solentstars

what did he say apart from scapegoating which i could get from the local alf garnet type in our local pub.

yes i think she did well and found the women were better then the men,but still going to vote for tories in my seat has i have a good mp.

Latest YouGov poll (31 Mar - 01 Apr): CON - 37% (+1) LAB - 35% (+1) UKIP - 12% (-1) LDEM - 7% (-1) GRN - 5% (+1) Taken before debate.

not biast got no respect for the wally but to run the country ,your having a laugh and you need to get real.

hung parliment again and nigel comes across has a one trick pony ,which appeals to a lot of disaffected people but slogans and hate cannot run a government /and we would be in uproar if a german,spanish,french politician talked that way about a British hiv sufferers who use there health services.

you gov snap poll STURGEON - 28% FARAGE - 20% CAMERON - 18% MILIBAND - 15% CLEGG - 10% BENNETT - 5% WOOD - 4%

agree

telegraph ..tracker

sun nation tracker

from twitter

unlike cameron who will scare him s hit less lol:lol: lets face it putin only bothered by the us.

yes but with their adding up thats properly 2 pence = £1

seems he just wants to blame everything on foreigners at every turn..very nasty politics .

no game changer so far so looks like a hung parliment and it was good to see the other party leaders but need a paxman to ask them questions.

agree but so was the poll tax in the 1980s.

clegg comes across good on television and sturgeon is coming across well .

oh dear another slogan but plays to his core audience.

cameron came across well when talking about his kid there.

bias on your part i would say but not everyone will have the same view as you and a different opinion and i want some thing more than slogans when i want to elect a government,

think clegg,millaband and the green lady coming across well but not impressed with nigel has he normally comes across well but just repeats the same old nonsense slogans, cameron playing safe so far and looks like he would rather be elsewhere.

mind you one of prime minsters written out of history and despised by the lunatic wing of the party //Passing through our peculiar time-warp, we now arrive at Edward Heath’s much derided time in office. However, despite the chorus of yawns that inevitably break out at the sound of the name, Heath was a remarkable man and an exceptional Conservative leader. Exceptional due to the fact that he was one of the few twentieth-century Tory Prime Ministers to witness a fall in unemployment under his leadership. Indeed, there were 100,000 fewer people unemployed when he departed in 1974 than when he entered office in 1970. Sandwiched in between two of the Conservative Party’s so-called national ‘titans’, Mr. Heath actually performs rather admirably. Margaret Thatcher’s fiscal fascination with the free market resulted in nearly 600,000 more individuals being unemployed at the end of her reign than at the start. This even after Labour ‘ruined’ the British economy during the late 1970s. “Like North Korea, just without the hope” is a phrase often evoked to describe late 1970s Britain. That may have been so, but 600,000 people certainly had more hope at the end of the 1970s than at the start of it. its funny how we can paint some people has great leaders despite statistics showing the opposite of reality.

don,t think thats true..labour party Attlee's government was the maintenance of near full unemployment. The government maintained most of the wartime controls over the economy, including control over the allocation of materials and manpower, and unemployment rarely rose above 500,000, or 3% of the total workforce., Labour shortages proved to be a more frequent problem. The inflation rate was also kept low during his term. The rate of unemployment rarely rose above 2% during Attlee's time in office, whilst there was no hard-core of long-term unemployed. Both production and productivity rose as a result of new equipment, while the average working week was shortened. and i won,t mention thatchers terrible record on unemployment.

i agree with that, the train to london are a joke and now take longer to get their than the 1970s and despite having a bigger subsidy than British rail ever had most of the money goes into the pockets of the owners rather than modernizing our 3 rd rate train service.