shock! horror! gordie boy caught saying what he thinks

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed Apr 28, 2010 9:42 am

BBC NEWS | News Front Page

Oh dear:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Wed Apr 28, 2010 9:48 am

Well....ummm... was she a bigot? I don't think calling a duck a duck is a bad thing necessarily.:-3

Odie · Post by **Odie** » Wed Apr 28, 2010 9:52 am

gmc;1306422 wrote: BBC NEWS | News Front Page

Oh dear:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

he should be mortified!

tsk tsk tsk!:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Wed Apr 28, 2010 10:11 am

Saint_;1306425 wrote: Well....ummm... was she a bigot? I don't think calling a duck a duck is a bad thing necessarily.:-3

She said absolutely nothing, that could be remotely be described as bigoted. She asked about Britain's debt. She was visibly upset when she was approached by the press. He's made a complete arse of himself and I hope it costs him more points in the polls

mikeinie · Post by **mikeinie** » Wed Apr 28, 2010 10:19 am

An example of when the media makes something out of nothing. He has a right to his opinions when spoken in privacy. Perhaps the news should have respected that he was no longer being interviewed and stopped listening in to his personal conversations.

Where is the line between personal and public?

beowulf · Post by **beowulf** » Wed Apr 28, 2010 10:21 am

i think she was right

i think gordon brown is an idiot

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed Apr 28, 2010 10:23 am

Saint_;1306425 wrote: Well....ummm... was she a bigot? I don't think calling a duck a duck is a bad thing necessarily.:-3

No she was a diehard labourite.

listen and make up your own mind.

BBC News - Gillian Duffy confronts Gordon Brown

BBC News - Gordon Brown 'bigoted woman' jibe caught on tape

posted by mikienie

An example of when the media makes something out of nothing. He has a right to his opinions when spoken in privacy. Perhaps the news should have respected that he was no longer being interviewed and stopped listening in to his personal conversations.

Where is the line between personal and public?

This isn't something out of nothing - rochdale is labour country through and through and gordon brown knew he was wearing a mike, nobody was spying on him. Gillian Duffy is just someone that was passing by. I think he's really shot himself in the foot this time.

G#Gill · Post by **G#Gill** » Wed Apr 28, 2010 10:28 am

I have a feeling that GB will be very careful from now on about checking that his microphone is actually off, before he passes his real thoughts on in private ! :yh_rotfl

beowulf · Post by **beowulf** » Wed Apr 28, 2010 10:30 am

G#Gill;1306451 wrote: I have a feeling that GB will be very careful from now on about checking that his microphone is actually off, before he passes his real thoughts on in private ! :yh_rotfl

stable door........horse......bolted :yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

abbey · Post by **abbey** » Wed Apr 28, 2010 2:34 pm

gmc;1306449 wrote:

This isn't something out of nothing - rochdale is labour country through and through and gordon brown knew he was wearing a mike, nobody was spying on him. Gillian Duffy is just someone that was passing by. I think he's really shot himself in the foot this time.
I think you'll find that Rochdale is Lib-Dem.

abbey · Post by **abbey** » Wed Apr 28, 2010 2:36 pm

mikeinie;1306447 wrote: An example of when the media makes something out of nothing. He has a right to his opinions when spoken in privacy. Perhaps the news should have respected that he was no longer being interviewed and stopped listening in to his personal conversations.

Where is the line between personal and public?
Absolutely!

I've been to many meetings and in private called certain people much worse and it's highly likely they did me.

Post by **Peter Lake** » Wed Apr 28, 2010 2:49 pm

I'm still getting over the shock of finding out that he has an opinion.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Apr 29, 2010 1:39 am

abbey;1306517 wrote: I think you'll find that Rochdale is Lib-Dem.

