Ex Lion Tamer Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 Did labour over spend? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32549892 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 I'm sorry dude, but there is quite the difference in the 'something for nothing' between someone on JSA getting £50 p/w (that figure may have changed a bit, but that is what I was living on when I was on it) and getting hundreds of thousands or even millions just because you were lucky enough to be born into a family with wealth. And let's be honest, that is what it is, blind luck. I've spoken before about my experiences of being unemployed and living on benefits, it's really not a picnic. You and I have discussed this before, equality of outcome(EoOu) vs equality of opportunity (EoOp). I'm genuinely interested in how you see inheritance of sums that can change peoples lives as being compatible with equality of opportunity. When we spoke before on this, I mentioned how EoOp only works is society is an even playing field to begin with. If you have people that can do eff all, but are born into wealthy families, with the opportunity to be sent to the best schools, have everything they could ever want and more and then inherit wealth well beyond most peoples means this seems totally at odds with the idea of EoOp. It also totally negates the idea all you need to do is work hard, it's a huge hinderence to social mobility and any equality of opportunity. I'm being facetious to a point on this - I'm not talking about your people who are inheriting millions of pound, they should be taxed, I just believe the threshold should be higher for it. I wish there was a way of means testing how the the last generation made the money, and awarding tax breaks to those who made money in a responsible, hard working way, but that is pie in the sky and not going to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Bognor Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 Same for Nick Clegg, instead of apologising for making a mistake about tuition fees, he should have blamed the Tories for the policy. Indeed. Begging for forgiveness is not the best way to start your pitch. Surely he knew a question like this would be coming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintbletch Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 Now that's just 'kin repulsive and uncalled for. VFTT and others, I apologise if I've overstepped a mark, or caused offence in my rush to implement Godwin's law. I think it's important that I try to explain my thoughts, because it really didn't leave my brain that way, but I can now see how it looks. If I had attempted to suggest that anything Clegg had done was in anyway comparable with anything Hitler did, then that would be in very poor taste. But I hoped it was obvious that I wasn't making drawing a parallel on policies or impact between Clegg and Hitler. I was attempting to link the fact that they both were put into government by their supporters, then took decisions that their voters surely did not want, and then through powerful oratory were able to justify their actions. I've just finished reading Time's Arrow by Martin Amis. It's told backwards and is truly one of the oddest books I've ever read, but it centres around a war criminal who was a doctor and did some really **** things at Auschwitz. It set me thinking about how on earth Hitler was ever put into power in the first place. Surely nobody would have voted for a policy such as that? I thought Nick Clegg's defence over his pledge/un-pledge was incredibly ballsy and showed what an excellent speaker he is. But it left me in mind of how people who have that natural ability to carry an audience feel that they can do whatever they want, because when they next get in front of that audience, they will be able to talk them round and reconcile their actions. Given the book I've just read, the Hitler comparison came to mind. Inappropriately it would appear. The only parallel I was hoping to draw was that voters in both instances were left wondering how their 'mandate' had been twisted in a way that was surely not in line with their wishes, and then they watched as those powerful speakers were able to ignore that breach of trust and justify their actions. For the avoidance of doubt, the common themes I was aiming for were a breach of trust and the ability to reconcile that breach through skillful oratory. Nothing more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shurlock Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 (edited) Everyone is declaring the QT audience the main winner of yesterday's debate. But I thought it was dreadful. Nothing more than Tory and Labour partisans regurgitating the propaganda and agenda set by their respective parties to grill the other side's leader. Meanwhile, the disowned Clegg and the Lib Dems got a kicking from both sides, though I'm probably more impressed with them than I was at the previous election when they were everybody's darlings. If those questions had been asked by politicians, they would have been interpreted as further evidence of the reductive, shrill and scripted nature of political debate in this country. But because they were asked by some redfaced, squinty-eyed Yorkshiremen with the gruff appearance of spontaneity, it's all somehow different. Edited 1 May, 2015 by shurlock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 Moving away from QT, I've recently read this blog about unemployment numbers and sanctions