Election Night

[Stu Monty]

Stu, I am honestly in a position of ignorance here. I know little of campaigning methods elsewhere across the country. I would quite like to see one of these leaflets so I can understand the context.

 

Seriously? Come on mate, you cannot tell me you don't think your boys have been sending leaflets out saying that *insert party* can't win here, a vote for them will let *insert other party* in here. The single biggest factor that was going to stop me voting for Leech was the leafleting. It was constant (so much for a green, less wasteful agenda) and a lot of it was negative and cowardly. Him and Powell were waging a war of who could come across as the least obsessed with other parties.

 

Vote Tory, get Labour was the gist of it mate. I'd quote it directly but I've binned it (all four wheelybins worth of it).

[JER]

Rumours that Lib Dems hope to continue receiving Short money

Michael Crick | 17:09 UK time, Wednesday, 19 May 2010

Strong rumours reach me that the Liberal Democrats are trying to keep receiving Short money. That's the taxpayers money which opposition parties - yes, OPPOSITION parties - get from the state to help balance the fact that the governing party has the distinct advantage of being in office, with special advisers, and so on. And now, of course, the Lib Dems are a governing party, so shouldn't be entitled to Short money.

 

Short money was introduced by the Labour Leader of the House Ted Short in the mid-1970s to help opposition parties operate properly. The money was worth £1.75 million to the Lib Dems last year. That compares with their total party budget of around £5 million. So the Liberal Democrats will be in big trouble without that funding.

 

The sums are calculated on a formula based on the number of seats obtained at the last election and the number of votes.

 

If the Lib Dems are indeed trying to keep up the Short payments it will look very odd in this era of 'new politics' and financial stringency.

 

Coming on top of the row over the proposed 55 per cent rule, the Lib Dems will inevitably be accused, having now obtained some power, of trying to rig the system in their own favour.

 

My efforts to get a response from the Liberal Democrats this afternoon have met with silence.

 

I know an email is circulating amongst senior Lib Dems with details of my enquiries. Perhaps one of them could get back to me.

 

 

Interesting to see how this pans out

[Strontium]

Seriously? Come on mate, you cannot tell me you don't think your boys have been sending leaflets out saying that *insert party* can't win here, a vote for them will let *insert other party* in here. The single biggest factor that was going to stop me voting for Leech was the leafleting. It was constant (so much for a green, less wasteful agenda) and a lot of it was negative and cowardly. Him and Powell were waging a war of who could come across as the least obsessed with other parties.

 

Vote Tory, get Labour was the gist of it mate. I'd quote it directly but I've binned it (all four wheelybins worth of it).

 

 

Yeah, I'm more than aware that where it's a two-horse race in a particular constituency that we send leaflets like that out. Obviously in Manchester Withington that's absolutely the case: vote Tory, get Labour, because the Tories are a distant third there.

 

The impression was given that it referred to something on a national scale rather than a local one: The instruction "vote Lib Dem to stop a Tory MP getting in" is clearly different to "vote Lib Dem to stop a Tory government getting in".

[RoboRiise]

Oldham was Labour-led until 2008, bit rich blaming the Lib Dems for all the problems there. At least we've shown some initiative in trying to tackle the budget deficit.

 

 

I didn't blame them for all the problems here, that would have been a gross misrepresentation of the facts. I did say that their time in power has seen epic financial mismanagement and that isn't a misrepresentation of the facts. Initiative is certainly one word that could be used to describe what they've shown, although there are others.

 

Regardless, the point I was making was not about who should bear overall responsibility for the financial mismanagement in Oldham (my council seems to attract people barely capable of managing their own lives, let alone a civic budget, so the blame could be fairly apportioned across the political spectrum) but that the Lib Dem's view on the appropriateness of clinging to power by use of a coalition seems to vary depending on whether they are going to gain power by doing so, or lose it.

 

Not trying to make a big point with it or anything; as mentioned above, the local and national political scenes are two different beasts, I just thought it was an interesting little footnote to the main event.

[RoboRiise]

This has the potential to become an interesting local story too - schools rebuilding plan in Lib Dem/Tory controlled town under review by Lib Dem/Tory government:

 

Oldham News | News Headlines | Schools plan in doubt - Chronicle Online

 

Schools plan in doubt

Reporter: LOBBY CORRESPONDENT & KAREN DOHERTY

Date online: 18/05/2010

 

Revolutionary project facing Government review

 

OLDHAM’S multi-million-pound schools rebuilding programme hangs in the balance — only months before work is due to start.

