Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

So really the TORIES are the established SLEAZY PARTY and Labour more trusted in last place.

I said Camoron was Devious and Sleazy now the Polls CONFIRM it.

YOUGOV in fact the mouth piece of the Tories no less.

So HAYS your a SLEAZY LOT.

I thought Brand was brilliant on QT last night.

Obviously appeals to the younger generation.

That Tory women was total Sh-te.

Where the hell have they dragged her up from??.

goldfinger

It doesn't mean anything , who and how they got those numbers from. I think you will find that chart is upside down.

You could take that poll at any time and get the same result. The public's perception is not based on reality. The other parties are just behind. Labour successfully characterise the Conservatives as the party of rich people. The public associate being rich with being sleazy. It matters very little. What is far more significant is that UKIP are so far ahead of the the other parties regarding sleaze. They have managed it with almost no history. It is not a good position to be in if you want votes.

goldfinger didn't mention the Labour panelist , i wonder why ?

Talking of sleaze and slime and being a gobshite (as well as Fred) the beloved leader of you red flag flyers, never worked a day in his life and so desperate for power he stabs his own brother in the back.

Why am I not surprised that gf would think Russell Brand was brilliant last night?!

goldfinger [Send an email to goldfinger] [View goldfinger's profile] - 12 Dec 2014 11:40 - 52866 of 52869
I thought Brand was brilliant on QT last night.


That tells us more about you

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/11287635/Id-like-to-climb-inside-Ed-Milibands-head.html

One day, when both of us are old and grey, (or in my case greyer than I am now), I’d like to sit down with Ed Miliband. I’d like to settle back, crack open a nice bottle of wine, and ask: “Ed, what happened? Explain it all to me. Talk me through it. Just so I can finally understand. What were you thinking back then? What was the plan? What were you trying to do?”

I can’t answer any of those questions today. Ed Miliband and his party have now reached the point where it is no longer possible to rationalise in any meaningful way what they are trying to do to win the 2015 general election. Their actions simply defy analysis. They are no longer rooted in space or time.

For four-and-a-half years Ed Miliband has pursued a simple strategy in relation to Britain’s deficit and looming debt mountain: he’s pretended it doesn’t exist. Oh, there was some talk about tough choices and making democratic socialism relevant in an era where there wasn’t a lot of money to spend. But Labour’s leader didn’t mean it. And his party knew he didn’t mean it. And the country knew he didn’t mean it.

Instead, Ed Miliband chose to focus on other issues. Recasting capitalism. Tackling energy prices. Confronting the press. Tweeting about the sad death of Bob Holness.

Some people – I was one of them – questioned that strategy. If Labour didn’t come up with a credible stance on deficit reduction, we warned, then the party would struggle to regain their reputation for economic competence. The Tories would open a commanding lead on the economy, and that would in turn, be potentially fatal for Labour’s election chances.

Those concerns were dismissed. The people raising them were disciples of “the old politics” we were told. Blairite holdouts at best, closet Tories at worst.

So off Labour went, pretending the deficit wasn’t a problem. Or at least, wasn’t a problem in political terms. And, predictably, the Tories began to open a lead on the economy. But it didn’t matter, we were told. That would all change because the Coalition’s policies would push the economy into a new recession, and George Osborne’s reputation for economic competence would be destroyed.

But it didn’t happen. The Tory lead on the economy increased. That didn’t matter, we were told, because it would just turn out to be a paper recovery. A “jobless recovery”, some said. George Osborne’s reputation for economic competence would be destroyed.

But it wasn’t. Unemployment fell. It didn’t matter, we were told again, because we were in the midst of a cost of living crisis. People weren’t feeling better off. And because of that George Osborne’s reputation for economic competence would be destroyed.

At the weekend the Observer showed that the Conservatives had increased their lead on the economy to 14 points. George Osborne’s reputation on the economy hasn’t been destroyed. Labour’s has.

But last week, amid the darkness of Labour’s disastrous deficit denial, a small chink of light appeared. It was nothing more than a faint sliver, so thin as to be almost imperceptible. But it was there.

Analysis of the Autumn Statement showed that the Conservatives plans involved cutting public spending as a percentage of GDP to levels not seen since the 1930s. The BBC picked up on it. There was an almighty row.

Journalists from Labour-supporting papers, looking to exploit the row, phoned the Labour Party for comment. They were told: “We’re not pushing this. Our focus is going to be on how to reduce the deficit.”

