to say, if you hate the Government, fine, but hate it for the right reasons.