For those considering GREEN on May 07

Sponsored Links
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/02/24/natalie-bennetts-car-crash-interview_n_6741572.html?icid=maing-grid7|uk|dl1|sec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D331943

The same lady who thinks membership of ISIS should not be a crime. Dick-head.
 
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/02/24/natalie-bennetts-car-crash-interview_n_6741572.html?icid=maing-grid7|uk|dl1|sec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D331943

She doesn't have quite the panache of our Nige, does she? :LOL:
 
I think it is a feature of single issue parties , or those with a narrow focus. They simply do not have a grasp of detail in other areas. They also have no real need to do so as they are in no danger of gaining power and being forced to implement their policies.
 
Sponsored Links
The Greens suck even on their key policies.
 
I think it is a feature of single issue parties , or those with a narrow focus. They simply do not have a grasp of detail in other areas. They also have no real need to do so as they are in no danger of gaining power and being forced to implement their policies.
Quite so. And I include UKIP in that. The only 100%, absolute, no-hoper I can think of that made promises he thought he'd never in a million years have to answer for, but then suddenly found himself having to come up with answers, is Clegg.
 
I think it is a feature of single issue parties , or those with a narrow focus. They simply do not have a grasp of detail in other areas. They also have no real need to do so as they are in no danger of gaining power and being forced to implement their policies.
Quite so. And I include UKIP in that. The only 100%, absolute, no-hoper I can think of that made promises he thought he'd never in a million years have to answer for, but then suddenly found himself having to come up with answers, is Clegg.

You may be quite right; we shall have to wait and see. True about the LimpDems, though.

The obvious alternative to supporting 'single issue parties' is to continue to have a government constantly swinging between Conservative and Labour. Each is incapable of working with the other and you can guarantee that whatever is proposed by the one will be objected to by the other.

It is quite true that UKIP is unlikely to form a government on its own, but I have heard enough from their members to know that I agree with just about everything they promise, so I shall vote for them. I realise that they will not have the power to do all that they want, but they will hopefully have some influence. In fact, if you look at the various U-turns performed by the 'major parties' over recent months, they already have!
 
The obvious alternative to supporting 'single issue parties' is to continue to have a government constantly swinging between Conservative and Labour. Each is incapable of working with the other and you can guarantee that whatever is proposed by the one will be objected to by the other.


Does that really matter, though? Given that they basically agree on a lot of things (but would never admit that to being the case - they just oppose, because it is their job), it is just a bit of a show, while "government" plods along. As long as the government in power has enough of a majority to actually get anything done at all, rather than being constantly braked at every turn, things will actually get done. (Whether you agree on the things is another matter!)
IF everything was put back to how it was, after every general election, I would agree with the wastefulness of it all. But that generally doesn't happen.
 
Whoever wins the next election, on one thing you can be sure all the political parties will agree,,,,,, the size of MP's next wage rise. (and just in case Cameron reads this,,, "No we're not all in this together." )
 
It was the pathetic "cough.....cough.....cough......you can hear I'm not feeling well" which did it for me. I would have been more sympathetic if she had admitted she didn't have the detailed costings to hand, rather than digging a deeper hole for herself.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: JBR
Two cardinal rules for politicians seems to be that they should have an answer for everything and must never dry up. She failed miserably on both counts.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: JBR
Two cardinal rules for politicians seems to be that they should have an answer for everything and must never dry up. She failed miserably on both counts.

I think also - always give the answer you have prepared rather than the one to the question you have just been asked.

Say 'with respect'
Say 'if you let me answer the question' (then see my first point above)
Say ' I WILL say this....' ( then see my first point above)
Say ' if you let me finish' Etc etc
 
Two cardinal rules for politicians seems to be that they should have an answer for everything and must never dry up. She failed miserably on both counts.

I think also - always give the answer you have prepared rather than the one to the question you have just been asked.

Say 'with respect'
Say 'if you let me answer the question' (then see my first point above)
Say ' I WILL say this....' ( then see my first point above)
Say ' if you let me finish' Etc etc

Ain't that the truth. Politicians of all colours (except purple, of course) always avoid answering the question asked. It happens all the time and has come to be expected now.
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top