 

Uncertainty looms over whether the borough’s crumbling secondary schools will be rebuilt and refurbished as the new Government looks at spending commitments made by Labour.

 

The Tory-Liberal Democrat coalition has put the £55 billion schools rebuilding programme under review, freezing plans for hundreds of new secondaries across England.

It is believed that secondary schools in authorities in the the Building Schools for the Future (BSF) project which have not yet named their contractors, including Oldham, may now lose their funding. This could hit plans to replace Saddleworth School, merge the two Catholic high schools, remodel New Bridge School and extensively refurbish Blue Coat, Crompton House, Hathershaw, North Chadderton and Royton and Crompton.

 

The academies project is a different story with a contractor already appointed. Plans include replacing Breeze Hill, Counthill, Grange, Kaskenmoor and South Chadderton with three academies. It is still not clear if these proposals could also be hit.

 

Building work is due to start this year, with the first of the new schools opening in 2012 and the overhaul completed by the end of 2014.

 

Michael Jameson, Oldham Council’s assistant executive director for children and young people, said: “Oldham Council remains committed to the BSF and academies programmes which we believe will deliver benefits for generations of young people for years to come.

 

“We understand that the new Government has tough financial decisions to make and we are closely monitoring developments but no decisions have yet been made.”

 

Oldham East and Saddleworth MP Phil Woolas said: “There is no need to cut the capital budget. It is political cowardice and would increase unemployment. Protecting the funding for Saddleworth School is my number one local pledge and I will fight tooth and nail to keep that funding.”

 

Ditching BSF would be a huge blow to Oldham’s once-in-a-lifetime plans to transform education and tackle segregation.

 

Oldham West and Royton MP Michael Meacher added: “It is not certain what will happen. Phil and I can make pleas but if the new Government is determined, then it will do it — unless Oldham can find a reason why it should be excluded from any general policy. We need to see if there is a way we can get special consideration.

 

“I will be speaking with the council immediately. If we are a couple of weeks away from naming the contractors, why can we not do that now? Let’s try and get in there first.”

 

However, Councillor Jack Hulme, Oldham’s Tory group leader, believes that North Chadderton and the new Catholic school may be safe.

 

They are among the first due be completed first and he said: “To the best of my knowledge the money is in the bank, contracts have been signed.”

[RoboRiise]

Yeah, I'm more than aware that where it's a two-horse race in a particular constituency that we send leaflets like that out. Obviously in Manchester Withington that's absolutely the case: vote Tory, get Labour, because the Tories are a distant third there.

 

The impression was given that it referred to something on a national scale rather than a local one: The instruction "vote Lib Dem to stop a Tory MP getting in" is clearly different to "vote Lib Dem to stop a Tory government getting in".

 

 

But one clearly begets the other - after all, none of us vote for a government - we vote for a local MP.

 

As for leafleting in Withington, here's a nice selection:

 

Election leaflets delivered in Manchester Withington | The Straight Choice

 

This Labour one is interesting:

 

[col06]

how long before these fuckwits implode ;)

[Strontium]

BBC News - Judges order election re-run in ex-minister's seat

 

Two High Court judges have ordered a re-run of this year's General Election campaign in the Greater Manchester constituency of ex-immigration minster Phil Woolas.

 

Mr Woolas won the Oldham East and Saddleworth seat by 103 votes over Liberal Democrat rival Elwyn Watkins.

 

But he has been found guilty of knowingly making false statements about Mr Watkins in campaign literature.

 

Mr Watkins said this could have swayed the result.

 

A specially-convened election court - the first of its kind for 99 years - was set up in Saddleworth in September to hear the charges against Mr Woolas.

 

It heard that he stirred up racial tensions in his campaign leaflets by suggesting Mr Watkins had pandered to Muslim militants, and had refused to condemn death threats Mr Woolas said he had received from such groups.

 

Mr Woolas was also accused of making a false statement that Mr Watkins had reneged on a promise to live within the constituency prior to the election.

 

Declaring the May poll result void, Mr Justice Nigel Teare and Mr Justice Griffith Williams said Mr Woolas was guilty of illegal practices under election law.

 

They said he knew all three claims to be untrue, and had sought personal advantage by making them.

 

Former Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer said: "It is an unprecedented event. It is likely to have ramifications - if there is no appeal - for how people conduct elections in the future."

 

The case was brought under Section 106 of the Representation of the People Act.

 

This makes it an offence to publish "any false statement of fact in relation to the candidate's personal character or conduct" to prevent them being elected - unless they believed it was true and had "reasonable grounds" to do so.

