Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
23 September 2008
16:536472#1
The number of 'Brownies' inconsistencies and downright lies in Brown's speech will no doubt be exposed in the media over coming days. I dont think I have heard any politician to be so blatent in all the year that I have been interested in politics.
There is one small passage in his speech that says it all really.
Brown claimed that Labour had given 'women and working men' the vote in the face of Conservative opposition.
I have checked my Blake to verify my recollection of history and can confirm the following:
It was Disraeli's Conservative government in 1867 that gave the vote to working men. This was many years before the Labour Party was even formed.
Then a Liberal/Conservative National Government gave women, over the age of 30 the vote in 1918. It was then a Conservative Government (Baldwin) that extended the women's vote to 21 year olds to bring them into line with men in 1928.
It really is disgusting that this man should so blatently lie to get some cheap applause. This is so obvious, how can he expect to get away with it?... I am flabbergasted at his sheer front.
He is not exactly known for being truthful and tends to mangle and misrepesent statistics to suit his purpose, more than any other politician would dare, but this is just so, well, blatent. Its not just misrepresenting statistics, it is such a blatent lie on a matter of record and there is just no other word for it.
Well if that does not destroy any credability that is left to him I really dont know what else would. You cannot believe anything that comes out of his mouth. OK politicians as a breed are not exactly thought to be beacons of veracity but this really is on another level.
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
23 September 2008
17:136478#2
For the scholars amonst us here is a brief resume of peoples right to vote.
In the early days there were 2 knights from each Shire (county) who were sent to the Commons. These knights were elected by members of the local county courts. They were joined later in the commons by 2 representatives from each Borough (town), although borough representation was not obligatory.
By the year 1430 only owners of freehold land worth over 40 shillings a year were eligible to vote in county elections. In boroughs qualification varied from each male head of household to those paying local taxes or to those who possessed property. This continued for over 400 years. By the end of the eighteenth century only 2% of the population could vote.
By the year 1832 the Reform Act saw redistribution of parliamentary seats to new cities and a change in the property qualification on voting. A uniform franchise was introduced in the boroughs giving the vote to those who paid more than £10 in rent or rates.Property qualifications also applied to those entitled to vote in rural areas. Only one man in seven now had the right to vote.
By the year 1867 the Second Reform Act extended the franchise enabling virtually all men living in urban areas to vote. This added approximately 1.1 million men to the existing electorate of 1.4 million.
By the year 1872 the secret ballot was introduced, initially as a temporary measure which was subject to annual review. It was established as a permanent measure in 1918.
By the year 1884 the third Reform Act gave men in rural areas the same franchise as those in the boroughs. The electorate now totalled over 5.5 million.
By the year 1918 the Representation of the People act gave men in rural areas the same franchise as those over 30 years old. The electorate increased from 8 million to 21 million.
By the year 1928 the Representation of the People (Equal franchise) Act lowered the voting age for women to 21 years old.
By the year 1969 the age limit for voting was reduced to 18 years old for men and women.
The Labour party was formed in 1893 but underwent changes and didn't really become any form of opposition until after 1900.It was the labour party the levelled the playing field in 1969 ensuring that both men and women aged 18yrs and over were allowed to vote.So Barry it depends upon how one interprets the facts.This govt was the first to allow all men and women the right to vote from 18yrs upwards.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
23 September 2008
17:226481#3
Marek - it was already level playing field from 1928 to 1969 with the voting age at 21 for both men and women thank to the Baldwin Conservative Government.
I am glad that you have confirmed my facts, thank you, however. No-one can possibly justify Brown's case.
Guest 667- Registered: 6 Apr 2008
- Posts: 919
23 September 2008
18:206489#4
Well there is a surprise Barry you did not go for Gordon's speech.
Just getting in from work I have not heard all the speech, only snip its on the radio news, but I see you make no mention of the fact that he mentioned the Conservatives will do nothing to help the low paid, elderly etc through these global problems and the fact it is not the time to put a novice at the helm.
I could not care a dam who gave everyone the vote, but I do care who is going to do the best job of leading this Country through these difficult financial times. The last time we had a recession the Conservatives were in power and guess what they did not care a dam about the low paid as long as the fat cats got fatter and we sold all the family silver to those that could afford it.
Yes times are tough and going to be tougher and it is a case of which party you trust to get us through it and I am afraid past experience has taught me it is not likely to be the Tories, well not unless you are a fat cat anyway.
Guest 677- Registered: 8 Jul 2008
- Posts: 150
23 September 2008
20:446496#5
I'm not sure I trust either one. Is the monster raving looney party standing in this general election?
It's not the man in my life, its the life in my man!!