http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2014/08/13/fall-in-unemployment-number-of-people-on-sanctions/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torres Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 I can see the Tories winning because they are getting their message over better than Labour, they have managed to turn a global financial crisis into "labour left us broke again" and it will work. I was frustrated by Millibands poor performance last night when questioned about the economy, he should have highlighted the fact that it was the uncontrolled capitalism that got the world into the mess and under the Tories the crash could have been more severe. Live by the sword, die by the sword. Gordon Brown, with Balls on his coat-tails, claimed that he'd been able to overcome the economic cycle and had eliminated "boom and bust" so, like King Canute, they deserve to get wet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 I can see the Tories winning because they are getting their message over better than Labour, they have managed to turn a global financial crisis into "labour left us broke again" and it will work. .when Labour came to power, Blair and Brown took the BoE powers away and let the banks self regulate. That led to the mess we are in. it was great for a while as loads of money came into the Exchequor and Labour could spend. They were like Crack Whores on it and couldnt go cold turkey. A few on S4E mentioned at the time it was madness, that people who could not put £1 down on a house could borrow 100% and more and it would end in tears. The crash came and we werre left in a worse position than most countries in the world. Yes there were other factors but Blair and co took the cork out of the bottle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 Everyone is declaring the QT audience the main winner of yesterday's debate. But I thought it was dreadful. Nothing more than Tory and Labour partisans regurgitating the propaganda and agenda set by their respective parties to grill the other side's leader. Meanwhile, the disowned Clegg and the Lib Dems got a kicking from both sides, though I'm probably more impressed with them than I was at the previous election when they were everybody's darlings. If those questions had been asked by politicians, they would have been interpreted as further evidence of the reductive, shrill and scripted nature of political debate in this country. But because they were asked by some redfaced, squinty-eyed Yorkshiremen with the gruff appearance of spontaneity, it's all somehow different. You could have tried to go and ask your questions..? Perhaps it is how the majority of the country are looking at the election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Bognor Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 Interesting article about how Australia faired well after the "Global" financial crash... (and why Brown CAN be blamed for the situation we found ourselves in, even if he didn't personally cause the crash) Sourced from The Guardian, just for the lefties... http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/28/australia-global-economic-crisis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 I can see the Tories winning because they are getting their message over better than Labour, they have managed to turn a global financial crisis into "labour left us broke again" and it will work. I was frustrated by Millibands poor performance last night when questioned about the economy, he should have highlighted the fact that it was the uncontrolled capitalism that got the world into the mess and under the Tories the crash could have been more severe. He also should have highlighted the good the last Labour government did before the crash, except he looked like he didn't have an answer. Thatcher could always turn a question around to make her seem right even when she was obviously wrong, Milliband couldn't do that. Same for Nick Clegg, instead of apologising for making a mistake about tuition fees, he should have blamed the Tories for the policy. Labour should have admitted they overspent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torres Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 The money that we're being forced to spunk away under PFI contracts agreed by the previous government would plug the fabled £8bn "hole" in NHS financing, with a fair bit to spare.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 The money that we're being forced to spunk away under PFI contracts agreed by the previous government would plug the fabled £8bn "hole" in NHS financing, with a fair bit to spare.... An awful lots of new hospital and school buildings were constructed under PFI at zero initial cost to the tax payer. PFI might have been the wrong way to go, but its risible to pretend all the PFI contract money is waste and would magically plug the unfunded Tories spending commitment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 An awful lots of new hospital and school buildings were constructed under PFI at zero initial cost to the tax payer. PFI might have been the wrong way to go, but its risible to pretend all the PFI contract money is waste and would magically plug the unfunded Tories spending commitment. Indeed - people conveniently forget the dreadful state of hospitals and schools in the period leading up to 1997. Hospital buildings not fit for purpose and costing a fortune in backlog maintenance and staffing. Schools with leaking roofs and pre-war portakabins. PFI was first introduced by the Tory government led by John Major. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torres Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 (edited) By the way, does anyone understand what Ed said last night (and appears to be repeating this morning) that he'd rather not form a Labour government and would rather not be PM if the only way he could be was with the support of the SNP? I'm still confused by that because I just can't believe that he means it, does he? Maybe he does, but I'd be staggered. What was he really saying? Edited 1 May, 2015 by Torres Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torres Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 An awful lots of new hospital and school buildings were constructed under PFI at zero initial cost to the tax payer. PFI might have been the wrong way to go, but its risible to pretend all the PFI contract money is waste and would magically plug the unfunded Tories spending commitment. That was a little tongue in cheek, to be fair. The real point is that the previous Labour government not only overspent when they were in power, they committed us to horrifically expensive contracts that won't be fully completed until after those who signed them will probably have died Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shurlock Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 (edited) when Labour came to power, Blair and Brown took the BoE powers away and let the banks self regulate. That led to the mess we are in. it was great for a while as loads of money came into the Exchequor and Labour could spend. They were like Crack Whores on it and couldnt go cold turkey. A few on S4E mentioned at the time it was madness, that people who could not put £1 down on a house could borrow 100% and more and it would end in tears. The crash came and we werre left in a worse position than most countries in the world. Yes there were other factors but Blair and co took the cork out of the bottle This is cringeworthily daft. To repeat what I've said elsewhere on this thread, it wasn't deregulation; it was a form of rationalisation which freed the BoE to monitor the stability of the system as a whole while empowering the FSA, the newly created independent super-regulator, to deal with conduct of banks and financial actors on the ground. After all, the BoE had missed the collapse of Barings Bank a few years earlier. In isolation, such a division of labour made complete and utter sense. Note that the BoE was not the only actor supervising the financial system. Part of the reason for the FSA's creation is that there were nine other bodies -from Imro to Fimbra- that claimed some regulatory responsibility, creating uncertainty and indecision. Ironically, the establishment of the FSA was delayed because of fears that it would be too powerful. Regulation should have been tighter but nobody was making this argument as long as revenues were flowing into the coffers and a belief in the self-correcting powers of markets held sway. The evidence is that the Tories would have gone a lot further with financial deregulation. Read their 2007 'Freeing Britain to Compete' in which they argued, among other things, that there was no need to regulate mortgage finance as the risk was assumed by the lender, not the client. Talk about adding fuel to the flames of moral hazard and the need for bailouts. Absolutely priceless. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1560100/Tories-plan-14bn-cuts-to-red-tape.html Edited 1 May, 2015 by shurlock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 By the way, does anyone understand what Ed said last night (and appears to be repeating this morning) that he'd rather not form a Labour government and would rather not be PM if the only way he could be it was with the support of the SNP? I'm still confused by that because I just can't believe that he means it, does he? Maybe he does, but I'd be staggered. What was he really saying? He's almost certainly really saying he won't go into a coalition with the SNP. The answer is hardly difficult to find. If the SNP wins an overwhelming number of seats on 7 May, it will be at the almost total expense of Scottish Labour. So to go into a coalition with the SNP will signal a long-term defeat for Scottish Labour - something from which it might never recover. Yet Labour has historically depended on a stronger than average showing in Scotland to win overall majorities in Westminster. So it would be political suicide to go into coalition with the SNP. It won't happen. Far more likely is that if they're in a position to negotiate they'll do a deal with what remains of the Lib Dems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 By the way, does anyone understand what Ed said last night (and appears to be repeating this morning) that he'd rather not form a Labour government and would rather not be PM if the only way he could be was with the support of the SNP? I'm still confused by that because I just can't believe that he means it, does he? Maybe he does, but I'd be staggered. What was he really saying? That they'll form a coalition with the Lib Dems? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ex Lion Tamer Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 (edited) He's almost certainly really saying he won't go into a coalition with the SNP. The answer is hardly difficult to find. If the SNP wins an overwhelming number of seats on 7 May, it will be at the almost total expense of Scottish Labour. So to go into a coalition with the SNP will signal a long-term defeat for Scottish Labour - something from which it might never recover. Yet Labour has historically depended on a stronger than average showing in Scotland to win overall majorities in Westminster. So it would be political suicide to go into coalition with the SNP. It won't happen. Far more likely is that if they're in a position to negotiate they'll do a deal with what remains of the Lib Dems. First thing is that as the largest party, the Tories will put forward a Queens speech. Lab and SNP will vote it down. That means Labour, as the second largest party, will put forward its own Queen's speech, and dare the SNP to vote it down. The SNP won't because at least its better than the Tories, and they have to be seen to be constructively trying to get the UK to have a working government. Labour therefore becomes a minority government. Then in every subsequent bill, if it doesn't get passed then Labour will blame the SNP. There will be negotiation on a regular basis but no deal as such. I don't think it is going to be easy for Labour at all but its the basis to form a government Edited 1 May, 2015 by Ex Lion Tamer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 By the way, does anyone understand what Ed said last night (and appears to be repeating this morning) that he'd rather not form a Labour government and would rather not be PM if the only way he could be was with the support of the SNP? I'm still confused by that because I just can't believe that he means it, does he? Maybe he does, but I'd be staggered. What was he really saying? Probably she demanded change on redline issues and Miliband said no. Nuclear disarmanent / referendum and / or more money for Scotland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 That was a little tongue in cheek, to be fair. The real point is that the previous Labour government not only overspent when they were in power, they committed us to horrifically expensive contracts that won't be fully completed until after those who signed them will probably have died [/QUOTbE] Most PFI contracts (certainly the majority of health projects) have a 30 year span but also have break clauses before then if the needs of the contracting Trust change. Given that change in the NHS happens at a very fast pace that's probably quite a shrewd move. When I planned a new hospital under PFI, day surgery accounted for about 15% of activity. These days the vast majority of procedures are carried out on a day case basis. So the needs of long stay are gone. What has also changed is the number of bed blockers because of the increase in elderly medicine. Not so sure that would have been predicted 30 years ago and who's to know what advances will be made in the next 20-30 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shurlock Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 You could have tried to go and ask your questions..? Perhaps it is how the majority of the country are looking at the election. No need to ask questions in such a format. If that's how the public views the election, then god forbid, though im pretty sure it takes a certain type of personality with certain political convictions to go on a show like QT, let alone ask questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 No need to ask questions in such a format. If that's how the public views the election, then god forbid, though im pretty sure it takes a certain type of personality with certain political convictions to go on a show like QT, let alone ask questions. Don't disagree. I'm not saying that is how people are viewing the election, but the sample sizes you have are those around you, and those you see on programs like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 when Labour came to power, Blair and Brown took the BoE powers away and let the banks self regulate. That led to the mess we are in. it was great for a while as loads of money came into the Exchequor and Labour could spend. They were like Crack Whores on it and couldnt go cold turkey. A few on S4E mentioned at the time it was madness, that people who could not put £1 down on a house could borrow 100% and more and it would end in tears. The crash came and we werre left in a worse position than most countries in the world. Yes there were other factors but Blair and co took the cork out of the bottle Yes I agree but the Tories have traditionally been even more opposed to bank regulation, who knows how bad we would have been effected if they were in government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torres Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 Bank (de)regulation was a worldwide issue and I can't honestly blame the last government for their stance on it. Any attempts to introduce the current levels of regulation back in 2006 would only have encouraged financial service institutions to move away from London towards Frankfurt or NY, and with the UK economy heavily reliant on financial services, it would have been suicidal for the UK to do so in isolation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 Yes I agree but the Tories have traditionally been even more opposed to bank regulation, who knows how bad we would have been effected if they were in government. This is why the Right's criticism of Labour for poor bank regulation is both right and fatuous. Right because under-regulation was a substantial contributor to the crisis (although it must be said that even those high up in the banking industry didn't understand how some of their own financial products and instruments worked). And fatuous because had the Tories been in power there'd have been even less regulation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 Lol at labour moaning at QT audience , when Nigel complained all the lefties said it was sour grapes. At least nige had the balls to have a go there and then, not come over all " what's your name " and then start crying afterwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 Lol at labour moaning at QT audience , when Nigel complained all the lefties said it was sour grapes. At least nige had the balls to have a go there and then, not come over all " what's your name " and then start crying afterwards. LOL at UKIP for contacting the police over HIGNFY. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 Lol at labour moaning at QT audience , when Nigel complained all the lefties said it was sour grapes. At least nige had the balls to have a go there and then, not come over all " what's your name " and then start crying afterwards. But she blatantly lied. Oh hang on - she's a Tory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torres Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 But she blatantly lied. Oh hang on - she's a Tory Is those answering the questions can lie, it's only fair to allow those asking them to do the same Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelk Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 But she blatantly lied. Oh hang on - she's a Tory Who are you talking about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 Who are you talking about? This woman http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/05/01/labour-ed-miliband-question-catherine-shuttleworth_n_7188552.html?1430491967 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 This woman http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/05/01/labour-ed-miliband-question-catherine-shuttleworth_n_7188552.html?1430491967 It happens to all the parties it seems. God Knows how many plants have been in QT over the years, ready to pounce Sour grapes though, innit Then of course, the link could be a lie??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelk Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 This woman http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/05/01/labour-ed-miliband-question-catherine-shuttleworth_n_7188552.html?1430491967 Cheers. She wound me up and was obvious a stooge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special K Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 That was a little tongue in cheek, to be fair. The real point is that the previous Labour government not only overspent when they were in power, they committed us to horrifically expensive contracts that won't be fully completed until after those who signed them will probably have died Under Labour, the love in with PFI was underpinned by an unscrupulous private sector who took advantage of both the Labour zeal to embrace PFI and their shocking inability to drive a decent bargain for the taxpayer. Encouraging, at great expense, the private sector into bed under the PUK banner, they let the decision makers come from the very organisations they were supposed to be negotiating with. Result - huge fees, extortionate repayments and unworkable commitments. Totally hopeless state of affairs and a perfect example of the "jam today, sh!t tomorrow" culture of profligacy and financial mismanagement that smeared that period under Labour. Mind you, who is to say the Tories would have been much better! However Labour were responsible for that period and it is no wonder their proclamation of economic safety, should they get in next week, is taken with a truckload of salt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special K Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 This woman http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/05/01/labour-ed-miliband-question-catherine-shuttleworth_n_7188552.html?1430491967 Does it really matter? IIRC the audience was compiled of a roughly similar number of partisan voters, so if she hadn't have taken Ed to task, someone else would have. Seems laughable to me that the Labour Party are working themselves up into a frothy mess of indignation over this. Are they suggesting Ed couldn't handle an ordinary Tory voting lass from Leeds? If so, then christ knows how he'd handle a fearsome Pict from Irvine!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 First thing is that as the largest party, the Tories will put forward a Queens speech. Lab and SNP will vote it down. That means Labour, as the second largest party, will put forward its own Queen's speech, and dare the SNP to vote it down. The SNP won't because at least its better than the Tories, and they have to be seen to be constructively trying to get the UK to have a working government. Labour therefore becomes a minority government. Then in every subsequent bill, if it doesn't get passed then Labour will blame the SNP. There will be negotiation on a regular basis but no deal as such. I don't think it is going to be easy for Labour at all but its the basis to form a government You're wasting your time if you think Torres is ever going to accept this. The whole country is going to be dominated by 40 jock MPs. Dominated I tells ya. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 I have to say, Special K, that the two hospital PFI schemes I worked on were judged by the Treasury's own PFI unit to have robust business cases (under both governments). Perhaps the naivete was the inability of the Treasury to recognise just how unscrupulous (as you say) the SPVs were. When Labour had settled in, the rules were changed so that the SPVs' renegotiations with their own funders that resulted in cheaper funding was shared with the NHS Trusts. In the main PFI delivered on time and on budget - something that rarely happened with D & B contracts. The main problem was that those specifying from the NHS side were hit with unreasonable RfIs for example. The highly experienced NHS Estates staff that used to deal with contractors had all been made redundant when services were market tested in 1991 and onwards. Ironically, they were snapped up by the developers to lead the private sector bidding! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 Does it really matter? IIRC the audience was compiled of a roughly similar number of partisan voters, so if she hadn't have taken Ed to task, someone else would have. Seems laughable to me that the Labour Party are working themselves up into a frothy mess of indignation over this. Are they suggesting Ed couldn't handle an ordinary Tory voting lass from Leeds? If so, then christ knows how he'd handle a fearsome Pict from Irvine!! No - those that applied to be in the audience were supposedly undecided voters and were selected on that basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 No - those that applied to be in the audience were supposedly undecided voters and were selected on that basis. it happens. I bet half of previous 'undecided' were really not.. you see suspected plants all the time in QT and the like. stand out like a sore thumb. Just this time, Ed was all over the place with it (his turn in that respect) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 No - those that applied to be in the audience were supposedly undecided voters and were selected on that basis. It was 25% for each party and 25% undecided I believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 It was 25% for each party and 25% undecided I believe. Yep, that's what they said at the beginning. Was she meant to be one of the 'undecided' then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torres Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 You're wasting your time if you think Torres is ever going to accept this. The whole country is going to be dominated by 40 jock MPs. Dominated I tells ya. My word. Your comprehension skills are woeful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 Yep, that's what they said at the beginning. Was she meant to be one of the 'undecided' then? From the Telegraph: "Shuttleworth, the chief executive and founder of advertising and marketing company Savvy Marketing, told the Telegraph that she had applied to join the Question Time audience as an undecided voter but now was likely to vote Conservative." But, if you read the HuffPost link, you'll see that she was one of the small businesses who signed a letter a week or so ago supporting the Conservatives and she's also set up her company with a Tory MP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 I think we will have a Conservative/Lib/UKiP thing going on. this time next week Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperMikey Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 I think we will have a Conservative/Lib/UKiP thing going on. this time next week They'd still be 11 seats short of forming a coalition going on today's polling. If we're going to see a minority government after this election it'll be Labour as the Commons will be considerably left-leaning in constitution with Labour, LD, SNP, Green, SDLP & Plaid MPs there. Conservative & UKIP would be the only real right-leaning parties represented, although some Lib Dems would probably still go along with the Tories on some issues so as to not undermine the last 5 years of coalition and some Labour MPs may go against the grain on economic matters as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shurlock Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 I think we will have a Conservative/Lib/UKiP thing going on. this time next week Don't forget the DUP- hard to see the lib dems being part of any such arrangement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 (edited) They'd still be 11 seats short of forming a coalition going on today's polling. If we're going to see a minority government after this election it'll be Labour as the Commons will be considerably left-leaning in constitution with Labour, LD, SNP, Green, SDLP & Plaid MPs there. Conservative & UKIP would be the only real right-leaning parties represented, although some Lib Dems would probably still go along with the Tories on some issues so as to not undermine the last 5 years of coalition and some Labour MPs may go against the grain on economic matters as well. that is todays polls I think in the coming days, we will see the Tory's move further ahead. Which is happening in the South West already. Could well be blue across the board pretty much down this way green and the welsh lot? be lucky if they get 3 between them Edited 1 May, 2015 by Batman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 1 May, 2015 Share Posted 1 May, 2015 It happens to all the parties it seems. God Knows how many plants have been in QT over the years, ready to pounce Sour grapes though, innit Then of course, the link could be a lie??? It's a conspiracy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now