 

 

Big blow for the Torture, Rendition & Illegal War Party this. Election ruled void and Woolas will be officially removed as an MP on Monday. He's finished I think, I can't see Labour letting him stand again.

[Stu Monty]

BBC News - Judges order election re-run in ex-minister's seat

 

Big blow for the Torture, Rendition & Illegal War Party this. Election ruled void and Woolas will be officially removed as an MP on Monday. He's finished I think, I can't see Labour letting him stand again.

 

Yes, it's a good job that loads of other ministers won't have told lies about their opponent isn't it.

 

And, unfortunately, SD, the current, part-LibDem, government is still rendering and torturing people, so that attack rings a little hollow.

[Strontium]

Yes, it's a good job that loads of other ministers won't have told lies about their opponent isn't it.

 

 

Since this is the first verdict of its kind in 99 years, one imagines that lying about your election opponents is not quite as widespread as you think it is.

 

And, unfortunately, SD, the current, part-LibDem, government is still rendering and torturing people, so that attack rings a little hollow.

 

 

MI6 chief admits to his 'dilemma' over torture - Home News, UK - The Independent

 

Sir John became the first "C", as his post is known, to break cover in 100 years of MI6's existence. MI6 agents remain within the law, their chief insisted. He said Britain has refused to pass on information which could have resulted in mistreatment of suspects in foreign countries even when the failure to do so "allows terrorist activity to go ahead. We are clear that it's the right thing to do."

 

Speaking to the Society of Editors in London, Sir John said torture was "illegal and abhorrent" and that he was sure his agents had "nothing whatsoever" to do with it.

 

"If we believe action by us will lead to torture taking place, we are required by UK and international law to avoid that action. And we do, even though that allows the terrorist activity to go ahead."

[Stu Monty]

Since this is the first verdict of its kind in 99 years, one imagines that lying about your election opponents is not quite as widespread as you think it is.

 

 

 

 

MI6 chief admits to his 'dilemma' over torture - Home News, UK - The Independent

 

Haha!!

 

Brilliant, so the head of the secret service telling you we don't torture people is enough for you then? My word. There's a clip on youtube of one of our ambassadors to some Eurasia region openly admitting to us being up to our balls in torture. You think this all suddenly stops if Cleggy wanders round for a chat?

[Strontium]

I'm not really interested in discussing torture, and whether we do it or not, in an unrelated thread about elections. I do, however, think it is interesting that the head of MI6 has publicly disavowed the use of torture.

[Master Bates]

An excellent decision by the election court. And it couldn't have happened to a nicer guy than Phil Woolas.

 

Maybe now attention can be turned to the widespread misuse and fraudulent submission of postal votes in constituencies which habitually elect Labour MPs.

[Stu Monty]

I'm not really interested in discussing torture, and whether we do it or not, in an unrelated thread about elections. I do, however, think it is interesting that the head of MI6 has publicly disavowed the use of torture.

 

Maybe you should just call them the Labour party then next time, instead of giving me the impression that you wanted to discuss torture, by, you know, banging on about torture in an unrelated thread about elections.

 

Or would you like a new rule passed on here that if you decide to make daft tangiental attacks nobody is allowed to take them off you and beat you about the head with them?

 

I don't think it's interesting. It'd be interesting if they stopped using torture, not said they'll stop.

[dennis tooth]

I'm not really interested in discussing torture, and whether we do it or not, in an unrelated thread about elections. I do, however, think it is interesting that the head of MI6 has publicly disavowed the use of torture.

 

that he was sure his agents had "nothing whatsoever" to do with it.

 

His agents don't directly have anything whatsoever to do with it-it's outsourced these days idiot. Call a man by his words and not by your agenda driven- thought. I know for a fact it goes on all over the places at our behest and if you look for careful words you see them. But as you say you don't care to talk for such thangs so I'll leave it at that.

[Rafa's Peggy's]

Maybe you should just call them the Labour party then next time, instead of giving me the impression that you wanted to discuss torture, by, you know, banging on about torture in an unrelated thread about elections.

 

Or would you like a new rule passed on here that if you decide to make daft tangiental attacks nobody is allowed to take them off you and beat you about the head with them?

 

I don't think it's interesting. It'd be interesting if they stopped using torture, not said they'll stop.

 

I'm under the impression that Strontium Dog works with me, but despite having PM'd him to attempt to have a reasonable face to face discussion regarding the current situation and our respective views, he has so far ignored me.

