Your views on David Cameron

[raphael123]

The man who leads the opinion polls, and looks favourite to win the next election, even if Gordon Brown becomes Prime Minister inbetween.

In a recent opinion poll, the public said they preferred Camerons policy on the NHS over Labour/Brown! Rather worrying when the Tories/Cameron haven't actually got a policy!

I hope the public aren't fooled by him!

[Dave B]

My opinion: he can't see a bandwagon without jumping on it, and proves the maxim that it's far easier to come up with policies when you're in Opposition.

[Mark]

I hope not too. Almost everything I've heard from him is extremely worrying. Bascially, under the guise of 'green' he'll follow the usual tory policy of taxing the poor and low incomes so much that they cannot do anything, whilst leaving the wealthy untouched.

His policies are extremely dangerous. But then again Brown isn't much better, and therein lies the problem.

[BDunnell]

I find it hard to take him seriously, although, unlike Michael Howard before him, I don't think he's a nasty person. In many ways, he ought to appeal to me, as he says several things with which I agree in principle, but he just doesn't because I doubt the courage of his convictions.

[Mark]

The advantage he has is that, unlike the rest of them, he isn't stained by being closely associated with the previous Tory government, people still have long memories about them.

But I think you are right in that all we ever hear from him is what he thinks people want to hear, he doesn't seem to believe any of it himself.

[raphael123]

I find it hard to take him seriously, although, unlike Michael Howard before him, I don't think he's a nasty person. In many ways, he ought to appeal to me, as he says several things with which I agree in principle, but he just doesn't because I doubt the courage of his convictions.

What things are they? :)

[raphael123]

I agree, the man is basically an opportunist, and doesn't actually believe in anything. He had a huge role in their previous manifesto when Howard was leader, yet apparently he's 'modernising' the party now.

I think Robin Harris said it best in Dispatches recently shown on TV. Btw Harris is the former Head of Tories Research Department.

'This is going to sound harsh, but I don’t mind that. I think that David Cameron is an out and out opportunist, and although Michael Howard was accused of opportunism and I think practised it a bit over the Iraq war, he was not at heart an opportunist. He did believe things. I don’t believe that David Cameron believes anything'

Also, funny how he cycles to work one day a week, or at least he use to, but use to try and hide the fact 10min behind him would be a Rolls Royce behind carrying his 4 different suits etc! It just shows his manipulative side!

Also funny how Cameron once described windmill farms as 'gigantic bird blenders’, who now happens to have a windmill on his house, which as it happens was given planning consent, but they haven't adhered to the conditions, so it is actually illegal!

Also we shouldn't ignore the fact that 13 Old Etonians are on Tories frontbench. How can people who have grown up in that environment represent Britain and understand people's need?

And has anyone seen 'The Trial of Tony Blair'? There's a clip showing Cameron talking to some kids from the 'ghetto', and he says to some black girls, 'Ah, you must be the hoes and bitches'.

Then there's his blogs, showing him interacting with his kids, making sunday lunch, washing up (even though he forgets to roll up his sleaves lol!), it's all for show!! He says everyone is entitled to a private life when refusing to answer questions about his drug taking as a 15yr old, but he's more than happy to welcome cameramen to film him his kids and wife while eating sunday lunch, and then publicise it on the internet for the entire nation to see!

But worse of all, is the most serious matter, that they seem determined (and so far its working) in winning the next elections through bashing Labour, and not coming up with any ideas, policies or promises from their party!

[Mark]

My main gripe with what the Tories have been saying thus far is that it's all been "You shouldn't be able to to this", "You shouldn't be able to do that", "We'll have to put taxes up on this".. What about things which would actually benefit me personally. You may think that's selfish but I look out for Number 1 here!

[raphael123]

My main gripe with what the Tories have been saying thus far is that it's all been "You shouldn't be able to to this", "You shouldn't be able to do that", "We'll have to put taxes up on this".. What about things which would actually benefit me personally. You may think that's selfish but I look out for Number 1 here!

Have Tories been saying they'll put taxes up?

I don't think politicians telling us we have to do certain things is a main issue. At least not with me. For example issues such as the smoking ban (enforced yesterday here!), or the global warming issue, though we may lose out, I think it's called taking responsibility for our actions.

Your right it is selfish, but completely understandable. At the moment I am Labour, but if I start earning more than £40k a year, I'd jump at the chance to vote for a party which wouldn't tax me 40%, even if it meant Tory. But regarding certain issues such as recycling, being more green friendly, I think it's just taking some responsibility - I don't think that's necessarily wrong.

[BDunnell]

What things are they? :)

I am pleased that he has taken an interest in environmental issues, and not just stuck his head in the sand in relation to them, as Tories and their supporters have tended to do in the past. This pleases me, as it has allowed a degree of cross-party consensus, which is a good thing when it comes to the environment. I am also glad that he has taken a more enlightened attitude to crime than some of his predecessors, realising that there is more to crime (particularly involving young people) than the criminals just being evil and deserving to be locked up. This has moved the debate on to some extent.

However, I would never vote for him because (a) I refuse to ever vote Conservative, and (b) I find him hard to take seriously in general.

[BDunnell]

My main gripe with what the Tories have been saying thus far is that it's all been "You shouldn't be able to to this", "You shouldn't be able to do that", "We'll have to put taxes up on this".. What about things which would actually benefit me personally. You may think that's selfish but I look out for Number 1 here!

This is one of the things I don't understand about some aspects of political debate. There is nothing that has been done by the Labour governments of the last 10 years that I feel in any way restricts what I want to do in my day-to-day life. I get along fine. Of course it would be nice to pay less tax, but I don't feel like I'm overly taxed, and I like to think that I work just as hard as anyone. This is why I get so annoyed by other people going on along the lines of "Why should the taxes I pay through my hard work go towards X or Y?" — do they have a monopoly on hard work or something?

[Brown, Jon Brow]

OOh This looks like a thread for all the forum socialists to mock David Cameron.

:rolleyes: I'll leave now.

[BeansBeansBeans]

OOh This looks like a thread for all the forum socialists to mock David Cameron.

:rolleyes: I'll leave now.

Do you not have anything to contribute to the discussion?

[raphael123]

I can actually see their points of view. When your getting taxed 40% of your wage, and part of that money is going to the millions on disability allowance, who are more than capable of working, or people on the doll, it makes you wonder why on earth should I pay so much of the money I've earned, so they can laze about at home! It's different to being told about smoking, and the environment, as that is your responsibility. People too lazy to get a job - they are not your responsibility!