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
23 September 2008
20:446497#6
i think that when push comes to shove, i.e. the next general election, a lot of people will be thinking like harry.
i am not predicting that present government will be re-elected, but the present anti goverment feeling might weaken when people are confronted with the alternative.
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
24 September 2008
08:226512#7
Mrs Brown listens to her husband the Prime Minister speak yesterday.
Ah now BarryW you wouldnt be the one to give a fair assessment of Mr Browns performance yesterday...more... in min..
As Harry said above nobody really cares what he said about 1921 or whatever..what we cared about was his very good solid and above all honest performance. He used the occasion as a mini budget almost, and promised FREE cancer treatment for all, thousands more nursery places for all kids, a solid committment to the NHS, free computers for the poor, and a real concern for kids and education. No wonder JK Rowling alligned that cash in his direction.
"No child who falls behind will be left behind!" said Gordon to a solid cheer.
Its true Gordon is not a great rallying speaker. He's not a rostrum thumping roaster..but a solid and dependable speaker, and he comes across as a decent man. And thats what we all want. The additions made by is wife to the occasion was a huge success.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
24 September 2008
08:276514#8
PaulB - I am not giving any kind of assessment just pointing out what must be the most blatent and stunningly open lie ever told by a Prime Minister and for no good reason.
I will do a reply later to Harry when I have more time.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
24 September 2008
10:456526#9
Harry.
Brown's version of what he says the Conservatives will or wont do is utterly valueless, pure speech knockabout and not worth commenting on.
You seem to have bought his line that the problems are not his fault. True he did not cause the global downturn but he is culpable in the problems we face and carries a great deal of the responsibility for the depth of the problems we have. Read my much longer post in the politics section where I give a much greater run-down on the various causes of the economic problems.
Do you not remember when Brown said he had ended boom and bust? Anyone with even the merest inkling of knowldge knows that was nonsense. Having claimed that he surely cannot get away with his claim that he is not responsible for the state we are in now....
His 'novice' comment was, from his point of view, a good line. Its target, however, was his more immediate threat, David Milleband. Cameron is a more distant electoral threat while the Milliband pretender is a threat from the inside.
He claims to be so experienced and the right person to get us out of the problems but he is the person whos economic mismanagement has made the situation a lot worse than it would otherwise be. When you wwant to get out of a hole yiou stop digging, he is showing no sign of that, indeed he is continuing with exactly the same spendthrift policies that are a cause of so much misery.
All he has come up with in policy terms are pallatives that do not go to the heart of the problem and will not contribute to turning around the economy. You will find out the Conservative approach in the Conference next week so I am merely giving my view as someone who has some knowledge of economic matters. He needs to cut back on public spending, I wont dwwell on this as it is repeating many posts I have made in the past but the public sector must be expected to take some of the burden. This should and can be done without impacting on frontline services as well. The lack of spending control over the last 11 years has led to bloated fat services with plenty of room to make cuts in the 'tail'.
The whole point of my original post was to draw attention to a deliberate and quite stunning lie. Most politicians will warp statistics to meet their purpose or work on half truths. This just so blatent. It goes to the issue of trust, something you mentioned, it goes to the heart of the character of the Prime Minister and whether vyou can trust him. If he is willing to lie so openly on such a minor point and for no good reason just what wont he do...
To summarise, Brown cannot be trusted in any way shape or form. His economic track record is a disaster for this country. He lacks the personality traits of communication and leadership skills that are essential for a good PM. He is not the right person to resolve our economic problems.
Finally - while British troops are fighting for their lives in Afghanistan, he gave them just one throw away line after 55 minutes of his speech. That is the importance he places on the young soldiers he places in harms way.
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
24 September 2008
10:586528#10
What Brown may or may not lack in personality he makes up for in integrity.In todays politics most people are fed up with spin,charisma and what side DC parts his hair on what we want is someone who loves his country and wants to do best for all sections of society not just pampering to the wealthy by promising massive cuts in public spending and services.
I am regret that DC appears shallow to me.
As for Brown not singing the troops praises I think that the services are fully aware of this govt commitment and will not be so easily conned by a few choice words at a vote catching party political conference.Any leader that uses the armed services to boost his ratings or increase his popularity is despicable.Brown got it right.No Thatcher jingostic Union flag waving for him but just a few choice words which came from the heart.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
24 September 2008
12:146535#11
I am surprised you missed an obvious flaw Barry. Brown promises free prescriptions for those with cancer without doing anything about the nonsense by which you get free prescriptions if you are on housing benefit but are not allowed them if you are on sickness benefit.
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.
