Gordon Brown 'bigoted woman' comment caught on tape

[Hitman]

Prime Minister Gordon Brown has been caught on microphone describing a voter he had just spoken to in Rochdale as a "bigoted woman".
Sixty-five-year-old Gillian Duffy had challenged Mr Brown on a number of issues including immigration and crime.
As he got into his car, he was still wearing a broadcast microphone and was heard to say "that was a disaster".


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8649012.stm

Tut tut, naughty Brown. Can't handle it?

[Hecktix]

Having watched the video of the woman being interviewed afterwards she seems quite rude.

It has to be remembered that Gordon, along with other Politicans is a person and people are allowed to have opinions etc. As far as Gordon knew, his conversation in that car was private.

Not one person can criticise Gordon Brown for his comments as every single one of us will make comments about people we have just conversed with behind their backs, it's a day to day thing. Gordon Brown can't stop being human.

I'm pretty certain that MOST politicians may complain to their PERSONAL PRIVATE advisors about people they have met - it's natural!

The only fault here was the fact that nobody ensured the microphone was turned off, whoever's fault that is I do not know, it could be Gordon's himself but nobody should be criticised for such comments as it's not as if they were meant to be made in public and are a simple human reaction.

[Shar]

Having watched the video of the woman being interviewed afterwards she seems quite rude.

It has to be remembered that Gordon, along with other Politicans is a person and people are allowed to have opinions etc. As far as Gordon knew, his conversation in that car was private.

Not one person can criticise Gordon Brown for his comments as every single one of us will make comments about people we have just conversed with behind their backs, it's a day to day thing. Gordon Brown can't stop being human.

I'm pretty certain that MOST politicians may complain to their PERSONAL PRIVATE advisors about people they have met - it's natural!

The only fault here was the fact that nobody ensured the microphone was turned off, whoever's fault that is I do not know, it could be Gordon's himself but nobody should be criticised for such comments as it's not as if they were meant to be made in public and are a simple human reaction.

I 100% agree with Oli, the UK is a democracy and therefore anyone, even the PM himself can vent and have opinions about people, it's only human nature.

[Hitman]

I say he needs spanking, naughty boy! Kidding, everybody is entitled to an opinion... but RNB Queen you are hypocritical. You said that the BNP were not human - that is your opinion, but you're being horrible about them for their opinions...

This was it... "They're inhuman that's why, pathetic weirdos."

Anywho, she only asked questions and wanted to know what he was going to do and he says it was a disaster and calls her a bigot. He supposedly gave compliments to her and her family before he left lol.

[Misawa]

Yes, Gordon should be allowed to call a woman a bigot, but Jeremy Clarkson cannot call him a one-eyed Scottish idiot, which he truly is. :rolleyes:

[Tintinnabulate]

The media asked her like 60 questions to try and show that Brown is a moron. They are all biased and obviously they will make a huge deal about all this.

Do you think the BNP leader goes "Oh that Black man asked me some very nice questions"? Hell no. He probably swears all night that he had to talk to a Black man.

Do you think Cameron and Clegg say nothing about the people who ask them hard questions? They all *****.

[Hitman]

I'm sure if this was somebody from the UKIP, like Nigel Farage, you'd all be singing a different tune. ;)

But maybe if he thinks that of people who ask him questions then he shouldn't be doing the job...

[Hecktix]

Yes, Gordon should be allowed to call a woman a bigot, but Jeremy Clarkson cannot call him a one-eyed Scottish idiot, which he truly is. :rolleyes:

I think it crosses the line when you are insulting someone based upon a physical problem they cannot help :)

[Tintinnabulate]

If you watch their conversation, he was polite and friendly to her. Everyone *******.

[Jordy]

Trying to defend the undefendable as ever on HabboxForum are we? If it's alright what he said why does he feel the need to apologise? You should see him cowering also when it's played back to him, truly pathetic.

David Cameron & Nick Clegg have never been called control freaks or arrogant people. As soon as he got in the car he was demanding who set him up this woman, trying to blame someone else straight away. It's been known for a while he's very arrogant, rude and angry with his staff and this is finally proof. The fact he "shouted" at people and "shoved" them with the bullying claims is just further evidence he is an unpleasant man.