For four years Labour has ignored the deficit. Anyone in Labour’s ranks advocating a tougher stance on the deficit has been publicly lambasted. Shadow cabinet members who have pressed for a tougher stance have been sacked or demoted. Deficit reduction became such a peripheral part of Labour’s political strategy that in his speech to Labour conference Ed Miliband, by his own admission, forgot about it all together. And then, at precisely the moment where the Tories present Labour with an opening on cuts, Ed Miliband decides to beat his ploughshares into axes, and proudly announce his own plan to slash public services.

“Ed Miliband vows to wield the axe on public services to balance books”, was the headline in the Independent. This morning it was being favourably retweeted by loyal Labour MPs.

A few minutes ago Slasher Ed finished describing how the axe will be wielded. This is what he said. I am not making it up.

Labour would “balance the books” he said. But not on what he called “productive investment” like roads, and other major infrastructure projects.

There is no such thing as “productive investment”. He invented it. It’s borrowing, plain and simple. Labour won’t actually balance the books at all.

Labour would “tackle the cost of living crisis to stop reduced tax revenues making the deficit bigger”, he said. If you recall, initially Labour said it would borrow for growth. But the economy started growing. Then Labour said it would borrow to reduce unemployment. But unemployment fell. So now Labour is pledging to borrow to tackle the cost of living crisis, which Miliband has said is caused by low wages. So in other words, Labour is now planning to borrow to artificially drive wages up.

Labour would introduce “sensible spending cuts” he said. Honestly. He really said that. “Sensible spending cuts”. In contrast to the Tories “silly cuts” presumably.

There would be tax rises he pledged. But only for “the wealthiest”. Not for “everyday people”. Who “everyday people” are, he didn’t say.

And there was one final promise. Unlike the Tories, Labour would not make any pledges that were not “fully funded” he said. This promise was instantly put to the test. Having just committed himself to balancing the current account during the lifetime of the next Parliament, could Ed Miliband explain which cuts would be needed to meet that commitment, he was asked? No. He couldn’t.

This is Ed Miliband’s strategy for winning the next election. He will pledge to take the axe to public services, whilst simultaneously attacking the Conservative Party for wanting to take the axe to public services.

He will tell people he will eradicate the deficit. And to get them to believe him, he will pretend there is a new form of borrowing called “productive investment” that is not borrowing. Even though it is borrowing, and everyone knows it’s borrowing.

He will tell people that we cannot solve the cost of living crisis without increasing borrowing in the short term. Having told them we couldn’t bring the economy back into growth or reduce unemployment without increasing borrowing in the short term, then watched as the economy returned to growth and unemployment fell.

He will tell people that he can eradicate the deficit and protect public services without raising their taxes. Though taxes will still rise. But not for them. For somebody else.

He will tell them he will make no uncosted pledges. And when they ask what he will cut to meet his pledge to bring the current account into balance he will refuse to answer.

It must all make sense to Ed Miliband. One day, it might make sense to me. But not today.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2869314/Now-Miliband-raises-spectre-1930s-attacks-Tory-cuts-Labour-leader-say-party-impose-years-cuts-condemn-Conservatives-extreme-approach.html

I'll balance books, says Ed (but he can't say how): In fact, his plan could land us with an extra £50billion of debt

Miliband admits years of cuts needed to deal with the nation's deficit

But he claims Tories' approach would lead to 'disintegration' of services

Promises 'commonsense' spending cuts if Labour win the election

Three months after disastrous conference speech when he forgot deficit

He attacks Coalition over plans to shrink state to level seen in 1930s

ComRes poll finds a third of voters support drastic public spending cuts

Ed Balls writes to all of shadow cabinet warning them there is no money

Ed Miliband’s bid to restore Labour’s battered economic credibility backfired spectacularly last night.

He pledged that reducing the deficit would be a priority if he wins the election but independent experts warned his plans would mean ‘much more borrowing and debt’.

The Labour leader – who forgot to mention the deficit in his party conference speech this year and has spent the past four years attacking Tory cuts – refused to say how and where he would reduce spending.

Mr Miliband claimed Labour would impose ‘year on year’ spending cuts to reduce the deficit, saying it was his ‘first pledge of the election campaign’.

And he admitted that being seen to deal with the huge budget deficit left by the last Labour government was now ‘an essential test of credibility’ for the party, which lags far behind the Conservatives on the issue in opinion polls.

Mr Miliband pledged to bring day-to-day government spending back into balance ‘as soon as possible’.

But he gave no date for bringing the public finances back into the black – suggesting that Britain’s towering debts would continue to rise indefinitely under Labour.