 

If I'm right and he does work with me, I know that his future is currently under threat. I really hope then that him and his family are not effected by the cuts to services and benefits that this Government are proposing if he loses his job.

 

You don't have to be a socialist to recognise that the majority of this Government are not going to be effected by the decisions theyare taking and have no real life experience of the impactof their decisions. How he can come on here and be so defensive of the Lib Dem support for the Tories when much of what they are doing is against what the Lib Dems campaigned for (and what MP's were elected on the back of) is astonishing really. Shameful in fact.

 

For me, politics shouldn't be about power,it should be standing up for what you believe in and trying to convince the electorate that you are the way to go. If you can't, you shouldn't prostitute yourself to another party just so you can have a minor say in what happens.

[Stu Monty]

I'm under the impression that Strontium Dog works with me' date=' but despite having PM'd him to attempt to have a reasonable face to face discussion regarding the current situation and our respective views, he has so far ignored me.

 

If I'm right and he does work with me, I know that his future is currently under threat. I really hope then that him and his family are not effected by the cuts to services and benefits that this Government are proposing if he loses his job.

 

You don't have to be a socialist to recognise that the majority of this Government are not going to be effected by the decisions theyare taking and have no real life experience of the impactof their decisions. How he can come on here and be so defensive of the Lib Dem support for the Tories when much of what they are doing is against what the Lib Dems campaigned for (and what MP's were elected on the back of) is astonishing really. Shameful in fact.

 

For me, politics shouldn't be about power,it should be standing up for what you believe in and trying to convince the electorate that you are the way to go. If you can't, you shouldn't prostitute yourself to another party just so you can have a minor say in what happens.[/quote']

 

I disagree with your last point. I can fully understand being pragmatic and thinking that you can do more from inside the tent than you can stood outside calling all the tentees cunts. My issue is that you cannot surrender your right to keep vocally fighting for what you believe in, and you certainly don't go round making daft arguments that not only do other people not buy but they don't even believe you buy it.

 

On some things you can horse trade and still sleep well at night but there have to be points where you make a stand. I'd have thought that making a big deal and signing a pledge about something would make fees one of those lines in the sand but clearly not.

[Rafa's Peggy's]

I disagree with your last point. I can fully understand being pragmatic and thinking that you can do more from inside the tent than you can stood outside calling all the tentees cunts. My issue is that you cannot surrender your right to keep vocally fighting for what you believe in, and you certainly don't go round making daft arguments that not only do other people not buy but they don't even believe you buy it.

 

On some things you can horse trade and still sleep well at night but there have to be points where you make a stand. I'd have thought that making a big deal and signing a pledge about something would make fees one of those lines in the sand but clearly not.

 

I appreciate that line of thought, but in this situation the Lib Dems could have had just as much of a say in letting the Tories form a minority Government and applying leverage and 'horse trading' on particular issues, instead of entering into a fully fledged Coaliton and programme of Government.

 

I personally don't believe in sacrificing your principles in pursuit of power and I realise that if I was an MP, that fact would likely make me a backbench nobody. However, I honestly think that one of the reasons people are so disengaged with politics these days is because they perceive that nobody stands for anything. Career politicians are killing the system and it would be nice if more 'average joes' like Steve Rotheram were elected.

[Strontium]

Maybe you should just call them the Labour party then next time, instead of giving me the impression that you wanted to discuss torture, by, you know, banging on about torture in an unrelated thread about elections.

 

 

I wasn't "banging on about torture", the mention was incidental when using my alternate name for the Labour Party. This is in response to the childish "fake libs" etc nonsense that is par for the course these days. Two can play at that game.

 

If I'm right and he does work with me' date=' I know that his future is currently under threat. I really hope then that him and his family are not effected by the cuts to services and benefits that this Government are proposing if he loses his job.[/quote']

 

 

I understand we are predicted to lose approx. 100 staff over the next 4 years, which is less than we lose by natural wastage, is it not? It seems entirely reasonable since our remit is to be scaled back to common sense levels.

 

So far as my future is concerned, I wouldn't expect it to be "under threat", as, in the unlikely event that our employer decides to start getting rid of their very best staff, I would have enough confidence in my own ability to find another job. I am not one of these people for whom working for the state (because no private organisation would touch them with a bargepole) is the only option.

 

But I don't think personalising the debate does anyone any favours. This isn't about "me" or "you", it is bigger than that. I don't support measures because they would benefit me and I don't oppose them because they affect me negatively - I support and oppose them based on whether or not I think they are right.

