tonight's debate

Cameron: change, change, change (empty words)
Clegg: the old parties, change, political point-scoring (empty words)
Brown: he won't answer the question (policy/"substance")

personally, i did actually think Gordy did well. he was obviously nervous, especially at first but fair play. it shows he's human as anyone would be shitting themselves given yesterday.
i'm biased, i think Labour have the arguements i most agree with. I've seen the Chancellor's debates and 2 leaders debates.
the thing is, i'm not like most people. i look most at policies while others don't. it does annoy me, but there you go. people are different.
i think Labour has got the best answers going forward. yes, they have been in power for 13 years and haven't made everything perfect, but they've made this country more the way i would like it to be and i think they should be entrusted to take us forwards

Gordy and mrs Duffy

Fuck it, go on my son.
Give em hell

Gordon Brown, tough guy: a winning strategy? | Julie Bindel, Julian Glover and Lance Price | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk‏

Hahaha, idiots

step outsude posy boy

ahhaha. brilliant

BBC News - Darling makes pre-election pitch in 'holding' Budget‏

"Recent polling suggests voters are squeamish about the prospect of cuts to government spending even if they are also worried about the scale of public debt."
Potentially a huge problem and something that gives politicians free reign to take people for fools, because people/the public are being fools.


"The measure to exempt first time buyers from stamp duty on properties priced below 250,000 in the next two years was well trailed.
In other words, this would be a tax cut for some - though the policy was first suggested by the Conservatives in 2007.
But what had not been trailed before the Chancellor's speech was that, to pay for this, stamp duty would rise on properties worth a million pounds or more.
This appears to be at least as much a political as an economic decision, designed to portray Labour as a party that can deliver 'fairness' even when the purse strings are being tightened.
If the Tories were to reverse this, they would of course be denounced as party favouring the privileged rather than the wider population. "
Rather than just party positioning I think this is proper ideology, but one that the party leadership have been scared of getting into. I personally support it and the principle behind it.

But it's ok, because when times are tough Cameron and Clegg have some handy sound bite to get themselves on the news. The pair of them are pathetic and make Gordy look a million dollars

Cash Gordon: Or, how a Tory hashtag plan backfired | Technology | guardian.co.uk‏

"and redirecting visitors to the Labour party site."
Made me laugh

Neighbours from hell | Larry Elliott | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk‏

Have to say that I'm very much on Darling's side on this. Gordy was in the wrong over all that. I'd probably say I trust Darling over Gordy on the economy, as it tends to Gordy's hubris and electioneering that sheds a wrong light on economic matters, while Darling plays everything as straight as can be. He's shown he's a worthy occupant of No. 11, and far better than Ed Balls who is a genius but far too young for a top job like that

Gordon Brown's flair for publicity knocks News of the World off top of bulletins | Michael White | Politics | guardian.co.uk‏

It's sad, though not surprising, that these sort of dark arts go on in politics and outside politics. From a narrow party perspective it's a damn shame that the Gordy bullying headlines overshadowed the Coulson bullying story, and I can't help but wonder if it would have been different had someone like Campbell been around.
Can't top Ali Campbell

Political munting‏

Munting – from the verb to munt, meaning to ingest intoxicating and inebriating substances.

Related words munter – one who munts, munted – the effect of munting.



Now, one of my great political questions is who would I most like to go munting with out of numerous choices. For example:



Who would you rather go munting with, David Cameron or George W. Bush? I ask this because both have a past in which quite a bit of munting has allegedly occurred. I always answer Bush of those two. Politics aside, I think Bush seems like a decent bloke. Cameron is a stuck up slippery tart who I don’t think I’d get on with.



As for Labour people, I don’t think either Gordy or Blair would be my kinda munting partner. I think Ali Darling might be a bit of a dark horse who could be quite fun. Prezza probably knows a good time.



Is there a point to this?

Well yes. The person who I’d most like to have a beer with of those mentioned above is the person whose politics are furthest from my own. I’ve stated before that I think Cameron is on the left of his party, and if a Tory gets in I’d rather a Heath than a Thatcher.

Some people make their political choices based on personality, indeed Bush made his bid for the US presidency on the basis that he was kind of bloke normal people could share a pint with. Cameron is trying to do this, and it’s embarrassing. I don’t really care how good mates I’d be with X, Y, or Z politician. I want them to do their job well

A month ago, this might just have buried Brown. Not now | Jackie Ashley | Comment is free | The Guardian‏

I, too, don't really care. I consider his achievements much more important.

"[Gordy] is clearly tougher than those ministers who were plotting against him, but proved themselves serial wincers and flinchers" very true. But I doubt any of the calls have been from cabinet ministers..