This also displays how fake this whole campaign is and how he controls all of it. He meets Labour supporters, no members of the public. He tries to make it look real but it's all fake. Look at him smiling and thanking the woman before he gets in the car to let off steam. The difference is, Nick Clegg & David Cameron meet members of the general public, that's why they're used to facing abuse and getting egged, Brown is not and this is why.

The whole thing is a joke and it serves as proof what an arrogant man he is and how fake the whole campaign is. My favourite general election moment so far.

[Hecktix]

Of course he felt the need to apologise, what he thought was a private conversation has been broadcasted for everyone to hear..

[Hitman]

If you watch their conversation, he was polite and friendly to her. Everyone *******.
Yes, putting on a face and lying... he said it was very nice to meet her, when really he didn't think that at all... I don't know what those curse words are but I'm guessing it's along the lines of 'everyone messes up'.

Like I said, if he thinks its a disaster that one of his supporters asks him questions then maybe he's not the right person for the job.

[Shar]

He was just giving him opinion...he didn't know it was going to be broadcasted on national television...He did apologize in the end so what's the problem?

[Jordy]

He was just giving him opinion...he didn't know it was going to be broadcasted on national television...He did apologize in the end so what's the problem?He's a control freak, he's trying to blame members of staff for setting him up with someone who would ask him difficult questions, and he's not meeting members of the general public because his whole campaign is fake.

[ifuseekamy]

He's a terrible representative for the Labour party, this is just further proof of that. Zero charisma and poor oratory skills upfront and anger issues behind the scenes.

[Catzsy]

He's a control freak, he's trying to blame members of staff for setting him up with someone who would ask him difficult questions, and he's not meeting members of the general public because his whole campaign is fake.

I am sure none of them are any different. Lets face it it's human nature. They have to keep a smiling face for the public and I challenge anybody to say that none of the other party leaders would have probably not done the same thing about some members of the public and they all orchestrate meetings I am sure. He got caught - he will pay whatever price is due.

[Misawa]

He didn't feel the need to apologise, else he wouldn't have said it. His advisors forced him to apologise to save face. Politics is a dirty game and they're all liars. Anyone who thinks there is honesty in politics is deluded, as are the people that always rush to defend their party's leader to the last breath as if they are honest people. Regardless of who you support, they all stand for different things with a facade of lies - you just have to choose whose lies you wish to believe.

[Jordy]

I am sure none of them are any different. Lets face it it's human nature. They have to keep a smiling face for the public and I challenge anybody to say that none of the other party leaders would have probably not done the same thing about some members of the public and they all orchestrate meetings I am sure. He got caught - he will pay whatever price is due.I have never heard of any other party leader (Including Labour leaders) and recent ex prime ministers face claims of being very arrogant with staff and possibly bullying.

The other leaders do not orchestrate meetings and even if they did, it is completely wrong and gives television viewers the wrong image. You frequently see Cameron & Clegg wander into public spaces and just stand in the middle taking questions from everybody, this can be seen most days on the news as you see them on the election trail. Right from the beginning Brown's campaigning has been faked, when he went to St Pancras to catch a train to Kent there was a bus load of young Labour supporters to clap at him. Ridiculous.

I'm sure if it was Cameron who said something like this there'd be claims of how he is so rich and isn't the same as the rest of us and also how he isn't in touch with the working class lol.

[Misawa]

It's already been proven that Brown has anger issues and lashes out at his staff. He's the biggest moron out of the three.

[Catzsy]

I have never heard of any other party leader (Including Labour leaders) and recent ex prime ministers face claims of being very arrogant with staff and possibly bullying.

The other leaders do not orchestrate meetings and even if they did, it is completely wrong and gives television viewers the wrong image. You frequently see Cameron & Clegg wander into public spaces and just stand in the middle taking questions from everybody, this can be seen most days on the news as you see them on the election trail. Right from the beginning Brown's campaigning has been faked, when he went to St Pancras to catch a train to Kent there was a bus load of young Labour supporters to clap at him. Ridiculous.