As soon as I start earning past the barrier where the tax goes up to 40% I shall switch my alliance to Tories. Maybe it's different in Germany (assuming that's where you live?)

As for your views on which your happy to see Cameron bring to the forefront of discussions, I agree. They are all important issues. The thing you have to realise with Cameron though, he's not saying it because he personally think it's something that needs addressing, or is important to him, it's basically an opportunity for him to say what the public want, and win a few more votes.

The points I mentioned earlier, on how he tries to manipulate the media and the public show that.

In a way he's similar to Tony Blair, in he's redirecting his party to maximise the number of votes they receive. The difference is Tony Blair actually believes in what he was saying and offering, while Cameron is saying it to win the election, and just that.

[Dave B]

OOh This looks like a thread for all the forum socialists to mock David Cameron.

:rolleyes: I'll leave now.
Not at all. Before you, only four different people had contributed to this thread so it is hardly a representative view. If you've something constructive to add, even if it's a different opinion, we'd be glad to hear it.

[Dave B]

I can actually see their points of view. When your getting taxed 40% of your wage....
Just to clarify: nobody is taxed 40% of their wage. You've got your tax-free allowance, then the first part is taxed at the lower rate. You only pay 40% on the element above 33K. I'm sure you knew that, but many people forget :)

[BeansBeansBeans]

As soon as I start earning past the barrier where the tax goes up to 40% I shall switch my alliance to Tories.

So you base your political views on personal gain rather than principal? I believe people should be taxed on a scale relating to their income, regardless of my personal situation.

[DonnieDarco]

However, I would never vote for him because (a) I refuse to ever vote Conservative, and (b) I find him hard to take seriously in general.

Exactly my views. I think he's a toff pretending to be a man of the people, I cannot take him seriously.

[BDunnell]

I can actually see their points of view. When your getting taxed 40% of your wage, and part of that money is going to the millions on disability allowance, who are more than capable of working, or people on the doll, it makes you wonder why on earth should I pay so much of the money I've earned, so they can laze about at home! It's different to being told about smoking, and the environment, as that is your responsibility. People too lazy to get a job - they are not your responsibility!

I accept the fact that no taxation system is perfect, and I don't take the fact that a very small percentage of what I pay in tax goes to some people who maybe don't deserve money from the state as personally as a lot of others do. This will always happen under any system, and we're talking about tiny amounts of money per person here. I am more concerned about the wider benefits of the taxes I pay, and I don't feel that I get too bad a deal. I earn a pretty average wage, by the way.


As soon as I start earning past the barrier where the tax goes up to 40% I shall switch my alliance to Tories.

I find that bizarre. What you are in effect saying is that you have no views on anything other than about taxation. It's a bit of a flimsy basis for your political opinions.


Maybe it's different in Germany (assuming that's where you live?)

No, I don't. Germany has traditionally been a higher-taxed economy than the UK, I believe. It is one of the reasons for its excellent public services. It has also had its problems, but life's basic necessities are catered for very well, in my experience, and there have been other significant factors that have contributed to Germany's diminishing economic competitiveness.


As for your views on which your happy to see Cameron bring to the forefront of discussions, I agree. They are all important issues. The thing you have to realise with Cameron though, he's not saying it because he personally think it's something that needs addressing, or is important to him, it's basically an opportunity for him to say what the public want, and win a few more votes.

The points I mentioned earlier, on how he tries to manipulate the media and the public show that.

In a way he's similar to Tony Blair, in he's redirecting his party to maximise the number of votes they receive. The difference is Tony Blair actually believes in what he was saying and offering, while Cameron is saying it to win the election, and just that.

I have never been convinced of Blair's sincerity either, for what it's worth. Compare his public statements from his early years as an MP with what he's been saying in the last 10 years and you'll see what I mean.

[BeansBeansBeans]

Exactly my views. I think he's a toff pretending to be a man of the people, I cannot take him seriously.

Steady on, is that not inverse snobbery?

[BDunnell]

Steady on, is that not inverse snobbery?

It's a view I agree with. I am always suspicious of people who try to pretend to be something they're not, like Tony Blair attempting to prove that he's cool. The trouble is that the media forces politicians to do this to some extent, by criticising them for being out of touch if they can't say who's number one in the charts or don't know who Wayne Rooney plays for, yet also ridicules them for attempting to do the opposite.

[wedge]

Cameron is a Blairite leading the wrong party.

If Cameron ran for Labour Party leadership he would Brown a good run for his money.

Credit to Cameron for aligning the Tories to the left because I have a always believed the battleground has been on the centre.

I haven't voted in the last couple of general elections on principle. The next one will be a hot contest and I will do my bit to keep the current Labour government and not a Tory one.

[raphael123]

So you base your political views on personal gain rather than principal? I believe people should be taxed on a scale relating to their income, regardless of my personal situation.

Yes, I vote for the party which I think will provide a better quality of life for myself/family. Are you trying to say you vote for a party that will make your life a misery?

I agree people should be taxed relating to their income, but not when your taxed 40% when your on £33k a year, which really isn't all that much!

BDunnell

lol another discussion with you. Do you disagree with me for the sake of disagreeing haha! Anyway, I'll explain my view :)


I accept the fact that no taxation system is perfect, and I don't take the fact that a very small percentage of what I pay in tax goes to some people who maybe don't deserve money from the state as personally as a lot of others do. This will always happen under any system, and we're talking about tiny amounts of money per person here. I am more concerned about the wider benefits of the taxes I pay, and I don't feel that I get too bad a deal. I earn a pretty average wage, by the way.


That's fine by me. Each to their own. I do begrudge my money being given to people too lazy too work. However, I don't mind paying money towards green issues, education, NHS etc. I guess its hard to compare our situations considering your in germany.


I find that bizarre. What you are in effect saying is that you have no views on anything other than about taxation. It's a bit of a flimsy basis for your political opinions.

Again, it's my fault, I should have gone into more detail, realising in Germany it may be a different situation. Over here, Tories and New Labour are quite similar, tax is one thing which they differ from, but even then that's becoming more similar. That is the reason as to why I said I would switch to Tories, as their views on green issues, spending etc is similar.