It's not great but, like with football managers, I don't really care too much about their methods. Have any Man Utd players accused of being a bully? No, they'd get told to pull themselves together. I've never worked in a high-pressure environment like that, so I don't know what it's like. But I'd be willing to give it a go.
Overall, I don't think it really matters

Branson backs 2010 spending cuts‏

Aye, it's a tough one. To cut now and risk sending the economy into a downward spiral, or wait in the hope of tackling the hole in the public finances before the international money markets go nuts.
Now, the rating agencies are a significant part of the reason we're in this mess, but none the less they still have significant power and influence. As a result governments must dance to their tune. But cuts now would bring the economy into recession, possibly a very severe one. Maybe even worse than the current/most recent one. The cumulative effect would be devastating. On the other hand, wait may get the economy going enough to reduce the hole by growth in part, thus taking significant pressure off the need to cut everything. But if cuts need to be made, they need to be made. And there probably will be some. I trust Gordy and Darling with the economy, Darling slightly more.
Cameron and Osborne worry me.

Brown to unveil Labour's election themes‏

Bloody ell, even I'm getting bored of the election already.
I plan to have a hangover Saturday so I'll let this pass me by most likely.
But then I'm doing lots of other stuff so I'm sure we'll survive

We do feel sorry for Gordon Brown, but in the wrong way | Michael White

Those who call Cameron Chameleon may have a point:
"Was it a cynical U-turn by a man who once decried personalised politics and Blairish exploitation of family? Yes, shouted an army of cynical pundits and bloggers. David Cameron clearly thought so too, because he let it be known he would not be giving a similar interview. But there the Tory leader was on Scottish TV at the weekend welling up over the loss of his own son, Ivan. Voters who complain that politicians all sound the same nowadays sometimes have a point."

Brown wins big Commons victory for vote reform

"Last night's result came after a fiery four-hour debate in the Commons during which the Tories accused Labour of cynically attempting to rig the voting system in its favour"
That's quite funny. Either they're all at it or they all have only the country's interests at heart. It's an issue that, by definition is open to extreme cynicism because one side would do better under each system.

"Richard Shepherd, the Tory MP for Aldridge-Brownhills, said the AV system was not proportionate and elected the "least objectionable" candidate"
I like Richard Shepherd, I think he's top. But I have to disagree with him. It is largely proportionate, and is a step forward from where we are now. I personally still prefer the French system but I'm willing to go along with AV as it is better than FPTP.
"Earlier David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, called for sweeping reforms to "re-set" the political system to be put to the country in a nationwide vote.
He went far beyond Mr Brown's referendum call as he supported asking the country to back the introduction of fixed-term parliaments. Mr Miliband's comments were seen as the foretaste of his personal manifesto for a future Labour leadership contest. He argued that Britain needed to do much more than simply introduce AV - although he welcomed it as a "really good step forward" - to restore confidence in its political system."
I would also like to see fixed-term parliaments of 4 years.

Forget cuts and keep spending, Brown told

I am inclined to agree because the deficit will be reduced as a positive side-effect of the growth, while the reverse is not necessarily true. That this, growth will not automatically resume as a side-effect of deficit reduction.
I think there are both ideological and practical differences between the two main parties here: ideological in that Labour favour higher spending while the Tories generally prefer lower public spending. That's obvious.
The second, practical, point is perhaps a little naivety on the Tories' behalf, while a deficit like that is no good thing, it's relative importance in all matters is debatable. I think they've focused on it too quickly, rather than looking at other aspects of the wider fiscal and monetary picture which show the proper way out of, what I like to call in my semi-pro economic speak The Great Fuck Up.
We have to grow our way out of this mess, but we can't afford to have the sort of unemployment and social degradation that the 80s saw, and so that needs to be taken into account when considering where to go from here.
Hence, as much investment as possible. Although a note of caution there

John Terry

Just listening to the new, and Gordy has been quoted giving his opinion on Terry's sacking by Capello.
I give not a shit about the Terry thing, nor what Gordy thinks about it. Why's it on the bloody news?

there is 'a clear case for a levy to compensate taxpayers for what happened in the past and may happen in the future'
Fair play, I'd agree with that. oh, it must be so nice and easy to be in the opposition. Maybe I'd like it I could do the job from my bed with a cup of tea by my side.

Cricket and politics

I'm a fan of the Guardian's The Spin, they think like me:
"If the Spin could pick just one thing to change in cricket over the
course of the next decade, it would be the return of the
awe-inspiring fast bowler. A comeback for the player who can cow and
bully the opposition into submission, who treats the ball as a weapon
rather than a piece of equipment. In Steyn and Morkel, South Africa
have two men who could lead the way."

Couldn't agree more. Proper fast bowlers are sorely missed.


Politics:
The coup attempt was pathetic, and those who haven't got the bottle to act don't deserve the top job. Gordy's going to loose us the election, but at least he's got the bottle

Gordy's leadership future

So there's more talk of him going.
I doubt he will, because the only people who can realistically get rid of him is the cabinet as a collective. And they probably won't.
So we'll probably get Cameron and Labour just don't know whether to stick or twist

'king disaster

Honestly.
Hutton is doing exactly what puts so many people off politics by avoiding answering the bloody question.
A simple yes/no answer becomes so drawn out it's ridiculous.
The best bit is Eddie Mair swearing.
"i'm not going to answer that...i could say yes or not"