 

You don't have to be a socialist to recognise that the majority of this Government are not going to be effected by the decisions they are taking and have no real life experience of the impact of their decisions. How he can come on here and be so defensive of the Lib Dem support for the Tories when much of what they are doing is against what the Lib Dems campaigned for (and what MP's were elected on the back of) is astonishing really. Shameful in fact.

 

 

Every year the country spends £700bn and it brings in £550bn. It isn't shameful to want to close that gap. Now I appreciate that PCS has its own ideas about that, which mainly appear to involve the appropriation of even more money from this country's already beleaguered citizens, but I trust the leader of my party more than I trust the leader of my union.

 

Now I notice that bastion of socialism Cuba is going twice as far as the coalition government and is axing 1 million public sector jobs. Even they get it. When will the trade unions in this country get it.

[dennis tooth]

To SD, LOVE dennis Tooth

 

A group of 142 Iraqi civilians pushing for a public inquiry into the treatment of detainees, say they suffered "systemic abuse", including torture at the hands of UK soldiers, following the 2003 invasion.

 

"There are credible allegations of serious, inhumane practices across a whole range of dates and facilities concerning British military detention in Iraq," Michael Fordham, representing the Iraqi group, was quoted by the PA news agency as saying.

 

Lawyers for the claimants are appearing at the High Court in London over three days to challenge a refusal by the UK government to hold an investigation into British-controlled detention facilities in Iraq.

 

The legal team submitted video evidence to the court on Friday, showing a detainees being interrogated at a secret British centre in Basra.

 

The claims of inhumane treatment involve sexual humilitation, keeping Iraqis naked if they did not co-operate, food and water deprivation and prolonged solitary confinement.

 

Ali Zaki Mousa, the lead claimant in the case, alleges he suffered months of beatings and other abuse in the custody of British soldiers between 2006 and 2007.

 

Another 60 other Iraqis are also making complaints against the British military, and there is speculation that more could follow.

 

'Getting to the truth'

 

The claimaints say that the abuse occurred during the period March 2003 to December 2008 in British-controlled detention facilities in Iraq.

 

The ministry of defence said it is taking the allegations seriously, but would not be holding a public inquiry.

 

"The MoD takes all allegations seriously and has already set up the dedicated Iraq Historic Allegations Team (Ihat) to investigate them," it said in a statement.

 

"The Ihat is the most effective way of investigating these unproven allegations rather than a costly public inquiry."

 

The British government has already held the Baha Mousa inquiry, which looked into specific allegations of abuse and another, the Al Sweady trial, is due to begin holding hearings next year.

 

Lawyers for Liam Fox, the British defence secretary, argue that those inquiries, along with the Ihat investigations, are enough to meet the UK's obligations to fully investigate under the European Convention on Human Rights.

 

But public-interest lawyers representing the Iraqi group say the two inquiries only cover a fraction of the cases.

 

They are arguing that there are so many claims that at the current pace it would take more than 100 years to hear them all.

 

Fordham, speaking for the Iraqi group, said the public inquiry being called for would not ignore the findings of the other inquiries but become part of an "integrated solution" to help discover the truth.

 

"It just means that somebody who is independent is taking responsibility for getting to the truth," he said.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Haha!!

 

Brilliant, so the head of the secret service telling you we don't torture people is enough for you then? My word. There's a clip on youtube of one of our ambassadors to some Eurasia region openly admitting to us being up to our balls in torture. You think this all suddenly stops if Cleggy wanders round for a chat?

 

Yeah. Governments don't know half the shit that goes on inside secret agencies - purposefully so, of course - so Cameron, Clegg, Hague et al won't have put a stop to much.

 

Don't get me wrong, I hate the actions taken by the government when Labour was in power. I've criticised them very heavily, but this silly, puerile tory pandering from Lib Dem supporters is really starting to chafe.

 

Big blow for the Torture, Rendition & Illegal War Party this

 

I'll assume you're talking about the Labour party here? The Labour party who, in real numbers and as a percentage, voted more heavily against the war than the Conservative party? A party you're pissing away any remaining shred of credibility to defend. The Labour party who has a leader who was against the war? I think it's time to grow up.

 

This 'yeah, but Labour' stance seems to be the only defence left for the Coalition. They're unable to back up their own actions, so, as a last resort, they attack the actions of the people they promised to be better than. You can stick your mature politics up your arse if this coalition is a bastion for your ideals.

[Rafa's Peggy's]

I wasn't "banging on about torture", the mention was incidental when using my alternate name for the Labour Party. This is in response to the childish "fake libs" etc nonsense that is par for the course these days. Two can play at that game.