I stand corrected. Teach me to make assumptions.

abbey · Post by **abbey** » Thu Apr 29, 2010 11:11 am

gmc;1306583 wrote: I stand corrected. Teach me to make assumptions.:oIt's our flat cap "n" clogs image that gives that impression

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Apr 29, 2010 11:16 am

abbey;1306704 wrote: It's our flat cap "n" clogs image that gives that impression

There was a bbc news article about him in a factory in halesowen. You kind of sense they would like to use the clogs on him. I think labour are done for.

beowulf · Post by **beowulf** » Thu Apr 29, 2010 12:07 pm

Scrat;1306652 wrote: The woman has legitimate concerns, he couldn't care less.

typical Labour politician then.............or any politician for that matter

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Apr 29, 2010 12:38 pm

I hated maggie thatcher gordon brown I just find contemptible. How anyone can think he has done a good job completely escapes me.

beowulf · Post by **beowulf** » Thu Apr 29, 2010 12:51 pm

i think he will be remembered as the guy who cocked up everything that Blair established..................mind you, Blair is another buffoon.............always reminded me of a shifty, used car salesman

and Gill will back me up (i hope) as our local MP is kinda shifty looking and i do have first hand experience of witnessing his self gratifying self promoting ignorant shenanigans

must be something in the Labour Party Handbook :wah:

Odie · Post by **Odie** » Thu Apr 29, 2010 3:41 pm

Scrat;1306652 wrote: I saw that on the BBC news last night. I don't think he really gave a damn what she said, he was more concerned with his image and how the press would act on it, nothing more. The woman has legitimate concerns, he couldn't care less.

he has an image?:yh_rotfl

G#Gill · Post by **G#Gill** » Thu Apr 29, 2010 4:44 pm

beowulf;1306721 wrote: i think he will be remembered as the guy who cocked up everything that Blair established..................mind you, Blair is another buffoon.............always reminded me of a shifty, used car salesman

and Gill will back me up (i hope) as our local MP is kinda shifty looking and i do have first hand experience of witnessing his self gratifying self promoting ignorant shenanigans

must be something in the Labour Party Handbook :wah:

If you are referring to the wonderful Mr. Vernon Coaker, I haven't noticed that he looks particularly shifty, but I do think he has a kind of arrogance about him ! :wah: But then I think all MPs in all 3 main parties are arrogant, shifty and not to be trusted. BUT the only time they actually lie is when they open their mouths :yh_rotfl

They are all after the same thing................................... self !

There are very few MPs that are in parliament because they sincerely want to make a difference, and try to be the mouthpiece of their constituents, one of them is/was Dennis Skinner. I lost count of the number of times he was told to leave the 'house' because he spoke his mind :yh_rotfl Is Skinner still with us?

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Apr 30, 2010 12:23 am

beowulf;1306721 wrote: i think he will be remembered as the guy who cocked up everything that Blair established..................mind you, Blair is another buffoon.............always reminded me of a shifty, used car salesman

and Gill will back me up (i hope) as our local MP is kinda shifty looking and i do have first hand experience of witnessing his self gratifying self promoting ignorant shenanigans

must be something in the Labour Party Handbook :wah:

What planet are you one? Tony Blair is the man that destroyed the labour party all brown f=did was finish the job off. Blair got in on the back of John Smith and is merely the sleazeball that took over. If Robin Cook hadn't died it is doubtful that Brown would still be leader, at the very least the labour party would have split. I live in one of those areas where a monkey in a red suit would get elected so long as they stood for labour. I have never known so many die hard labour supporters that despair of their party and the mafia that run it. Labour have taken their support for granted for far too long.

My local labour MP is on trial for fiddling his expenses:yh_rotfl

I suppose they need to find someone and as usual it's not the big crooks that go to trial. I hope we have a hung parliament I really do.

Barman · Post by **Barman** » Fri Apr 30, 2010 1:07 am

Brown

Is

Going

On

Thursday

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Fri Apr 30, 2010 1:37 am

beowulf;1306721 wrote: (Gordon Brown) will be remembered as the guy who cocked up everything that Blair established. wah:

Tony Bliar is the slimeball who caused many of the problems we now have, then left quickly whilst the going was good. Gordon Brown is in the unfortunate position of reaping the harvest sown by Bliar. I feel rather sorry for Brown in this respect - not that he has helped much at all, he seems basically honest, if not particularly competent.

