Brown sticks his foot in his mouth

JanCee

bioboybill wrote: »

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.

You consistantly keep trying to drag the tories into this but, as it has already been pointed out to you - this is Gordon Brown's gaffe, Gordon's foot in mouth, Gordon's mistake. The funniest part of this is that she was actually a labour voter.

Not for much longer I suspect.

nicko33

Lokolo wrote: »

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?

Have you not seen any of this then?
Try this clip
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8649308.stm

They had a perfectly civil conversation, and neither of them particular cut the other off.
She gave Brown plenty of time to answer.

I'm confused as to why GB would have thought that encounter was a "disaster"

pwllbwdr

garthdp wrote: »

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

Exactly. Not an ambush at all, was it?

new_home_owner_3

As long as labour dont get in im not really bothered, labour have looked after everybody other than the average working man or woman.

Under labour the uk culture has become one of handouts, we say foreigners come over here to work picking fruit and stealing are young peoples jobs, the problem is these young people know they dont have to work and they will get a handouts every week.

A friend of mine was made redundant and he went to sign on and he couldnt believe the questions he was asked and it was all geared up for people to claim more money for doing nothing.

Thats what Labour have done to this country, and i just hope it ends soon.

MissMoneypenny

Degenerate wrote: »

If that's your idea of "utterly losing it" you need to get a grip on reality. He calmly got in the car whilst quietly expressing his discontent to his colleagues. Were it not for the open mike there would be nothing to report.

It was only a mic, not a video recording, so we couldn't see if he was doing his normal 'stabbing the seat in front with his pen, in temper'.

Lokolo

nicko33 wrote: »

Have you not seen any of this then?
Try this clip
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8649308.stm

They had a perfectly civil conversation, and neither of them particular cut the other off.
She gave Brown plenty of time to answer.

I'm confused as to why GB would have thought that encounter was a "disaster"

I hadn't seen the clip before now, just read the transcript. I can see your point. She doesn't particularly interrupt him apart from the couple of questions mentioned in the transacript.

bioboybill

Kohoutek wrote: »

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



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

First of all these are allegations at the moment not facts. Just in the same way as there are probably spurious claims about other parties in Labour supporting papers. Secondly I see nowhere in there that it says the reason the policy was followed was anything to do with a block vote.

bioboybill

JanCee wrote: »

You consistantly keep trying to drag the tories into this but, as it has already been pointed out to you - this is Gordon Brown's gaffe, Gordon's foot in mouth, Gordon's mistake. The funniest part of this is that she was actually a labour voter.

Not for much longer I suspect.

I'm not dragging the Tories into this. The White Horse widened the debate by alleging that immigration was encouraged to give Labour a block vote, so I was just explaining what my Tory brother-in-law thinks of immigration and challenging the allegation.

Kohoutek

bioboybill wrote: »

First of all these are allegations at the moment not facts.

How much more factual can you get than an official document that states that migration policy is a means of achieving the government's 'social objectives'.

Andrew Neather was not making an 'allegation' either. The quotes attributed to him about government immigration policy having overtly political aims come from an article that was in support of immigration.

Eventually published in January 2001, the innocuously labelled "RDS Occasional Paper no. 67", "Migration: an economic and social analysis" focused heavily on the labour market case.

But the earlier drafts I saw also included a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural.

I remember coming 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. That seemed to me to be a manoeuvre too far.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23760073-dont-listen-to-the-whingers---london-needs-immigrants.do

bioboybill wrote: »

Secondly I see nowhere in there that it says the reason the policy was followed was anything to do with a block vote.

I find it outrageous enough that there was a secret policy to use mass immigration to make Britain more 'multicultural', but according to Neather there was also a political purpose.

Read between the lines: "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." Are Labour a member of the "Right"? Can you see how 'rendering' the Right's 'argument out of date' might help Labour?

nickj_2

we all knew that gordon had a poor grasp of basic maths but now it appears that his english isn't too hot as well as he claimed that he misunderstood the question , hopefully this will send him packing