If however tories were claiming we don't need to reduce carbon emissions etc, but offered me low tax for a high income job, then I would still stick with Labour. Hope thats cleared it up :)


No, I don't. Germany has traditionally been a higher-taxed economy than the UK, I believe. It is one of the reasons for its excellent public services. It has also had its problems, but life's basic necessities are catered for very well, in my experience, and there have been other significant factors that have contributed to Germany's diminishing economic competitiveness.

government spending has increased immensely under labour, however unfortunately we can't say 'we have excellent public servies'. Maybe that's why you are more generous and laid back about being taxed, because it would seem your government is using the money wisely.

If Labour were doing that, I may be persuaded to be happy to be taxed 40%.


I have never been convinced of Blair's sincerity either, for what it's worth. Compare his public statements from his early years as an MP with what he's been saying in the last 10 years and you'll see what I mean.

I think the difference between Blair and Cameron is Cameron will say something, at any given time, if thats what the audience want to hear. Whether he believes that, and plans to implement it should he be elected, is irrelevant. Blair on the otherhand, while he may have swayed more left/right after 10yrs, when he says something, he does believe it. Maybe it's down to the fact he is the boss, and he knows he won't be around to be 'un-elected', so is basically doing what he thinks is right, and not worried about public opinion. I'd rather a leader who believes in what he's doing.

[BeansBeansBeans]

Yes, I vote for the party which I think will provide a better quality of life for myself/family. Are you trying to say you vote for a party that will make your life a misery?

Of course I wouldn't vote for a party who would make my life a misery, but being taxed what I consider to be a fair percentage of my earnings wouldn't make my life a misery.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

So far in this discussion we have had people like BDunnell saying that Camerons policies might be good but they won't vote for hm because he is a tory! and tories are work of the devil. :o hplease:

Well if G. Brown is going to be the labour leader I won't vote for them on principal!

[Mark]

No, I don't. Germany has traditionally been a higher-taxed economy than the UK, I believe. It is one of the reasons for its excellent public services. It has also had its problems, but life's basic necessities are catered for very well, in my experience, and there have been other significant factors that have contributed to Germany's diminishing economic competitiveness.



There is the perception that countries like Germany can manage their money sensibly. So even if we were to put up taxes to German levels, we wouldn't get German levels of public service in return.

I say again tho, that's a perception, and may be entirely inaccurate.

[BeansBeansBeans]

So far in this discussion we have had people like BDunnell saying that Camerons policies might be good but they won't vote for hm because he is a tory! and tories are work of the devil. :o hplease:!


I would never vote Tory because I oppose the central ethos of conservatism. No doubt they’ll have the odd policy which I agree with, but that won't make me vote for them. And I don't think they're the work of the devil, I'm just diametrically opposed to their political principals. There are many conservatives whom I respect, including my best friend.

[stevie_gerrard]

I dont know a lot about politics, i can tell you that now. However i feel that David Cameron does make a lot of good points, And if i was going to vote for anyone, it would be Cameron rather than Brown or Menzies Campbell.

I do have concerns like other people that he wont carry out what he says and he doesnt have too many beliefs in anything, but i think he would make a good leader of this country.

The next coming election will be the first time i can vote, i havent made a decision yet as to whether i will vote, but i am tempted to support Cameron if i do vote.

[BDunnell]

Yes, I vote for the party which I think will provide a better quality of life for myself/family. Are you trying to say you vote for a party that will make your life a misery?

This isn't what I find strange about your view — it's the way in which you say you will switch your political allegiance the moment one very specific thing happens.


I guess its hard to compare our situations considering your in germany.

Again, it's my fault, I should have gone into more detail, realising in Germany it may be a different situation.

I should have explained that I live in the UK and am English. However, I would like to move to Germany, where I have lived in the past. Sorry.


government spending has increased immensely under labour, however unfortunately we can't say 'we have excellent public servies'. Maybe that's why you are more generous and laid back about being taxed, because it would seem your government is using the money wisely.

If Labour were doing that, I may be persuaded to be happy to be taxed 40%.

While the German government isn't 'my government', I do take your point. The trouble is that while you may say that you would be happy to be taxed more if there was a demonstrable improvement in public services, I'm sure a lot of people would either disagree on principle, or still moan about the UK's public services and use this as their justification for not being in favour of higher taxes. It is true that one of the reasons why we have problems with public services in Britain is the way in which they were always underfunded in the past, largely because we were a low-tax economy compared with others in Europe who performed better in delivering key services, and still do.

Now we have a situation where all three main parties believe that the way to increase public service spending 'by the back door' is through PFI deals and other private sector involvement. The trouble is that the public almost always ends up paying more in the end. In addition, I believe passionately that certain examples, especially the railways, show that the belief the Tories hold (and have now transferred to both Labour and the Lib Dems) in the innate superiority of the private sector when it comes to delivering services is misguided.


I think the difference between Blair and Cameron is Cameron will say something, at any given time, if thats what the audience want to hear. Whether he believes that, and plans to implement it should he be elected, is irrelevant.

But this is a tendency of all opposition parties. It is interesting that the Lib Dems have taken some heed of the criticism that always used to be levelled against them that they would promise absolutely anything because they know they are never going to reach power, and started to be much more sensible when it comes to policy pronouncements (especially on the fiscal side), yet the Tories have now gone down that irresponsible road themselves.

[BDunnell]

There is the perception that countries like Germany can manage their money sensibly. So even if we were to put up taxes to German levels, we wouldn't get German levels of public service in return.

I say again tho, that's a perception, and may be entirely inaccurate.

I think there is some truth in that. However, it is a vicious circle because it strikes me that parts of the German public service sector can attract a better class of employee, and thus deliver better service, than can their British equivalents. This too is a generalisation, but I think it holds some water.

Nonetheless, this doesn't disguise the fact that long-term, the effects of low spending have been significant in the UK.

[BDunnell]

So far in this discussion we have had people like BDunnell saying that Camerons policies might be good but they won't vote for hm because he is a tory! and tories are work of the devil. :o hplease:

Well if G. Brown is going to be the labour leader I won't vote for them on principal!

That's your decision, and I can understand that.

My opposition to the Tories concerns their core beliefs, with which I have always found myself in opposition. I am glad that David Cameron has made aspects of British Conservatism less nasty, because this will hopefully have a positive effect on the way conservative-minded people view things, but I will never vote for him, nor any other Tory leader. I also have an intense dislike for certain Conservative MPs, to a far greater extent than I do towards almost all Labour members (Geoff Hoon excepted).