Whoever "gets in" next will soon be in big trouble, and there's nothing they can do to get away from that - I wouldn't like to be in their shoes. There's a lot of pain coming our way (unless some of it is shelved for later, in which case it'll get worse and worse).

beowulf · Post by **beowulf** » Fri Apr 30, 2010 2:02 am

hey...im no labour supporter! :wah:........quite the oppostite......my point is that Blair got reellected twice....so in the eys of 'the people' he must have been doing something right...Brown wasnt elected once...he got in by default and he will not get in this time on his own merit

im no fan of maggie thatcher either but i do think that she had a bigger pair of balls than any PM since or to come

i agree...id like to see a hung parliment just too see them all squirm a little

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Apr 30, 2010 2:23 am

beowulf;1306824 wrote: hey...im no labour supporter! :wah:........quite the oppostite......my point is that Blair got reellected twice....so in the eys of 'the people' he must have been doing something right...Brown wasnt elected once...he got in by default and he will not get in this time on his own merit

im no fan of maggie thatcher either but i do think that she had a bigger pair of balls than any PM since or to come

i agree...id like to see a hung parliment just too see them all squirm a little

In both election labour polled less than a third of the votes labour percentage actually went DOWN at the second election yet they still had most of the seats. Our first past the post system means that effectively the majority of the electorate may as well not bother voting. In all the "safe" seats most of the votes

are not for the party that gets the seat. Neither labour or tory want it changed because they know damn well they would not get enough support top form a government.

They only thing they do right is fiddle the system to their advantage.

beowulf · Post by **beowulf** » Fri Apr 30, 2010 2:59 am

gmc;1306825 wrote:

They only thing they do right is fiddle the system to their advantage.

exactly..........how can proportional representation be seen as a bad thing...........its got to be the fairest way of doing things

kazalala · Post by **kazalala** » Fri Apr 30, 2010 3:07 am

Im thinking here,, if Labour dont get in, then the torys will:-3 if clegg takes a lot of suport from labour torys will get in ,,, oh what to do what to do

:-3

G#Gill · Post by **G#Gill** » Fri Apr 30, 2010 3:55 am

If Tories get in, it will be at the expense of Labour voters turning to Lib/Dems. It could mean a hung parliament, which may not be a bad thing at the moment. Conservatives would have to join with Lib/Dems. Or all 3 main parties form a coalition government. Then theoretically all the best bits from each party could be adopted.:-3

beowulf · Post by **beowulf** » Fri Apr 30, 2010 4:10 am

theorectically yes................but you know they would all be trying to knife each other in the back :rolleyes:

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Apr 30, 2010 4:16 am

Be interesting to see what happens in scotland if the SNP take seats of labour, forget the tories they just don't get a look in. Thatcher was the SNP best argument we all hated her guts.

beowulf · Post by **beowulf** » Fri Apr 30, 2010 4:20 am

now its semi traditional that ex PM get a title and get to sit in the house of lords...............blair didnt get one,think he turned his down...........wonder if gordie will?

beowulf · Post by **beowulf** » Fri Apr 30, 2010 11:36 am

G#Gill;1306785 wrote:

There are very few MPs that are in parliament because they sincerely want to make a difference, and try to be the mouthpiece of their constituents, one of them is/was Dennis Skinner. I lost count of the number of times he was told to leave the 'house' because he spoke his mind :yh_rotfl Is Skinner still with us?

yep.....hes still MP for Bolsover

i dont agree with his politics but hes probably the most honest MP there is..............and at least he has the gumption to speak his mind if he dosnt agree with something..............could do with more like him

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue May 04, 2010 2:46 am

If cameron or brown get power with a majority of seats but less than a third of the vote I hope people take to the street in protest. We're in the shits because of our electoral system.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Tue May 04, 2010 5:11 am

gmc;1307762 wrote: If cameron or brown get power with a majority of seats but less than a third of the vote I hope people take to the street in protest. We're in the shits because of our electoral system.

There's nothing wrong with the electoral system, it's procedures after the event that are the problem, to whit, "the whip". If MPs voted along with their electorate's desires and influence after election, and were not forced to toe the party line under threat of expulsion, it'd fix a myriad of ills.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue May 04, 2010 5:29 am

Bill Sikes;1307774 wrote: There's nothing wrong with the electoral system, it's procedures after the event that are the problem, to whit, "the whip". If MPs voted along with their electorate's desires and influence after election, and were not forced to toe the party line under threat of expulsion, it'd fix a myriad of ills.

