dune

I see some hoodlum has ripped the head off my MP on the Conservative sign approaching my village.

What's happened to javi? Is he still stalking the youth team?

Post a pic.

:neutral:

In this election thus far the Liberals are the most convincing liars, but up until last week they weren't being pressed on their lies. That's all changed now.

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel or envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." I fully support the view of churchill, but voting BNP is a means to an end and that end is hopefully to peruade the conservatives to move more to the right and be confident to speak their minds more.

A little more detail about the Stoke situation... Will Stoke-on-Trent Central be Labour's next Blaenau Gwent? Remember how Labour lost Blaenau Gwent, one of its safest seats in the country, at the last general election after a revolt by activists and locals opposed to a favoured candidate being foisted on the constituency by Labour HQ through an all-women shortlist? A Labour majority of over 19,000 was overturned and Peter Law, formerly the Labour Assembly Member for the constituency, was elected. It now looks like Labour risks losing Stoke-on-Trent Central (notional majority: 9,717) in similar circumstances, where Mark Fisher is retiring at the election. Last night the TV historian Tristram Hunt was selected to be the Labour candidate at the general election from an (unusually for Labour in safe seats) all-male shortlist of three imposed by Labour HQ. Hunt is an outsider and neither of the others on the shortlist had any local links - and this has caused the revolt within the ranks. Gary Elsby, constituency secretary of the Stoke-on-Trent Labour Party, announced on Radio 4's World at One today that he will stand as an Independent, in protest at the fact that neither he nor any other local candidate was given the chance to be considered. He accused the Labour Party's special selections panel of having "their own chosen few people who they want into Parliament because there could be a meltdown in the Labour Party at the higher end after the general election". He added that the selection in Stoke-on-Trent Central had been a "shoo-in for Lord Mandelson's friend" with the aim of boosting David Miliband's support in a future leadership election. He said: “We have not been allowed to compile a longlist, we have not been able to compile a shortlist. We want a view from Stoke-on-Trent. We want our view to go to London, not have their view imposed on us from outside... This is our city and we must defend it from the ambitions of a certain few to carve up these seats and use Stoke-on-Trent of all places as a plaything... I'm going to stand as an Independent candidate for Labour and give the people of Stoke-on-Trent a real choice."

They all lie.

VFTT on ignore.

Top Gun we're going to have stop agreeing with each other.

Case 1) All Left wing supposition. Case 2) The word of Saddams authorities.

Yeah i've noticed, but it's about compromise and their policies fit my views, although not perfectly. UKIP are more to my views but i consider a vote for the BNP to be more effective in sending a message to the established parties.

NO.

If the war had been "sold" as a war to control the oil reserves would you have supported it? I would.

I refer you to the facts. You might know nearly everything but as this thread shows you don't quite know it all.

So iraq didn't shelter: Abu Nidal, who, until he was found dead in Baghdad in August 2002, led an organisation responsible for attacks that killed some 300 people. Palestine Liberation Front leader Abu Abbas, who was responsible for the 1985 hijacking of the Achille Laurocruise ship in the Mediterranean. Abbas was captured by U.S. forces April 15. Two Saudis who hijacked a Saudi Arabian Airlines flight to Baghdad in 2000. Abdul Rahman Yasin, who is on the FBI's "most wanted terrorists" list for his alleged role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. This is all a pack of lies is it?

But they wouldn't answer whether the party with the most seats had the mandate or the party with the most votes. I'm sure Clegg will be asked to clarify soon and he'll dodge the question just the same. So we can only believe the poltical commentators who say the Liberals will cosy up to Brown if his party has more seats but less votes. Do you think if they did this they'd be supporting the party with the mandate?

He's quite right. Voters need to to be told that a vote wasted on the Liberals is a vote for gordon brown.

You might think you know it all, but you don't.

Precisely. As i've said it's a non issue.

Saddam needed removing and he was removed. He was a tyrant that killed people. He was a threat to the region and the country was a safe harbour for Terrorists. The people of Iraq now have a better country and democracy. I think the war was justified and the result is a better country.

Not a prayer.

The war in Iraq is such a non issue to most voters. If Tony Blair was still PM he'd win this election IMO because for all his faults he had a good image and could comunicate with people. Fair enough we all care about British soldiers losing their lives but as to the legality/moral justification it's all very boring and very irrelevent unless you're a leftie. Just look at those on the marches and it was muslims and ANL/UAF types.

Not to mention the rank and file "peace man" activists. The Liberals and The Conservatives are like chalk and cheese in this context.

I saw a programme about how a candidate in Stoke was forced on the Local Labour Party and thet're not happy. Basically there's a lot of post election scheming going on with Milliband wanting his men in and Brown wanting his men in.