 

 

 

 

I understand we are predicted to lose approx. 100 staff over the next 4 years, which is less than we lose by natural wastage, is it not? It seems entirely reasonable since our remit is to be scaled back to common sense levels.

 

So far as my future is concerned, I wouldn't expect it to be "under threat", as, in the unlikely event that our employer decides to start getting rid of their very best staff, I would have enough confidence in my own ability to find another job. I am not one of these people for whom working for the state (because no private organisation would touch them with a bargepole) is the only option.

 

But I don't think personalising the debate does anyone any favours. This isn't about "me" or "you", it is bigger than that. I don't support measures because they would benefit me and I don't oppose them because they affect me negatively - I support and oppose them based on whether or not I think they are right.

 

 

 

 

Every year the country spends £700bn and it brings in £550bn. It isn't shameful to want to close that gap. Now I appreciate that PCS has its own ideas about that, which mainly appear to involve the appropriation of even more money from this country's already beleaguered citizens, but I trust the leader of my party more than I trust the leader of my union.

 

Now I notice that bastion of socialism Cuba is going twice as far as the coalition government and is axing 1 million public sector jobs. Even they get it. When will the trade unions in this country get it.

 

Firstly, yes it is 100 over 4 years, but there is absolutely no guarantee that this figure includes the jobs that will potentially be lost through the findings of the reviews that are taking place. These jobs losses have been announced as a result of the CSR and with absolutely no obvious link to the outcomes of the reviews.

 

I'm not sure of the exact number for natural wastage, but I know that most people who leave the organisation at present do so to work in other parts of the public sector, but as there are no jobs anywhere else, you can bet that people will be less eager to change jobs now.

 

As far as finding another job goes, have a look around the various websites of recruitment companies and local media and see what's on offer. Unskilled, low paid work is what accounts for the majority of the current employment market. If this will be good enough to support you and yours, then good luck, but a lot of people are scared of losing jobs and careers that they worked hard to get without a viable immediate alternative. I'm glad that you class yourself as one of the organisations best staff and I hope that stands you in the stead that you apparently think it will.

 

Also, you seem to forget the impact that these cuts will have on private sector jobs. Despite what the Coalition would have people believe, the public and private sectors are not in their own bubbles. Many private sector jobs will be lost as a result of this strategy which will put even more pressure on it's ability to take the strain of the losses in the public sector.

 

You say that this isn't personal, but when the cuts being threatened effect the lives of my family, my friends and the people I represent, then it is personal to me. I don't support measures just when they benefit me or mine, I too have a morale compass. But when more is being taken from the disabled than what is being taken from the banks and institutions that put us in this mess, then something is wrong.

 

I don't propose that nothing is done about the deficit and neither does PCS. What I do support is the view that the first door you should be knocking on is the people who avoid paying £120 bn in tax every year. Based on your own figures, recouping even two thirds of this would halve the deficit in an instant. The Govt are quick to attack the 'scroungers who live off benefit', but the rich scroungers who avoid paying tax are doing far more damage to the country. For clarity, this is not extra tax but tax they should already be paying.

 

I don't honestly think that Cuba are relevant to this debate, as their economy doesn't bear any resemblence to the way ours is set up. Ireland would be a more relevant example, where the Govt pursued the same vicious agenda and sent their economy spiraling. All with the endorsement of the much heralded IMF.

 

As far as your political beliefs conflicting with your union membership, you'll obviously need to work that out for yourself. We don't want to lose members and I'd donate whatever time was needed to keep you in

the tent. I would question what your political beliefs are, however. Are they in line with the Lib Dem beliefs before or after the election?

 

The PCS leadership have their faults, but they have remained absolutely consistent throughout the last 12-18 months, unlike your party leadership who deceived the electorate and have absolutely no mandate to be doing what they are. Their day of reckoning at the ballot box will come though and you and every other party member who have stood by and watched whilst your leadership has betrayed millions will be complicit in the party's downfall.

 

I appreciate the PM you sent me and I am back in work next week. We can't possibly say all we want on these boards, so if you want to have a chat you know were I am.

[Stu Monty]

I wasn't "banging on about torture", the mention was incidental when using my alternate name for the Labour Party. This is in response to the childish "fake libs" etc nonsense that is par for the course these days. Two can play at that game.

 

Well maybe you won't use that name anymore now its been shown how silly it makes you look. If you don't want a discussion about torture then don't initiate one with daft jibes, that's the lesson for today.