British Election Leaders' Debate: The Grand Betrayal

Neo Con Labour =/= Labour. Gordon Brown may be more old Labour than New Labour but most of his Cabinet are very NuLab.



False as can be seen by simply watching the debate. The Liberal Democrat want to reduce and taper tax credits from the richest 20% to reduce expenditure and improve the benefit for those on lowest incomes. For the poorest f families on tax credits it is a horrid syste that is very poorly designed when dealing with irregular hours and fluctuating incomes. It results in harsh overpayments and massive clawbacks of benefits from those who need it most.



Again false. Gordon Brown was trying to out Tory the Tories on this by saying that there is no life on the dole for anyone, people lose benefits after six months. Clegg was the only one of the Leaders to suggest making work pay - because he would end income tax for those earning less than £10,000 per year. In contrast to this you only need to look at Neo Con Labour's record. While Gordon Brown was busy making the City of London a tax haven he doubled the rate of tax for those on the lowest levels of income.



Brown could have done something about social mobility during his whole period in office. He didn't and he wiped out social mobility He scrapped a combination of grants and loans for university students and replaced them with tuition fees and loans.

Every measure of social mobility has gotten worse under this Labour Government. The gap between the richest and poorest not only got wider but the incomes of the poorest actually fell as well. Brown deliberately encouraged hyper inflation in the property market which made it impossible for working people to buy a home without lying to a bank. He pretty much scrapped the building of public sector homes. For those in council homes he effectively ended the right to buy, but instead gave a new right to buy to "tenant partnerships" in co-operation with private landlords. If tenants voted to leave the council as a landlord, money would be lavished on their estate, but they would lose security of tenure. If they did not vote for a private company to take them over - the repairs budget would be slashed and no regeneration money would be forthcoming.

I would add on that Neo Con Labour is the Party of compulsory ID cards, the disgraceful Digital Economy Act, anti civil liberties legislation that effectively rips up the Magna Carta, Blair and the completely unpleasant creature quoted at the end Lord Peter Mandleson.

Liberal Democrat leader signaled that he would speak to the Tories first about the formation of a minority government guardian.co.uk April 25

You forgot that one. It's the most significant point in the article. It's the most revealing point about Clegg. He CHOSE to announce his overture to the Conservatives on a coalition government. It's no secretly recorded dialog. He said it on his own.

The idea of Clegg presenting himself as a reformer after that move is laughable.

I didn't start out with an ax to grind with Clegg. In fact, when I read one article about him in OpEdNews, I was willing to consider his role as someone who would take on the establishment. But when Clegg embraced the Thatcherites, that was a big clue. He's just another politician who is willing to join up with truly reactionary forces.

My comment on the debate wasn't a critique of policy by the parties. It was an analysis of the given and take in the debate.

Clegg and Cameron didn't adequately answer brown on the "child tax credit" cuts.

My comment on unemployment benefits was twofold. First, Brown's initial response was to talk of getting people to work while Clegg and Cameron went right to the "dependency" buzz word. As for Brown supporting work for benefits, they all did that. In as much as the recipients are not indigent, then there should be work for pay. But the notion that people like social welfare benefits is an old Reagan theme. Brown didn't take the bait. Clegg and Cameron did with the dependency analysis.


Brown's record on social mobility wasn't the topic, it was the given and take of the debate. He raised the various programs that need to be maintained and argued with conviction for the peoples' interest. Cameron was more erudite but his concern for the people pales in view of the Conservative agenda. Clegg was "Mr. Cellophane." He had nothing much to say substantively.

But more importantly, Clegg take a tactical choice to go light on Cameron. Why? Could it have something to do with his overture of forming a minority government? If so, then he's betrayed his supporters by representing the Lib Dems as the new politics of honesty etc. while he's pulling backroom deals.

Does Clegg's preference for the Conservatives over Labour in the case of a hung Parliament bother you at all? It does me and I suspect others when as they put together the scam.

He said he would speak to the Tories first if Labour came third behind both the Tories and the Lib Dems. At that point the Lib Dems and the Tories would be the more popular parties and any talks about a coalition would always start there. They wouldn't go very far at all since there's a lot of disagreement about policies, far more so than between Labour & the Lib Dems. Additionally, Clegg alone could not agree any coalition and any attempts to do so would tear the Lib Dems apart (again).