Richard Armour
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
24 September 2008
12:516541#12
Chris. There are so many flaws, I do have to do some work!!!!
Marek, would a man of such integrity actually lie in such a fashion as he did, the sheer brass of it, on a matter of historical record. I didnt mention did I that Disraeli advocated votes for women in 1867 as well, but I dont think attitudes were ready then to go that far!!! Come on, look at it, he was so blatent and for no purpose. The word integrity simply does not apply to him. I have not even touched on the many other untruths highlighted in the papers, much of which you can expect from a politician.
And, Marek, the troops deserve better than he gave them, now, at a time of war. Go to ARRSE and see what they think of him. I am very mild and sweet towards him in comparison!!!
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
24 September 2008
13:136542#13
Marek. I have just had a look on ARRSE myself. This is what one soldier posted (this being one of the less rude to him...). This though pretty well sums up the Forces view of what many of them call the ZANU NL Government.
------------- Quote:::::::
jim30 wrote:Standby to spool up the outrage bus- I had it on TV (am on leave doing DIY) and watched his "bit" about the armed forces.
All we got was "we're the best in the world" - cue applause - BUT what gripped me big time was the large number of apparatchiks who refused to applaud and sat there motionless with their hands in their laps. Looking at the footage, it seemed like large numbers of Labour party members refused the chance to acknowledge the armed forces - says it all really.
My bold - And you're surprised about this?? Our Armed Forces are anathema to the labour party. Our Forces stand for Duty, Professionalism, Conscience, everything nulab is not!
In 1997 this gubberment took over one of the healthiest of Treasurys. It then acted like kids in a sweetshop and left us bankrupt and scupperd! So cyclops answer? He has announced in the last few days that:
1. All children under 2 will get free child care
2. Everyone under the age of 26 will get free theatre tickets
3. £700 to every family with children to pay for an internet connection
At a cost of ?zillions? Yet our Armed forces struggle on with lack of equipment, low pay, and zilch aftercare for those physically and mentally injured!
There was huge applause at Twickers on Saturday when told that the Sponers of the Match had covered costs so that every penny we paid for tickets went to H4H. Where's cyclops response? Will he match we was raised?? Can pigs fly?
-----------------------------
End Quote::::::: My comments follow, BW
It is certainly an education reading the much more forthrightly expressed views of this Government expressed on ARRSE!!!!
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
24 September 2008
19:126554#14
chris
sickness/incapacity benefit is not automatically income support.
it is not a means tested benefit.
for example you could have one partner on incapacity benefit, the other earning 100 grand a year.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
24 September 2008
19:156555#15
barry
the post you have quoted is full of half truths and non truths, i am surprised that you posted it.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
24 September 2008
22:326574#16
howard - It is the viewpoint of a British soldier and it is shared by many others who are equally colourful in their description of the Government. Essentially, while I would use different language, I agree totallly with the thrust. Do take a look on ARRSE you will see what I mean.
Brown cares little about the Forces (he has demonstrated that by how he has starved them of funds while lavishing money on every other department of State). There is a massive pacifist streak in Labour that is very hostile to the Forces indeed, always has been, but is is more true than ever today. They just dont understand Defence, at least the present generation, previous generations of Labour leadership did have some very distinguished ex-servicemen (inc Attlee to be fair...)
Take a look:
http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewforum/f=3.htmlGuest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
25 September 2008
07:156584#17
It was reported on GMTV today 25/8 (so it must be true) that the latest poll shows Tories down to 41%.I can't find the full result yet but it just shows how fickle the British voters are..
There is still a helluva lot to play for before the next General Election.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
25 September 2008
07:546585#18
Marek, I have seen this on conservativehome and there is considerable pleasure expressed at retaining a 10% lead in the post-Labour Conference bounce. To stay above 40% is viewed positively. There will be a Cameron bounce after our conference too. Polls are unreliable until the end of October when the conference froth has disappeared.
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
25 September 2008
08:116588#19
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
25 September 2008
09:386593#20
I love 'em, Brian, I just wish I was going to be in Birmingham next week........
You are right that you do get a fair bit of dross emerging from them, but they are important political events and can sometimes make history.
Over the years I have attended a total of about 10. I was present when Mrs T made what has been labelled on of the 10 great political speeches, her 'the lady is not for turning' one. I was also there for the leadership election speeches when, along with many others, I was blown away by David Cameron and his inspirational address. I texted my wife to tell her right then that I had just heard the next Conservative PM.
Sadly I was not there last year when a 'one, two' from Osborne and then Cameron suddenly changed events forcing Brown to 'bottle it'.
So yes, I take our point but sometimes they do make a real dififierence.