[raphael123]

Of course I wouldn't vote for a party who would make my life a misery, but being taxed what I consider to be a fair percentage of my earnings wouldn't make my life a misery.

I would consider it a 'fair percentage' if the money used was put to good use. However unfortunately (and I'm a Labour voter) the government, though spend a lot more, are not making the most of it.

You asked if I would only vote for a party which benefitted my life, which I thought was a rather obvious thing to say, as I'm hardly going to vote for a party which disadvantages me lol!

[raphael123]

I dont know a lot about politics, i can tell you that now. However i feel that David Cameron does make a lot of good points, And if i was going to vote for anyone, it would be Cameron rather than Brown or Menzies Campbell.

I do have concerns like other people that he wont carry out what he says and he doesnt have too many beliefs in anything, but i think he would make a good leader of this country.

The next coming election will be the first time i can vote, i havent made a decision yet as to whether i will vote, but i am tempted to support Cameron if i do vote.

I think it's people like you, that people reason it wouldn't be sensible to let under 18's vote.

I think if your going to vote, you really should educate yourself about politics before just voting. The people who have bothered to educate themselves have to put up with a poor government for 4yrs if people like yourself vote Cameron because he seems like a nice man!

Fair play for you to admitting you don't know much concerning politics - we all have to start somewhere. But don't just acknowledge that fact, why not go the next step and spend a bit of time educating yourself, so you can make an informed decision?

[raphael123]

This isn't what I find strange about your view — it's the way in which you say you will switch your political allegiance the moment one very specific thing happens.



I thought I explained it quite clearly. Tories and Labour have a similar view on the majority of topics, the main thing is Tories believe they could do it better! One of the only variation is their taxation policy. Therefore, at the moment, it makes sense for me to vote Labour as they benefit me more. When I earn over £33k, then I shall switch to Tories, as their polices and stance on things are similar to Labour on the majority of the other topics.

If they had different views to Labour on global warming, crime etc, then I would of course take other things into consideration.

So if that 'one specific thing' that happens = me earning over £33k, yes I would switch allience. I'd be stupid not to vote for someone who is offering the exact same deal as I'd be getting, but letting me keep more of my earnings. Would you stay with Labour and continue to get taxed more? On principal then? If so fair play, but I'd put my family first :)



I should have explained that I live in the UK and am English. However, I would like to move to Germany, where I have lived in the past. Sorry.


Cool ok :) I assumed you lived in Germany hence the national flag on your profile.


While the German government isn't 'my government', I do take your point. The trouble is that while you may say that you would be happy to be taxed more if there was a demonstrable improvement in public services, I'm sure a lot of people would either disagree on principle, or still moan about the UK's public services and use this as their justification for not being in favour of higher taxes. It is true that one of the reasons why we have problems with public services in Britain is the way in which they were always underfunded in the past, largely because we were a low-tax economy compared with others in Europe who performed better in delivering key services, and still do.

Maybe others would. Your assuming if you think that's me, which isn't very fair. If the UK had the best public services in Europe, and were the highest taxed, I wouldn't complain. How could I? My arguements would be ripped apart as all you'd have to do is point to the fact we have the best schools, hospitals etc. However that's not the case. Our children are one of the most deprived in the western world it was recently revealed!

They were underfunded under Tory it's true. However 10yrs later there isn't much sign of improvements, if any at all has been made! Do you think we should wait 20yrs, or would they arguement 'back in the late 80's and early 90's they were underfunded' as an excuse, when we're in 2020? I'm not sure how much longer that can be used as an excuse to be honest.


Now we have a situation where all three main parties believe that the way to increase public service spending 'by the back door' is through PFI deals and other private sector involvement. The trouble is that the public almost always ends up paying more in the end. In addition, I believe passionately that certain examples, especially the railways, show that the belief the Tories hold (and have now transferred to both Labour and the Lib Dems) in the innate superiority of the private sector when it comes to delivering services is misguided.

But this is a tendency of all opposition parties. It is interesting that the Lib Dems have taken some heed of the criticism that always used to be levelled against them that they would promise absolutely anything because they know they are never going to reach power, and started to be much more sensible when it comes to policy pronouncements (especially on the fiscal side), yet the Tories have now gone down that irresponsible road themselves.

I agree, the Tories have gone down the irresponsible road. I just hope people aren't fooled by them. As Stevie_Gerrard shows, people who aren't educated in politics can be quite naive (and I don't mean any offence by that).

Politics really should be studied in school, it should be made compulsory. Then people can make educated decisions rather than just who has the most charisma or something.

[BDunnell]

I think it's people like you, that people reason it wouldn't be sensible to let under 18's vote.

I think if your going to vote, you really should educate yourself about politics before just voting. The people who have bothered to educate themselves have to put up with a poor government for 4yrs if people like yourself vote Cameron because he seems like a nice man!

Fair play for you to admitting you don't know much concerning politics - we all have to start somewhere. But don't just acknowledge that fact, why not go the next step and spend a bit of time educating yourself, so you can make an informed decision?

Plenty of people over 18 make their voting decisions along similar lines, and don't know anything about politics. Plenty of people under 18 would be able to make an informed decision, too.

However, there does have to be a cut-off somewhere.

[BDunnell]

So if that 'one specific thing' that happens = me earning over £33k, yes I would switch allience. I'd be stupid not to vote for someone who is offering the exact same deal as I'd be getting, but letting me keep more of my earnings. Would you stay with Labour and continue to get taxed more? On principal then? If so fair play, but I'd put my family first :)

Yes, because I would never vote Conservative, and I tend to believe that there is nothing wrong with higher taxation so long as we get the services to match. In any case, as I said before, I don't take it for granted that we are ripped off by taxation. I also think it's wrong to shop around between the political parties, as you would between credit card providers, just to get a 'better deal'. It rarely works out that way in the end.


Your assuming if you think that's me, which isn't very fair. If the UK had the best public services in Europe, and were the highest taxed, I wouldn't complain. How could I? My arguements would be ripped apart as all you'd have to do is point to the fact we have the best schools, hospitals etc. However that's not the case. Our children are one of the most deprived in the western world it was recently revealed!

No, I wasn't directing that comment at you.

Interestingly, it is worth pointing out that some of the most deprived areas in the UK are in London, which blows out of the water many of the arguments one hears to the effect that London gets an unfairly good deal from everywhere else in the UK.