Clegg's point on tax credit is basically this. He earns over $100,000 per year as an MP but is still eligible for child tax credits when he clearly earns enough not actually require them. It is surely a more progressive proposal to remove their tax credit and spend that cash on the people who actually need it instead of giving a tax break to people who are already well off.

Clegg is a centre-right politician, as is Cameron and as is Brown. The Lib Dem policies are to the left of both Labour and the Conservatives:



The only truly left wing party in UK politics is the Green Party, but they're not standing in every constituency so I can't vote for them. However, a vote for the Lib Dems would likely change the voting system which would lead to the Green Party gaining a lot of ground in the country and probably lead to them gaining some MPs.

when he has chosen to lead a party of Thatcherites. I mean, more brutish than NuLab(c) was.

While Brown has learnt that he'll spend some hard time in purgatory for his role in NuLab(c)'s, neoliberal, global debacle, he still seems very, very wary of taking on our media in a full-frontal confrontation. And you can see why, when you watch and hear the little gobshites on our TV news shows, though someone with a more temperament would soon shift their grasp from his throat to his feet. They don't understand the 'carrot'. Just the 'stick'. But hard, and not talking softly.

There used to be a wonderful, Labour ex-miner called, Dennis Skinner, I saw briefly interviewed on a live news-shoot, and he snarled at the interviewer's laughable questions so savagely, I never ever saw him interviewed on the TV again. The Tories called him the Beast of Bolsover. If only they'd all been like him.

If he'd come into politics whilst New Labour were in the ascendency I believe he'd have joined the Labour Party. He's very reminiscent of Blair and he's far more moderate than most Tories.

In fact, his centre-right standing will probably hurt him in the long run. It's been very easy for the Tories to cover up their internal differences so far. All the splits over Europe that were present under Major are still there, only with them having been in opposition those views have never been put under the microscope, they can easily block vote against European legislation proposed by the government under the guise of acting as the opposition. That'll be a lot harder if they're the ones proposing legislation.

It isn't just the European views that will split the party. Cameron has placed a lot of emphasis on his green credentials, but there are many in the party who are as much in denial about global warming as US Republicans and just as many who will work against green policies if they're told that they'll hurt their friend's business interests.

Even if the Tories do win a majority in the election the next parliament could be quite chaotic.

and she was tremendous.

What a leader she'd make of a reconverted Labour Party, after Brown! The first female politician I've rated, but just a few words were enough. Not too many male politicians are up to much, either, I have to say.

Talking about the Green Party who almost spat out the word socialist when describing the party as if it were the worst thing in the world.

It just made me want to vote for them more.

Unfortunately, they're not standing in my constituency so I won't get the chance to vote for them. I can do the next best thing though & vote Lib Dem to ensure that the electoral system is changed and the Green Party is given a real chance in parliament. The site voteforpolicies.org.uk has been tallying poll results on the site where people have selected policies without knowing the party behind them. Of the 200000+ votes so far the Green Party is leading which suggests that if they, like the Lib Dems in this election, were offered a national platform to put forward their policies they'd probably pick up a great deal of votes ahead of the current major parties.

particularly, pre-WWII and pre-Thatcher is and was rotten to the core.

While they had a strong Labour Party to shame them, the good angels among them, the one-nation Tories were able to make the greater contribution of spiritual values to the country, so sorely absent these days under both parties.

Last week my wife read out to me that some boys between 10 and twelve had raped a fourteen-year old girl. Such an outrage used to be absolutely unheard of.

The anti-Tory, tactical voting some Guardian writers are advising seems a very good idea. Our patch is a tight race between Labour and the Tories, so it's not relevant to us.

Just one thing, if Labour is elected, as I fully expect (famous last words), Brown had better not mention Thatcher again, still less tak about a state funeral for her. The Tories would do it in a flash.

I think you may have been referring to the old historian, who isn't quite the round shilling. An animal; though curiously precious.

particularly, pre-WWII and pre-Thatcher is and was despicable beyond belief. Scant wonder, Mussolini and Hitler were so popular with them, until they sensed the threat to their cherished empire.

While they had a strong Labour Party to shame them, the good angels among them, the one-nation Tories were able to make the greater contribution of spiritual values to the country, so sorely absent these days under both parties.