Bollocks bollocks bollocks!!! A system where someone can represent a constituency despite the overwhelming majority of those voting not wanting them is insane. It suits labour and the tories to have it that way but effectively 2/3rds of the electorate are disenfranchised. I'm sorry but you have to be a complete idiot if you think that just and fair. Every time I see that tosser brown I want to throw something at the TV. It's enough to make you vote SNP.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Tue May 04, 2010 6:04 am

gmc;1307782 wrote: Bollocks bollocks bollocks!!! A system where someone can represent a constituency despite the overwhelming majority of those voting not wanting them is insane. It suits labour and the tories to have it that way but effectively 2/3rds of the electorate are disenfranchised. I'm sorry but you have to be a complete idiot if you think that just and fair. Every time I see that tosser brown I want to throw something at the TV. It's enough to make you vote SNP.

"Despite the overwhelming majority of those voting not wanting them"? How do you work that out?

I agree about Brown, FWIW (also Cameron, who I'm surprised the yanks haven't invaded yet, for his oil, also sleazeball Clegg).

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue May 04, 2010 7:53 am

Bill Sikes;1307792 wrote: "Despite the overwhelming majority of those voting not wanting them"? How do you work that out?

I agree about Brown, FWIW (also Cameron, who I'm surprised the yanks haven't invaded yet, for his oil, also sleazeball Clegg).

Break it down constituency by constituency and look at the voting figures. Page 33 if you look at how many of the seats were won by labour having more than 50% of the votes actually cast and you will see what I mean. In only 140 of the 356 seats they won did they poll more than 50%. Bear in mind a lot of people don't bother voting in "safe" seats because they know their vote won't make any difference because one party or the other will poll the most votes in that constituency and get the seat even if by only ten votes. effectively you are disenfranchised if you live in one of those areas.

Put it another way, of the 356 seats labour won in 2005, in 216 of them the majority of the voters actively voted against them and got stuck with an MP they didn't want.

Ot's the same with the tories of you look in to it.

The lib dems suffer because their support is spread throughout the country while both tory and labour can gerrymander (and do so) the electoral boundaries to suit themselves.

http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/re ... 05-033.pdf

Labour won 355 seats in 2005, 55% of

the total. That is a fall of 47 relative to

their notional 2001 total.

• Labour polled 35.2% of UK votes, a fall

of 5.5% points. Labour’s share is lower

than in 1979, an election they lost. It is

also the lowest share of the vote ever

won by the leading party at a UK General

Election.

• Labour won 54% of seats in England,

73% in Wales and 68% in Scotland.

• Labour’s 9.6 million votes was lower than

in any post-War election except 1983,

when it polled 8.5 million.

Only a die hard innumerate labour supporter could claim labour have a clear mandate to rule. 65% of those who voted DID NOT WANT TONY BLAIR AND A LABOUR GOVERNMENT. TB is now more hated than thatcher ever was.

It was the same with Thatcher the majority of the british people did not want her in power yet we were stuck with her.

Labour agreed to PR for the scottish parliament in scotland because the stupid idiots thought we would always vote for labour. It hasn't half made them sit up and pay attention to the voters in scotland.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue May 04, 2010 11:27 am

gmc;1307782 wrote: Bollocks bollocks bollocks!!! A system where someone can represent a constituency despite the overwhelming majority of those voting not wanting them is insane. It suits labour and the tories to have it that way but effectively 2/3rds of the electorate are disenfranchised. I'm sorry but you have to be a complete idiot if you think that just and fair. Every time I see that tosser brown I want to throw something at the TV. It's enough to make you vote SNP.

Not bollocks but an answer to a slightly different question.

Even if we moved to PR of one form or another, for as long as the Whip lasts we will not have a representative government and 3/3rds of the electorate are disenfranchised.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue May 04, 2010 12:24 pm

Bryn Mawr;1307883 wrote: Not bollocks but an answer to a slightly different question.

Even if we moved to PR of one form or another, for as long as the Whip lasts we will not have a representative government and 3/3rds of the electorate are disenfranchised.