They were underfunded under Tory it's true. However 10yrs later there isn't much sign of improvements, if any at all has been made! Do you think we should wait 20yrs, or would they arguement 'back in the late 80's and early 90's they were underfunded' as an excuse, when we're in 2020? I'm not sure how much longer that can be used as an excuse to be honest.

In one sense, it can't, because it wears thin with the electorate. However, it is true, and I don't think political parties should shy away from referring to things long in the past if they are relevant. Many of the recent failings of British transport policy, for instance, have their roots in the very dim and distant past.


Politics really should be studied in school, it should be made compulsory. Then people can make educated decisions rather than just who has the most charisma or something.

One man's educated decision is another man's complete folly. But I agree that the political system should be studied in school. It is embarrassing that mainland European children know more about the British political system than a lot of British children do.

[BeansBeansBeans]

You asked if I would only vote for a party which benefitted my life, which I thought was a rather obvious thing to say, as I'm hardly going to vote for a party which disadvantages me lol!

That's a straw man and a half that.

[LotusElise]

Like others on this thread, I would never vote Tory for any reason, so my views on David Cameron aren't strictly relevant. To be fair, on a personal level he seems to put across a better, "nicer" image than most of his party, but that's not a good reason to vote for anybody.

Being honest, I don't know what I'm going to do come next election. Labour have made a mess of too many things for me to vote them back in and the Lib Dems under Menzies Campbell seem to have very confused policies now. It's a shame that Charles Kennedy had to stand down as I genuinely believed in what he stood for.

[DonnieDarco]

I'm in the same position. I won't vote Tory, I will not vote for Gordon Brown and I will not vote for Menzies Campbell.

I hate to not vote at all, so I have to hope politics lives up to its dirty rep and Gordo gets knifed in the back by his party, paving the way for a leader I would vote for :D However this seems unlikely, so I'm in a quandary.

[Gannex]

I don't feel like I'm being offered any political alternatives by Cameron or Brown, just competition as to who would be the better Managing Director of UK Public Services Ltd (very limited). They agree on everything to do with union power, competition, tax levels, wealth distribution, environmentalism, foreign policy, the lot. So all I'm looking at is who's going to give us the best National Health Service, train service and public toilets. It's hardly a choice to get excited about, but for my tenner, I'd say the Conservatives would probably run things more efficiently than the current lot.

[raphael123]

I don't feel like I'm being offered any political alternatives by Cameron or Brown, just competition as to who would be the better Managing Director of UK Public Services Ltd (very limited). They agree on everything to do with union power, competition, tax levels, wealth distribution, environmentalism, foreign policy, the lot. So all I'm looking at is who's going to give us the best National Health Service, train service and public toilets. It's hardly a choice to get excited about, but for my tenner, I'd say the Conservatives would probably run things more efficiently than the current lot.

What gives you the impression the Tories would run things more efficiently?

It can't be because of all the policies they have come up with that they would introduce, as they haven't come up with any, apart from taxing single parent families more than married couples/families - which is absurb considering married couples generally have a high income! Surprisingly we haven't heard too much about that idea recently!

I'd like to hear why someone thinks Tories would do a better job, so I look forward to your response.

Maybe I'm alone in thinking this, but I think if you take Iraq away from Tony Blair, I think Labour would still be topping the opinion polls relatively easy. Iraq is clouding a lot of people's judgement, which though is a major issue, it's what happens here that is most important.

[raphael123]

That's a straw man and a half that.

Expand please? :)

[raphael123]

Yes, because I would never vote Conservative, and I tend to believe that there is nothing wrong with higher taxation so long as we get the services to match. In any case, as I said before, I don't take it for granted that we are ripped off by taxation. I also think it's wrong to shop around between the political parties, as you would between credit card providers, just to get a 'better deal'. It rarely works out that way in the end.



Exactly, I have already said I don't mind high taxation if we get the services to match - but we don't! Therefore I may as well vote for a party who offer me exactly the same, but for less of my money. You can disagree, but I don't think there's anything 'wrong' (as you put it) in doing that. What is so 'wrong' about saving money, when all their other topics such as education etc are the same.

Explain to me why it is 'wrong' to look for a best deal? Are you suggesting I vote for a party that doesn't benefit me? Or is it 'wrong' because I may end up voting for a party you would never ever vote for? If so it's ignorance on your part.

As I've said, as long as the situation stays the same, where taxation is one of the only difference between Labour and Tories, as soon as I start earning more money, I shall vote for Tory if they offer me a better deal, and continue to put education, NHS etc as a priority.



No, I wasn't directing that comment at you.

Interestingly, it is worth pointing out that some of the most deprived areas in the UK are in London, which blows out of the water many of the arguments one hears to the effect that London gets an unfairly good deal from everywhere else in the UK.


....not sure what you want me to say to that. I don't think people are unaware of the fact parts of London are the most deprived. My arguement was the fact you pointed out Germany pay high taxes and have possible the best public services in Europe. Here we have increased spending on public services by more than doubling most sectors spending, yet there has been no improvements - hence why I do slightly begrudge paying so much tax. It's not a hard theory to understand, even if you disagree. I think you'll find I'm in the majority in not being happy about paying more tax, yet failing to see any rewards with improvements in the public sector.


In one sense, it can't, because it wears thin with the electorate. However, it is true, and I don't think political parties should shy away from referring to things long in the past if they are relevant. Many of the recent failings of British transport policy, for instance, have their roots in the very dim and distant past.


Whats your opinion then? Earlier you said it's down to lack of funding for years before when Tories were in power. So...how long should we wait for extra spending to start getting some kind of reward? It's made 10yrs, I'm not sure many people would say the schools have improved, or that crime has improved, or the hospital. I think if you asked the majority of people, they would argue it's got slightly worse rather than improved, even with all this extra spending. Do you think we should wait for 2020 before we should start to expect any kind of improvement? And if not, then it must be the faults of the Tories back in the early 90's? It couldn't be anything to do with Labour not doing a good job :S



One man's educated decision is another man's complete folly. But I agree that the political system should be studied in school. It is embarrassing that mainland European children know more about the British political system than a lot of British children do.

Could'nt have said it better myself :)

[BDunnell]

Whats your opinion then? Earlier you said it's down to lack of funding for years before when Tories were in power. So...how long should we wait for extra spending to start getting some kind of reward? It's made 10yrs, I'm not sure many people would say the schools have improved, or that crime has improved, or the hospital. I think if you asked the majority of people, they would argue it's got slightly worse rather than improved, even with all this extra spending. Do you think we should wait for 2020 before we should start to expect any kind of improvement? And if not, then it must be the faults of the Tories back in the early 90's? It couldn't be anything to do with Labour not doing a good job

I'm saying that both are true — that it's wrong in one sense to blame the past for current failings, and yet it is true that events that are sometimes way in the past are to blame for those failings. This is a very difficult conundrum for politicians.

