Four legs good two legs bad...

lostinrates

I'd just like to say how well I think Ninky dealt with the comments directed towards her.

I don't think the personal..lets say ''focus'', not attacks, are nice whoever they are aimed at.

My feeling is the political allegiances are pretty well spread across the parties.

robin_banks

dandy-candy wrote: »

Is anyone else here amazed by how some posters are so vehemently pro one party and anti another even when a good/bad policy comes along? I think every party has a few policies I like and a few I don't but some here I imagine would rather stab themselves to death with their party rosette pin before admiting it. And whats with all the "I won't vote Labour because of what happened in the 1970's" or "I won't vote Tory cos of Maggie" - don't people ever see the parties in their current form? I'm waiting for a "I won't vote Liberal cos Gladstone was too familiar with fallen women in the 1840's" post...

I'm not surprised in the slightest by all of it.

It's game on, and only a relatively small %ge of the electorate are 'floating voters' in the 100 or so seats that matter.

I also won't be surprised by the dirty tricks that every party will employ, the first of which should be due in shortly.

Sir_Humphrey

Spartacus_Mills wrote: »

no Lib Dem shills..

I think I spotted one at least. You can't be looking very hard if you spotted no Tory ones. They tend to be those who joined the last few months, who pop up then disappear and seem to have a crush on David Cameron.

Spartacus_Mills wrote: »

Local activists are perfectly capable of astroturfing, genuine or not.

The implication of astroturfing is that it is a fake grassroot campaign fronting for VIs (eg the Tea Party movement in the USA or the Taxpayers Alliance in the UK). If local activists are genuine, then they are not fake grassroots by definition.

Some of people who seem to UKIP members could be random internet frothers; it can be difficult to spot the difference.

ninky_2

lostinrates wrote: »

I'd just like to say how well I think Ninky dealt with the comments directed towards her.

I don't think the personal..lets say ''focus'', not attacks, are nice whoever they are aimed at.

My feeling is the political allegiances are pretty well spread across the parties.

thanks lir. let's be glad of alternative voices and that we don't live in a one party state.

lostinrates

ninky wrote: »

thanks lir. let's be glad of alternative voices and that we don't live in a one party state.

you are welcome.

And ''Amen'' to to the alternative voices....and choice :D

ILW

Conrad wrote: »

I'm looking at voting labour after a life of voting tory, and my dads the same.
We just do not trust Osbourne and his age of austerity and it will be this if anything that stops the tories getting in.

Yes, it's better to vote for the party that says there is no real problem and we can just keep on spending more and more on the public sector, using magic money that just falls from the sky. No worries then.

ILW

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

I think I spotted one at least. You can't be looking very hard if you spotted no Tory ones. They tend to be those who joined the last few months, who pop up then disappear and seem to have a crush on David Cameron.



The implication of astroturfing is that it is a fake grassroot campaign fronting for VIs (eg the Tea Party movement in the USA or the Taxpayers Alliance in the UK). If local activists are genuine, then they are not fake grassroots by definition.

Some of people who seem to UKIP members could be random internet frothers; it can be difficult to spot the difference.

What is the vested interest of the Taxpayer alliance? If it is taxpayers then I am all for them.

Sir_Humphrey

ILW wrote: »

What is the vested interest of the Taxpayer alliance? If it is taxpayers then I am all for them.

It is worth reading Private Eye (Eyes passim) if you are wondering who is funding the "Taxpayer's Alliance".

Spartacus_Mills

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

I think I spotted one at least. You can't be looking very hard if you spotted no Tory ones. They tend to be those who joined the last few months, who pop up then disappear and seem to have a crush on David Cameron.

This is more prevalent on UKpollingreport, which I read, and politicalbetting.com which I post on. The Tories and Labour Party on there are both delusional and there are plenty of newer names on there for both parties in the last week or so.

On here the issue I have with many of the Labour posters, I cannot say I have seen too many Tories posting here, is the unthinking way in which they just reheat and regurgitate the same arguments that you see elsewhere on other forums and change their position to suit.

ninky on businessmen is a classic example. When supporting the Tories businessmen bad when supporting labour businessmen good. I appreciate that is an oversimplification but it is that lack of any clarity and consistency that is frustrating.

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

The implication of astroturfing is that it is a fake grassroot campaign fronting for VIs (eg the Tea Party movement in the USA or the Taxpayers Alliance in the UK). If local activists are genuine, then they are not fake grassroots by definition.

But they are still VI's who can still astroturf by faking the level of its support or popularity. By elections are a classic example.

ILW

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

It is worth reading Private Eye (Eyes passim) if you are wondering who is funding the "Taxpayer's Alliance".

I do not get Private Eye, who is funding the Taxpayers Alliance and what difference would it make?