Without the whip there would be no party politics. Before the whip it was chaos with MP's voting for who paid them the most. In any case MP's can choose to vote any way they want. What we lack is MP's with the integrity to stand up for themselves. It's a sign of what is wrong with british democracy MP's have forgotten who is boos and it isn't them. Tony Blair could have been stopped our MP's are as much to blame as blair and brown.

You do have a good point though.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue May 04, 2010 12:36 pm

gmc;1307887 wrote: Without the whip there would be no party politics. Before the whip it was chaos with MP's voting for who paid them the most. In any case MP's can choose to vote any way they want. What we lack is MP's with the integrity to stand up for themselves. It's a sign of what is wrong with british democracy MP's have forgotten who is boos and it isn't them. Tony Blair could have been stopped our MP's are as much to blame as blair and brown.

You do have a good point though.

Whilst the Whip has the power to order the deselection of any MP who goes against orders and, effectively, kick them out of Parliament, they know who's boss - and it isn't the voters that elected him.

As for stopping Blair, they could have and should have - a revolt of that size would have broken the system.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Tue May 04, 2010 1:03 pm

gmc;1307887 wrote: Without the whip there would be no party politics. Before the whip it was chaos with MP's voting for who paid them the most. In any case MP's can choose to vote any way they want. What we lack is MP's with the integrity to stand up for themselves. It's a sign of what is wrong with british democracy MP's have forgotten who is boos and it isn't them. Tony Blair could have been stopped our MP's are as much to blame as blair and brown.

1) There would still be party politics (which might not be a good thing), just more individual variations on the themes.

2) Before the whip? How many years ago was that, and is there greater accountability?

3) MPs can choose to vote whichever way they like. They will then, if persistent or "outrageous", be de-selected (= sacked).

4) It is indeed a sign of what's wrong that this can happen.

5) Tony Bliar was/is an {expletive deleted}, but I can't blame MPs from toeing the party line, under the above circumstances.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Tue May 04, 2010 1:04 pm

gmc;1307813 wrote: Break it down constituency by constituency and look at

I haven't time to do all that stuff, you'll have to be clear and concise in your pointers.

Post by **Peter Lake** » Tue May 04, 2010 1:26 pm

kazalala;1306831 wrote: Im thinking here,, if Labour dont get in, then the torys will:-3 if clegg takes a lot of suport from labour torys will get in ,,, oh what to do what to do

:-3

As Bill posted earlier, whoever gets in will inherit the national debt. If it's the tories they will go ahead with the cuts they have proposed making them unpopular which will in turn lead to another labour victory in five years time. I can't see the Liberal Democrats making great gains although Clegg did well in the live debates. What people do in the privacy of the closed polling booth is another matter and i tend not to speculate until the results are in.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue May 04, 2010 1:33 pm

Bill Sikes;1307904 wrote: 1) There would still be party politics (which might not be a good thing), just more individual variations on the themes.

2) Before the whip? How many years ago was that, and is there greater accountability?

3) MPs can choose to vote whichever way they like. They will then, if persistent or "outrageous", be de-selected (= sacked).

4) It is indeed a sign of what's wrong that this can happen.

5) Tony Bliar was/is an {expletive deleted}, but I can't blame MPs from toeing the party line, under the above circumstances.

1) I meant it was the introduction of the whipping system that led to party politics in the UK as we now know it.

http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/re ... -02829.pdf

2) British political system

POLITICAL PARTIES

The idea of political parties first took form in Britain and the Conservative Party claims to be the oldest political party in the world. Political parties began to form during the English civil wars of the 1640s and 1650s. First, there were Royalists and Parliamentarians; then Tories and Whigs. Whereas the Whigs wanted to curtail the power of the monarch, the Tories - today the Conservatives - were seen as the patriotic party.

3) 4) 5) I can blame the MP's of a political party that allow it to happen and let the leadership get away with it and the MP's who forget that we are a parliamentary democracy and that the prime minister and cabinet exist at the whim of parliament. They are not there to just get jobs that help them carve a political career. at the very least we should be able to expect a modicum of integrity. Labour party membership has been haemorrhaging so you can tell what ordinary members think of it all. You would think MP's would worry about their party ceasing to exist. Parliament has always been venal and corrupt our present manifestation can lay claim to being the worst we have ever had.

I haven't time to do all that stuff, you'll have to be clear and concise in your pointers.

look at page 33.