[BDunnell]

....not sure what you want me to say to that. I don't think people are unaware of the fact parts of London are the most deprived. My arguement was the fact you pointed out Germany pay high taxes and have possible the best public services in Europe. Here we have increased spending on public services by more than doubling most sectors spending, yet there has been no improvements - hence why I do slightly begrudge paying so much tax. It's not a hard theory to understand, even if you disagree. I think you'll find I'm in the majority in not being happy about paying more tax, yet failing to see any rewards with improvements in the public sector.

By the way, I brought up that London example as a separate point, because you mentioned depravation in the UK, to pre-empt anyone banging on about how the rest of the UK suffers while London prospers.

[BeansBeansBeans]

Expand please?

You completely twisted my argument before ridiculing it.

I claimed that it was odd for you to currently support Labour whilst vowing to switch to Conservative as soon as you earned enough money to enter a high tax bracket. That shows that your politics are based completely on personal gain rather than principal beliefs. Most labour voters I know would not shift their political allegiance from left to right just because it would lead to small financial benefits. I don't see what is so surprising or ridiculous about this notion.

[raphael123]

BDunnell, I'm always happy to debate things with you. However, maybe in this instance you should follow what Dylan H would do and answer my points, which Dylan H said I wasn't (and as you always agree with him, I'm assuming this is the case this in this situation).

If the reason why you don't answer my points, is because you are starting to realise I was right all along, or you simply misunderstood what I was getting at, and I've cleared that up for you, it doens't do any harm to admit to it :)

My point regarding deprivation was the fact even though school spending has more than doubled, children in the country are one of the most deprived in the western world, worse off than those in countries like poland etc! I used this as an example to counter your arguement that you don't mind paying more tax, for better public services. But the fact is you pay more, and your not getting anything in return.

However my point you failed to reply to, which was the one I was most curious about was why it's 'wrong' for me vote for a party which benefits me most, if their other policies on the other issues, are similar to Labour (who I would generally vote for). So I'm not moving away from my principals, as Tories are all but identical, the only difference is I'm saving money. Why that is 'wrong' according to you I fail to see. If you could explain that'd be great. And as I've said, if you think its 'wrong' because it's not what you would do, then your ignorant.

I hope you can clarify why it's 'wrong' :)

[raphael123]

You completely twisted my argument before ridiculing it.

I claimed that it was odd for you to currently support Labour whilst vowing to switch to Conservative as soon as you earned enough money to enter a high tax bracket. That shows that your politics are based completely on personal gain rather than principal beliefs. Most labour voters I know would not shift their political allegiance from left to right just because it would lead to small financial benefits. I don't see what is so surprising or ridiculous about this notion.

I'm guessing you haven't read the whole topic? Which is why you've got yourself all confused.

I've stated - Tories and Labour have similar views on the majority of topics, as Labour have moved towards the right slightly under Blair, and Tories are moving towards the left under Cameron. Therefore one of the only variation between the two parties, is taxation. Therefore I don't think it's 'odd' for me to vote for a party which has the same beliefs as me, but will carry out those beliefs and aims, and cost me less money to do so as well.

I've stated that if Tories changed their opinions on important matters such as schooling, the NHS, green issues etc which differed widely to that of Labour, taxation wouldn't become the biggest factor in my deciding who to vote for, and I would have to vote for Labour even if I got taxed more. As things stand, the two parties are so similar that taxation, one of their only difference, becomes a more important issue, as voting for Tories and Labour based on Green issues won't make any difference, as they both have the same view point.

I hope thats cleared it up for you :) And maybe read the topic in full, or at least the person you've critizised post to understand what they're saying.

But no worries, your not an evil man I'm sure lol :)

[BDunnell]

BDunnell, I'm always happy to debate things with you. However, maybe in this instance you should follow what Dylan H would do and answer my points, which Dylan H said I wasn't (and as you always agree with him, I'm assuming this is the case this in this situation).

If the reason why you don't answer my points, is because you are starting to realise I was right all along, or you simply misunderstood what I was getting at, and I've cleared that up for you, it doens't do any harm to admit to it :)

My point regarding deprivation was the fact even though school spending has more than doubled, children in the country are one of the most deprived in the western world, worse off than those in countries like poland etc! I used this as an example to counter your arguement that you don't mind paying more tax, for better public services. But the fact is you pay more, and your not getting anything in return.

However my point you failed to reply to, which was the one I was most curious about was why it's 'wrong' for me vote for a party which benefits me most, if their other policies on the other issues, are similar to Labour (who I would generally vote for). So I'm not moving away from my principals, as Tories are all but identical, the only difference is I'm saving money. Why that is 'wrong' according to you I fail to see. If you could explain that'd be great. And as I've said, if you think its 'wrong' because it's not what you would do, then your ignorant.

I hope you can clarify why it's 'wrong' :)

I give up...

Please stop getting into these pointless arguments where you go on and on about other people not being clear enough and not answering your questions properly. This would be quite an interesting thread were it not for the way you accuse people of contradictions which aren't there or don't matter, read far too much into every single point, refuse to understand responses to what you say when they are entirely satisfactory, and so on and so on. Quite frankly, I'm rather sick of it. Sorry. Is that clear enough for you?

[raphael123]

I give up...

Please stop getting into these pointless arguments where you go on and on about other people not being clear enough and not answering your questions properly. This would be quite an interesting thread were it not for the way you accuse people of contradictions which aren't there or don't matter, read far too much into every single point, refuse to understand responses to what you say when they are entirely satisfactory, and so on and so on. Quite frankly, I'm rather sick of it. Sorry. Is that clear enough for you?

So basically you can't tell my why I'm 'wrong' in voting for a party which has the same principals as me, and on top of that will offer me a better quality of life, instead of sticking the the other party who have the same principals, but tax me more, with no other advantages?

I thought it was quite a simple question. You answered my other points, but seemed to 'forget' to answer that one, or just missed it.

If you want to explain it to me one day I'd be very interested. As things stand it looks to me as though you think I'm 'wrong' simply because you wouldn't do the same thing in my situation, which is ignorance. Unless there is another reason? However I've asked you if there's another reason, and you've just gone on a rant about how I ruin threads.

