General Election

G

g jones

Nori Brick
Tackler
This was an Channel 4. I have said before I like Cameron, one of the very few who does. Like a bumbling fool he seems likeable. However the more I see the less I do like of him.

Ignoring the subject matter, it's about leadership, this Channel 4 Cameron interview is car crash TV at its more embarrassing. It all goes wrong about 4 minutes in. Clearly Gay Times have set Cameron up, none the less they are innocent interviewers asking reasonable and polite questions.

Health Warning : Not for the the committed Conservative

http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid69900095001?bctid=73437842001
 
Last edited:
Cashy and myself have both mentioned, and linked the story, in the Conservative candidate named thread.

In the interests of actual equality, rather than lip service, that's spouted.
 
MargaretR said:
...and this wallflower has decided not to vote at all :)
Click to expand...

You're going to be counted though, aren't you?

How are you planning on spoiling the voting slip?

You could combine this action with the dog dirt protest.

Kill two birds with one stone.

;) :D
 
If I put a cross in all the boxes there is a risk that some counting clerk will get out the Tippex - A broad black vertical stripe down through all the boxes might work (or delay the count:))
 
Sounds a good idea not to vote on internal matters in other countries. I wouldn't want any other countries deciding what our domestic policy was either. I think this highlights just how out of touch the European Union is, and why we should be out of it.

As for the clip, it's well edited. I don't think Cameron had any idea about which vote the Gay Times was talking about, and don't expect him to know every single vote that goes in the EU.

The interviewer then starts asking about a vote in the Lords to force Quakers to allow civil partnerships on their premises. The vote was signed by a Conservative peer. Cameron thought it was a free vote conscience issue, which wasn't good enough for the interviewer. I agree with Cameron. Civil Partnerships are civil contracts, not religious ceremonies. It should be up to the particular religion whether they wish to allow it.

Ben Bradshaw poped up and talked a load of rubbish about how these issues shouldn't be free votes. Yet Labour allowed a free vote on church/civil partnerships, and demanded that the previously mentioned Conservative peer withdraw his amendment to it. Hypocrisy. They'll say anything to cling on.

Edward McMillan-Scott is a Europhile who got kicked out of his party. No surprise that he's trying to cause trouble at the end of that news clip!

Is this all Labour have to cover up balancing the budget on the backs of the poor?
 
Last edited:
andrewb said:
Sounds a good idea not to vote on internal matters in other countries. I wouldn't want any other countries deciding what our domestic policy was either. I think this highlights just how out of touch the European Union is, and why we should be out of it.

As for the clip, it's well edited. I don't think Cameron had any idea about which vote the Gay Times was talking about, and don't expect him to know every single vote that goes in the EU.

The interviewer then starts asking about a vote in the Lords to force Quakers to allow civil partnerships on their premises. The vote was signed by a Conservative peer. Cameron thought it was a free vote conscience issue, which wasn't good enough for the interviewer. I agree with Cameron. Civil Partnerships are civil contracts, not religious ceremonies. It should be up to the particular religion whether they wish to allow it.

Ben Bradshaw poped up and talked a load of rubbish about how these issues shouldn't be free votes. Yet Labour allowed a free vote on the church/civil partnerships, and demanded that the previously mentioned Conservative peer withdraw his amendment to it. Hypocrisy. They'll say anything to cling on.

Edward McMillan-Scott is a Europhile who got kicked out of his party. No surprise that he's trying to cause trouble at the end of that news clip!

Is this all Labour have to cover up balancing the budget on the backs of the poor?
Click to expand...

There are times you know, when I just get the slightest suspicion, no suspicion is perhaps too strong a word, I get the slightest inkling that you are biased in your political views, andrew.

But that's me always ready to jump to the nearest conclusion that happens to pass by.
:)

Too old for band wagon's they'd have to fit a tail lift for me.
:o
 
Less said:
There are times you know, when I just get the slightest suspicion, no suspicion is perhaps too strong a word, I get the slightest inkling that you are biased in your political views, andrew.

But that's me always ready to jump to the nearest conclusion that happens to pass by.
:)

Too old for band wagon's they'd have to fit a tail lift for me.
:o
Click to expand...

Oh I am biased, to my own political view. No doubt. ;):D
 
There's nothing like strong leadership.

Sadly, this is nothing like strong leadership.

Shameful.
 
Last edited:
garinda said:
There's nothing like strong leadership.

Sadly, this in nothing like strong leadership.

Shameful.
Click to expand...


Don't be too hard on him, he may be the same age as Pitt the younger, but andrew has to be given the chance to develop, give him another 40 years and he'll have matured enough to take over as accywebs tame Tory, until then, long live Jaysay,

Hip, hip...

Oh, where's everybody gone?
 
Tealeaf said:
It appears it was not the only thing that went wrong, Councillor Jones - so has your post.
Click to expand...


Your right and I apologise. Typing off a mobile with small screen.

I admire Andrew for putting a robust case for the defence.

However despite that the body language was awful edited or not and not prime ministerial. Gordon cops the flack and I think Cam the Sam has to be scrutinised too.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top