Brown sticks his foot in his mouth

nicko33

garthdp wrote: »

she may well have been concerned however she certainly wasnt informed

"it's going to be tax, tax, tax for another 20 years to get out of this national debt"
she sounds quite well informed

Lokolo

leveller2911 wrote: »

Easy to mock isn't it?. Put yourself in her shoes, member of the public suddenly given the chance to talk to the Prime Minister .What would you say? Do? persoanlly I would probably get tongue tied.So much to say and yet so little time, he could have been whisked away within seconds for all she knew.

She seemed genuinely concerned about the issues raised, yes she did over talk him, but so did he.

How was she a bigot? what did she say that was Intolerant? As far as I could see she raised concerns about the flaws in the benefit system and the ongoing problems of immigration.


Actually the fact is your post was bigoted because you ARE intolerent of her views..

I don't agree with many posts on here but I would defend people rights to air their views........and yes even the BNP, lets have a ture debate about these issues.......

I would let him finish his sentence!

I don't have a problem with asking questions and getting a response. She was just wanting her her her and not even letting him respond.

I am not intolerant of her views at all.

nicko33

Lokolo wrote: »

I would let him finish his sentence!

But he's a politician. Let them talk and they avoid your question and try to change the conversation.

e.g.
Gillian Duffy: How are you going to get us out of all this debt, Gordon?
PM: Well, deficit reduction plan, cut the debt by half over the next four years, we've got the plans, they've been set out to do it. Look, I was the person who came in...
GD: ...

See? He skirts around the first question. the deficit reduction plan just means borrowing more, but a bit slower. Then he's probably about to try to blame the Tories.

Lokolo

nicko33 wrote: »

But he's a politician. Let them talk and they avoid your question and try to change the conversation.

e.g.
Gillian Duffy: How are you going to get us out of all this debt, Gordon?
PM: Well, deficit reduction plan, cut the debt by half over the next four years, we've got the plans, they've been set out to do it. Look, I was the person who came in...
GD: ...

See? He skirts around the first question. the deficit reduction plan just means borrowing more, but a bit slower. Then he's probably about to try to blame the Tories.

So the idea is to do what she did and ask a question, not let him respond, but the comment and ask another question and repeat?

I agree a lot of the time they skirt around the question, but not letting them respond in full is just plain silly isn't it?

garthdp

FATBALLZ wrote: »

If you've not being paying attention the last 10 years I'm not going to start being your history tutor.

Hmm Clearly able to back up your arguments:rotfl:.Thanks for your time.

pwllbwdr

garthdp wrote: »

.He is aware as all politicians are of how it looks on TV when they are "ambushed" by the ignorant and ill-informed.

Ambushed in what way? Seemed to me from his comments when he got into the car that the meeting had been arranged or at least allowed to go ahead by his team.

garthdp

nicko33 wrote: »

"it's going to be tax, tax, tax for another 20 years to get out of this national debt"
she sounds quite well informed

Well I would add another tax to that so she is only 74% informed

The rest was a rant

garthdp

pwllbwdr wrote: »

Ambushed in what way? Seemed to me from his comments when he got into the car that the meeting had been arranged or at least allowed to go ahead by his team.

Aah but they expected a tame member of the public.That why he was pi**ed off

bioboybill

WhiteHorse wrote: »

What is really depressing is that she will probably STILL vote Labour.

And that's after it was revealed that Labour deliberately encouraged immigration in order to provide themselves with a block vote!

And who revealed that to you, the Daily Mail?

My brother-in-law is a lifelong Conservative supporter much to my disgust, but even he says that Cameron and co have little to offer. He is a senior manager in a large building firm and he says that without the Eastern Europeans who have come here to work his firm would be unable to operate.

Kohoutek

bioboybill wrote: »

And who revealed that to you, the Daily Mail?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/minette_marrin/article6898174.ece

According to Neather, who was present at secret meetings during the summer of 2000, the government had “a driving political purpose” which was: “mass immigration was the way that the government was going to make the UK truly multicultural”.

What’s more, Neather said he came away “from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended — even if this wasn’t its main purpose — to rub the right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date”.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/7198329/Labours-secret-plan-to-lure-migrants.html

The release of a previously unseen document suggested that Labour’s migration policy over the past decade had been aimed not just at meeting the country’s economic needs, but also the Government’s “social objectives”.

The paper said migration would “enhance economic growth” and made clear that trying to halt or reverse it could be “economically damaging”. But it also stated that immigration had general “benefits” and that a new policy framework was needed to “maximise” the contribution of migration to the Government’s wider social aims.