Maybe if you can't handle me asking you to back up what you say, to not say them in the first place :)

'We're obviously at different levels here' :)

[BDunnell]

So basically you can't tell my why I'm 'wrong' in voting for a party which has the same principals as me, and on top of that will offer me a better quality of life, instead of sticking the the other party who have the same principals, but tax me more, with no other advantages?

You clearly have no principles, hence your intention to switch parties when you earn a certain amount of money. I don't see that as much of a principle. My general voting trait is based on a variety of factors, including my fundamental beliefs on fairness, public service provision, foreign policy and so on.

[stevie_gerrard]

I think it's people like you, that people reason it wouldn't be sensible to let under 18's vote.

I think if your going to vote, you really should educate yourself about politics before just voting. The people who have bothered to educate themselves have to put up with a poor government for 4yrs if people like yourself vote Cameron because he seems like a nice man!

Fair play for you to admitting you don't know much concerning politics - we all have to start somewhere. But don't just acknowledge that fact, why not go the next step and spend a bit of time educating yourself, so you can make an informed decision?

Well i am trying to get to know politics a bit more, its not like i have a lot of time though at the moment, with working and university and other general stuff. i think you are right in saying that i do need to know about these things before i vote for them, thats why i havent been involved in any other votes not just to do with the government, but to do with takeover proposals and things like that which affect my services as a customer to a bank branch for example. But i am willing to learn about this stuff and make an effort to find out more about the politics side of things.

I dont know whether anyone else has been on webcameron, Davids site to connect to the people in this country, but ive been using that more recently to try and learn more about politics, and ive found it quite useful. I wondered what the general opinion on it was?

[BDunnell]

I dont know whether anyone else has been on webcameron, Davids site to connect to the people in this country, but ive been using that more recently to try and learn more about politics, and ive found it quite useful. I wondered what the general opinion on it was?

I don't want to seem like I'm being too sniffy about it just because I'm not a Cameron supporter, but I'm not over-keen on it. Full marks to him for trying to move away from the Tories' fusty image, but I find this sort of effort to 'connect with younger voters' rather embarrassing, a bit like finding your gran dancing at a nightclub. Even when I was a young person, I found the attempts at 'yoof appeal' of certain politicians cringeworthy. I always felt that Charles Kennedy being naturally good on comedy shows was more likely to appeal to younger voters than Tony Blair chatting to Noel Gallagher at Number 10 and going on about watching Newcastle United as a kid.

Don't forget either that the website of one MP or one political party isn't the best place to learn about politics in a balanced way, either.

[BeansBeansBeans]

Yes, I recall his Tonyness eulogising about his youth spent sat in the Gallowgate End cheering on Jackie Milburn. Richard Littlejohn was quick to point out that Blair would have been a toddler when Milburn retired and that the Gallowgate was a standing terrace until about 20 years ago.

[BDunnell]

Subsequently, Blair has denied that he ever said such a thing, which I believe is true. The trouble was that his denial came during an utterly cringe-inducing appearance on Football Focus, full of "y'knows" and the like.

[Rudy Tamasz]

Subsequently, Blair has denied that he ever said such a thing, which I believe is true. The trouble was that his denial came during an utterly cringe-inducing appearance on Football Focus, full of "y'knows" and the like.

'scuse my ignorance, but what's the story with "y'knows" and the like? I'm not a native English speaker trying to learn more about the British culture and always curious about little things like that, y'know.

[BDunnell]

'scuse my ignorance, but what's the story with "y'knows" and the like? I'm not a native English speaker trying to learn more about the British culture and always curious about little things like that, y'know.

It's a particular verbal trait that Tony Blair displays. It's most noticeable when he's trying to appear informal — for example, saying things like "Well, y'know, John, ah used to love watching Newcastle when I was a lad. Y'know, those were great days..." — though he does also use it almost all the time, including during Prime Minister's Question Time.

[BeansBeansBeans]

'scuse my ignorance, but what's the story with "y'knows" and the like? I'm not a native English speaker trying to learn more about the British culture and always curious about little things like that, y'know.

At the end of the day, it's kind of like, y'know, just one of those, like, little phrases, that English people use to fill out their sentences, if you know what I mean.

[raphael123]

You clearly have no principles, hence your intention to switch parties when you earn a certain amount of money. I don't see that as much of a principle. My general voting trait is based on a variety of factors, including my fundamental beliefs on fairness, public service provision, foreign policy and so on.

I'm close to giving up myself now!

I've told you numerous times, my voting trait will depend on a number of factors. As things stand, both parties have the same opinion on 99% of things, including foreign policy, spending on public sectors etc. Therefore when I earn over £33k, I shall vote for the party who on top of upholding their principles (like that of New Labour) will also allow me to have more money.

If Tories come back and say they don't plan to take e.g. environmental issues as seriously as Labour, I'll stick with Labour - even if I do get taxed more, and the public services won't improve.

I honestly can't explain that anymore clearly for you I'm afraid. If you insist on believing I will switch parties as soon as I earn a certain amount of money whatever each party's beliefs, even though I have said otherwise on numerous occasions, then that's up to you.

I'm sure your not a stupid man, so I'm baffled by your refusal to accept what I have said.

Stevie Gerrard, I'm glad your prepared to learn about politics before casting your vote. And as BDunnell has stated, maybe use a more balanced source when educating yourself rather than a party's website.

[BDunnell]

I'm close to giving up myself now!

I've told you numerous times, my voting trait will depend on a number of factors. As things stand, both parties have the same opinion on 99% of things, including foreign policy, spending on public sectors etc. Therefore when I earn over £33k, I shall vote for the party who on top of upholding their principles (like that of New Labour) will also allow me to have more money.

If Tories come back and say they don't plan to take e.g. environmental issues as seriously as Labour, I'll stick with Labour - even if I do get taxed more, and the public services won't improve.

I honestly can't explain that anymore clearly for you I'm afraid. If you insist on believing I will switch parties as soon as I earn a certain amount of money whatever each party's beliefs, even though I have said otherwise on numerous occasions, then that's up to you.

That is exactly how you originally put it, so I think I and others are forgiven for interpreting it that way.

[BDunnell]

And here is where you said it:


As soon as I start earning past the barrier where the tax goes up to 40% I shall switch my alliance to Tories.