And though he said Labour was working on plans for ‘common sense spending reductions’, he refused to spell out where the axe would fall, saying the full detail would be released only after a Labour victory in next May’s General Election.

Experts warned that his lax rules on public finances would rack up gigantic debts for future generations.

Labour would continue to borrow for capital spending on things such as transport infrastructure, which is forecast to hit £27billion by 2020.

Russel Brand 16 million followers on social media, when asked by a member of the audience and then by David Dimbleby on QT why he doesn't stand to be an MP he replied 'I would be frightened of becoming one of them'

The young lass who has just been awarded the Nobel Prize award has a fraction of that number of followers on social media, which tells you all you need to know re the mentality of Twitters. Congratulation gf!

The above from our own reporter Haze in Noddy Land.

Why should Labour write out the detailed policies now?

The tories with aimless austerity and slashing cuts of Welfare policies and aimed at the least able to fend for themselves, are alienating more and more of the voters.

I think Ed can sit back for another 2-3 months and let the tories and Ukip self-destruct.
(Thinking and clarifying policies rather than be like the tories rushing out ill thought out policies and news bites, without considering the practicalities.)
=====

The Tories are scraping around for workable policies and copying the UKIP actions of scapegoating minority groups for their own economic failures.

I was led to believe by Osborne and the likes at the time of election thought that the UK economy was insulated from the world economy. Now we find the UK is not an isolated entity within the world economy.

===========

By the way, is the NHS beginning to fail in spite of warnings from Medical Staff and LABOUR, due to incompetent government leadership.

Doesn't matter, Cameron and Hunt are in denial. That will solve the oncoming problems.

=======

I wonder how many more torrid party "successes" will become obvious to the voters before the General Election!

"Why should Labour write out the detailed policies now?" Would you give someone a job if you asked them what their qualifications were and they replied - give me the job and then I'll tell you! Blooming marvellous that - make me your PM and then I'll tell you what taxes you will pay under a Labour government. :-)

Hays your a sleazy g-t.

Russel Brand 16 million followers on social media

Makes you wonder about the 16 million ?

Sponsors 'turn their back' on Michael Schumacher by slashing lucrative deals with F1 star

THE first wealthy sponsors have begun to cut their ties with stricken Michael Schumacher as the chances of any meaningful recovery to promote their products remain slim.

Daily Express
December 12, 2014, 09:22, Fri,
By ALLAN HALL, IN BERLIN

Phillipe Gaydouls, owner of Jet Set, has already severed commercial ties with the 45-year-old coma victim.

Swiss news website Bluewin claimed Schumacher is poorer to the tune of several million pounds annually as a result of the commercial decisions taken by some companies who no longer see him as a role model for their products.

On the one hand, the sponsors must pursue economic objectives. On the other hand it will not be well received in public if you are turning your back on Schumacher at this difficult time.

While Mercedes and the wealth management and advice firm DVAG promised to stand by him, others are not.

Phillipe Gaydouls, owner of the fashion firms Navyboot and Jet Set, has publicly severed his commercial ties with the 45-year-old recovering coma victim.

"It is not easy for Schumacher's sponsors: paying out millions of Swiss francs per year and receiving nothing back since the crash," said the Bluewin report, referring to the ski accident on December 29 last year which has left Schumachder paralysed, speechless and confined to beds and wheelchairs.

"But must they separate in this situation from the Formula 1 legend? It is a balancing act: On the one hand, the sponsors must pursue economic objectives, which point towards for a parting.

"On the other hand it will not be well received in public if you are turning your back on Schumacher at this difficult time."

Gaydoul's spokeswoman confirmed his decision. Finance magazine Bilanz estimated he was paying Schumacher some four million pounds per year.

Earlier this year the German mineral water company Rosbacher reportedly annulled its contract with him.

It is not clear what other companies have severed their links with Schumacher who is being cared for by a team of specialists at his 35 million pound mansion at Gland on the shores of Lake Geneva.

He was transferred there at the end of the summer from a rehab clinic in Lausanne where doctors decided it would be better for him to be with his family.

He is being cared for in a state-of-the-art medical suite built inside the mansion. In the grounds a house has been constructed for his father to move into.

Although the sponsorship money is a fortune to most, the loss of it will not dent his financial security. He amassed a fortune of some 500 million pounds during his years at the top.

i think MS will have more than enough stashed away, though one wouldn't wish his condition on anyone, not even anyone here

There surely can't be 16 million dumb blondes in the world can there?