You can make one law . . . what would it be?

I'd make manifesto pledges legally binding, none of this 'if we get in next time' bollocks. Deliver on your promises or you're out, come back when you can be realistic, and honest.
 
Midas said:
I'd make manifesto pledges legally binding, none of this 'if we get in next time' bollocks. Deliver on your promises or you're out, come back when you can be realistic, and honest.

Yes, I voted Labour in 1997 because Prescott said the would re-nationalise the railways.

They didn't.

I hate that.
 
Tall_Paul said:
Gairdner said:
I'd ban the Daily Mail.......

It is an awful paper but worth reading for the amusement factor alone (at least in the comments on the web version).

As my mate says, the rage of Middle England makes funny reading.

Less funny when you hear the headlines being repeated by aggressive patients, some people believe the crap they publish unfortunately.
 
Rev-O said:
Is it just me or has this thread gone a bit Daily Mail?

:s

Must be a reason why it's one of the best selling newspapers in Britain ? Perhaps it reflects many of the views of our very own " Daily Males ".

JohnnyO. :icon_rolleyes:/
 
Rev-O said:
Is it just me or has this thread gone a bit Daily Mail?

:s

I was thinking it made the Daily Fail seem like the Grauniad's 'Comment is Free' section...:icon_rolleyes::s


JohnnyO said:
Rev-O said:
Is it just me or has this thread gone a bit Daily Mail?

:s

Must be a reason why it's one of the best selling newspapers in Britain ? Perhaps it reflects many of the views of our very own " Daily Males ".

JohnnyO. :icon_rolleyes:/

I'd like to think you're better than to agree with some of the 'blame the immigrants for everything' nastiness in the Mail, Johnny.:icon_cry2:
 
I'd like to think so also Chris. However as a democrat I recognise that the theory of " the power of the people " suggests that any paper which a very large section of the public chooses to spend their own money on must be giving expression to many of their views. Which means I don't happily ( patronisingly even ? ). dismiss the organ of their choice. If we don't like the Daily Mail or the Grauniad we don't buy them.... going by their respective circulation figures I know which I believe better reflects public opinions in this country. As to which is the more accurate or unbiased reporter of news I remain an equal opportunity sceptic !

Johnny0. :icon_razz:/
 
JohnnyO said:
I'd like to think so also Chris. However as a democrat I recognise that the theory of " the power of the people " suggests that any paper which a very large section of the public chooses to spend their own money on must be giving expression to many of their views. Which means I don't happily ( patronisingly even ? ). dismiss the organ of their choice. If we don't like the Daily Mail or the Grauniad we don't buy them.... going by their respective circulation figures I know which I believe better reflects public opinions in this country. As to which is the more accurate or unbiased reporter of news I remain an equal opportunity sceptic !

Johnny0. :icon_razz:/

Absolutely; popularity gives us a fair amount of information, but it says nothing in terms of quality of reporting.
 
Both papers are opposite sides of the same coin.

I could happily punch Daily Mail readers and Guardian readers in the face until I was exhausted, have a quick break and then carry on where I left off.
 
joe mcclaine said:
Both papers are opposite sides of the same coin.

I could happily punch Daily Mail readers and Guardian readers in the face until I was exhausted, have a quick break and then carry on where I left off.

Now THAT'S my idea of equality ! I still do look forward ever so to buying ' The Collected Thoughts of Vinny ' when they get published. My kinda philosopher.

JohnnyO. :angel:
 
No thread is complete without Vinny threatening violence against some poor unsuspecting liberal / conservative / anyone else

:icon_razz:
 
Back
Top Bottom