[raphael123]

HOLY CHRIST MATE!!!

You've taken that completely out of context out of EVERYTHING else I've said. Your better than this BDunnell, don't stop that low! You could make out I said anything if you take out one sentence I've said!!! You could make out Mother Teresa was in actual fact a transexual if you really tried!

What about the other things I've said

1)Over here, Tories and New Labour are quite similar, tax is one thing which they differ from, but even then that's becoming more similar. That is the reason as to why I said I would switch to Tories, as their views on green issues, spending etc is similar.

If however tories were claiming we don't need to reduce carbon emissions etc, but offered me low tax for a high income job, then I would still stick with Labour.

2) I thought I explained it quite clearly. Tories and Labour have a similar view on the majority of topics, the main thing is Tories believe they could do it better! One of the only variation is their taxation policy. Therefore, at the moment, it makes sense for me to vote Labour as they benefit me more. When I earn over £33k, then I shall switch to Tories, as their polices and stance on things are similar to Labour on the majority of the other topics.

If they had different views to Labour on global warming, crime etc, then I would of course take other things into consideration.

So if that 'one specific thing' that happens = me earning over £33k, yes I would switch allience. I'd be stupid not to vote for someone who is offering the exact same deal as I'd be getting, but letting me keep more of my earnings.

3) Therefore I may as well vote for a party who offer me exactly the same, but for less of my money. - Offer exactly the same - referring to same stance on other important factors such as public spending, environmental issues etc

4) As I've said, as long as the situation stays the same, where taxation is one of the only difference between Labour and Tories, as soon as I start earning more money, I shall vote for Tory if they offer me a better deal, and continue to put education, NHS etc as a priority.

5) I've stated - Tories and Labour have similar views on the majority of topics, as Labour have moved towards the right slightly under Blair, and Tories are moving towards the left under Cameron. Therefore one of the only variation between the two parties, is taxation. Therefore I don't think it's 'odd' for me to vote for a party which has the same beliefs as me, but will carry out those beliefs and aims, and cost me less money to do so as well.


6) I've stated that if Tories changed their opinions on important matters such as schooling, the NHS, green issues etc which differed widely to that of Labour, taxation wouldn't become the biggest factor in my deciding who to vote for, and I would have to vote for Labour even if I got taxed more. As things stand, the two parties are so similar that taxation, one of their only difference, becomes a more important issue, as voting for Tories and Labour based on Green issues won't make any difference, as they both have the same view point.

7) I've told you numerous times, my voting trait will depend on a number of factors. As things stand, both parties have the same opinion on 99% of things, including foreign policy, spending on public sectors etc. Therefore when I earn over £33k, I shall vote for the party who on top of upholding their principles (like that of New Labour) will also allow me to have more money.

8) If Tories come back and say they don't plan to take e.g. environmental issues as seriously as Labour, I'll stick with Labour - even if I do get taxed more, and the public services won't improve.

-------

So please don't try and tell me that I've said I will base my vote on taxation alone, when I have clearly said that will not be the sole reasoning in my vote.

How you can say my sole decision process is based soley on taxation, when I have stated other (^^^^) is beyond me. You can't argue against imbeciles. I'm sure your not an imbecile, and I know from previous discussions, though we have not agreed, your an intelligent guy, but your acting like a kid now, taking out one sentence from 20 odd posts and saying 'see, you did say it!'.

I said I would switch alliance. You questioned me on it. I explained further, by explaining that I would switch, because as things stand, New Labour and Tories have the same views on the other factors. If that was to change, I would stick with LAbour. As things stand, that does not look like happening.

Please BDunnell, act like an intelligent guy I'm sure you are. Your better than this :)

[BDunnell]

That's it. I'm backing out of this 'discussion'. Your statement was perfectly clear.

[donKey jote]

aaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrggggggggggggghhhhhhhhh

it's "you're"...

oh well, at least you can count, 123 :dozey:

Not much better than most of the rest here I know, but here endeth a donkey's contribution to this thread.
My ignore list has just grown back to the grand old sum of 1

:z

http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/16/16_3_166.gif

[raphael123]

That's it. I'm backing out of this 'discussion'. Your statement was perfectly clear.

Thank you for finally seeing sense :)

[Malbec]

In a recent opinion poll, the public said they preferred Camerons policy on the NHS over Labour/Brown! Rather worrying when the Tories/Cameron haven't actually got a policy!

Cameron's stated NHS policies differ markedly from Labour's.

He wants to give the NHS independence, give it a set budget every year and leave it to run itself with senior managers and doctors deciding how its run. He compares it to the way the Bank of England was given independence at the start of the Blair government although there will be clear differences of course. In essence he is suggesting that the NHS is depoliticised which has its merits and demerits. If the NHS gets things wrong the politicians in charge at the time can easily wash their hands and say "we only give them the money, they make the decisions".

He also wants to scrap the silly target based system of measuring healthcare delivery and wants to introduce a system which looks at changes in 5 year survival for key diseases. If he does this there will be no hiding places for anyone involved in healthcare from the patient him/herself onwards.

He wants to stop the cash-sapping reforms which have brought the NHS to a halt. The Tories left office with 3 Strategic Health Authorities running the NHS, Labour split them up into 10 before deciding last year that 3 was a better number. Billions were spent splitting and rejoining the SHAs. By simply stopping 'reforms' like that the NHS will save a lot of cash. He has also suggested he may halt investment in the NHS spine which would be good as its a total waste of money.

What is different about Cameron's ideas about the NHS is that they aren't pitched at you, Joe Punter, but at people who work within the NHS itself who will actually understand the implications of what he's saying. Thats in stark contrast to Michael 'MRSA' Howard who pitched his NHS spiel directly at Mr/Mrs Daily Mail, or Tony 'trust Labour to run the NHS' Blair (we won't anymore Tony).

He may not be making his points about the NHS in the mainstream press, but believe me he's engaging pretty full on with doctors groups and probably nurses too. If he succeeds in turning the NHS voting bloc from a staunchly pro-Labour group into a pro-Tory one he'll have pulled off one of the biggest political coups ever, and signs are he's achieving it.

The key bits Cameron doesn't appear to differ much from Blair is with the privatisation plans for the NHS.


BDunnell - infuriating isn't it?

[BDunnell]

BDunnell - infuriating isn't it?

No.

I feel under pressure to disagree with you for once... ;)

[Malbec]

No.

I feel under pressure to disagree with you for once... ;)

lol ;)