Last week my wife read out to me that some boys between 10 and twelve had raped a fourteen-year old girl. Such an outrage used to be absolutely unheard of.

The anti-Tory, tactical voting some Guardian writers are advising seems a very good idea. Our patch is a tight race between Labour and the Tories, so it's not relevant to us.

Just one thing, if Labour is elected, as I fully expect (famous last words), Brown had better not mention Thatcher again, still less tak about a state funeral for her. The Tories would do it in a flash.

"Every chance of succeeding? That is hardly the language of blood, sweat and tears. Can you imagine Winston Churchill saying we'll fight them on the beaches and then we'll have every chance of achieving a success over Nazi Germany?"

I think Wintour and Watt have got this wrong. B Liar is doing what Brown is doing: eschewing a bumptious triumphalism in favour of deterring complacency among the Labour voters. Personally, I think Brown overdoes it; he should show the braggadoccio he's entitled to, with his command of the economy and 'ring-fencing' of the funding of the bedrocks of the welfare state: employment, education, the NHS, and benefit supplements for the poorly-paid. Though he did emphasise it and repeat those, imo, invincibly winning assets.

I've been wrong in the past, but I think Labour will walk it. There might be a lot of posturing in front of the microphone, but inside the voting booth, I don't think people are daft enough to prefer 'a pig in a poke' to solemn, explicitly-expressed undertakings/guarantees. We'll see.

I think the Lib Dems may best be described as 'champagne Socialists', though I normally abhor the expression. But more 'champagne' than 'Socialist', generally, though Clegg, himself, has expressed some admirable ideas, including in the area of economic justice. However, as in the US, this is no time for watered-down Socialism. The party though seem like muppets, in the sense of a gallimaufrey of disparate, (yes, and desperate, too, with the finishing line in view) political desiderata. I mean, it's true to some extent of all parties, but strikingly so, the Lib-Dems, at least in the past, or so it seems to me. It was perhaps more true of the Liberals than of their alliance with Social Democrats.

I suppose, with virtually the full panoply of our perjurious media against them, a Labour government in coalition with the Lib-Dems, rather than a full majority, is possible, but if so, Labour could be forced to institute proportional representation (an not the watered-down version, they favour); and that would be a blessing almost beyond belief. Keeping them all honest.

As a Guardian writer pointed out, they don't have hung parliaments in Europe, just governments. It's normal. As power-people, the Tories and their Big Business pals are waxing hysterical at the thought of PR: they quite like the untrammeled corporatism that has brought us to this pretty pass.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/wintour-and-watt/2010/apr/30/tonyblair-general-election-2010

"So now we know. Tony Blair has joined the long line of Labour worthies who believe their party is heading for defeat next week.

"In his first appearance on the campaign trail since the election was called, the former prime minister said that Labour had "every chance of succeeding" next Thursday.

"Every chance of succeeding? That is hardly the language of blood, sweat and tears. Can you imagine Winston Churchill saying we'll fight them on the beaches and then we'll have every chance of achieving a success over Nazi Germany?"

...and the favor was returned.

"Cameron, who regarded Blair as unbeatable, showed he will be happy to work with him on the Middle East when he made light of the former prime minster's appearance:

It's great to have him back in the country. He's one of the few people who could actually afford another Labour government.

Tony Blair is a war criminal just as George W Bush is for lying his country into a war of death and destruction. Now he weasels his way into the favor of the Conservative Cameron. What's next? A big kiss in public by these two empty shirts?

Prime Murder Tony B liar was there to help Neo Con Labour in Harrow West.

No where does it say in that quote Cameron would work with B liar also B liar was far from unbeatable. The Tories biggest mistake in 2005 was running a campaign vote Blair get Brown - slap bang in the middle the 2005 General Election, no one trusted Count Dracula who led the Tories at the time (Michael Howard) and everyone hated B liar. So the Tory campaign worked against them.

B liar had three special protection officers with him who should have been carting him off to the Hague.

said there was 'something of the night about him', didn't it? The fact of his antecedents hailing from Transylvania didn't help, I expect. Surely, her inspiration.

You know Ashdown was in the SBS. It tickles me when they say he's the only man in parliament who's killed anyone with his bare hands!