Oh Jordy of course they do to a certain extent. They are all media savvy You are making them sound like angels - they are politicians fgs. It has always been done and if you think otherwise I am surprised. Thatcher was hardly known to be staff friendly on occasions either but I don't know her and I don't know him so who am I to pass judgment? I don't like Gordon Brown from what I have seen as you well know but they could all have been caught similiar to Clegg telling a member of the public last week he was talking a load of bilge. What's the difference?

[Shar]

He's a control freak, he's trying to blame members of staff for setting him up with someone who would ask him difficult questions, and he's not meeting members of the general public because his whole campaign is fake.
They're all control freaks love, they want to run the whole bloody country for starters...
All of their campaigns are fake...look at David Cameron for starters, just cos the guy has money he's slagging off Brown with these "I doubled the national debt let me do it again" posters, so you can't blame the guy...

[-:Undertaker:-]

Does this not show what this government thinks of us as a people?

You oppose mass immigration, you're a bigot.
You ask a question on the national debt, you're a bigot.

I am all for tougher language in politics (if the politician is challenged) however not this because its just totally arrogant and wrong to label a woman who has only asked a question as a bigot. Afterall its not as though she was a Tory attacking him/screaming at him - all she did was ask a question. I have just been watching his apology (wouldn't of apologised if he hadn't been caught, so hes not really sorry - only sorry he got caught by the media) and he is so fake, his personality is a sham, first he bullies staff and now this.


Oh Jordy of course they do to a certain extent. They are all media savvy You are making them sound like angels - they are politicians fgs. It has always been done and if you think otherwise I am surprised. Thatcher was hardly known to be staff friendly on occasions either but I don't know her and I don't know him so who am I to pass judgment? I don't like Gordon Brown from what I have seen as you well know but they could all have been caught similiar to Clegg telling a member of the public last week he was talking a load of bilge. What's the difference?

Thatcher did not call the public bigots or bully her staff so much that they had to call a bullying helpline, anyway you seemed to of changed your tune because when Nigel Farage called the EU President (an unelected politician) a damp rag, you appeared to be outraged at his comment. Now its fine saying thats rude, but this takes first prize in rudeness and arrogance yet you cant accept this.

[Misawa]

This incident reminds me of that time he was holding a baby and smiling, and as soon as he thought the cameras were off him, his face changed in an instant into disgust. He's scum.

[MrPinkPanther]

I've gotta be honest, I couldn't care less. It doesn't change my view of him which is pretty negative anyway.

[-:Undertaker:-]

This is typical of New Labour and this government, if you disagree with them then you are slammed as a rascist, fascist, bigot, homophobe and all the other names under the sun. Mrs Duffy is quite right on the national debt anyway because it is out of control and our kids could very well be paying it off when they start paying their taxes. Labour seem to have some crazy cooked up idea that; tax people and spend = economic growth and yet people are still prepared to vote for them, amazing really.

[Catzsy]

Does this not show what this government thinks of us as a people?

You oppose mass immigration, you're a bigot.
You ask a question on the national debt, you're a bigot.

I am all for tougher language in politics (if the politician is challenged) however not this because its just totally arrogant and wrong to label a woman who has only asked a question as a bigot. Afterall its not as though she was a Tory attacking him/screaming at him - all she did was ask a question. I have just been watching his apology (wouldn't of apologised if he hadn't been caught, so hes not really sorry - only sorry he got caught by the media) and he is so fake, his personality is a sham, first he bullies staff and now this.






Thatcher did not call the public bigots or bully her staff so much that they had to call a bullying helpline, anyway you seemed to of changed your tune because when Nigel Farage called the EU President (an unelected politician) a damp rag, you appeared to be outraged at his comment. Now its fine saying thats rude, but this takes first prize in rudeness and arrogance yet you cant accept this.

Of course she was a bully - google it Dan - how do you know she didn't call anybody a bigot? - you don't. There was no bullying helpline then. Where in this thread have I defended Gordon Brown? Nowhere. I just said that people were niave if they didn't think others did but were not caught.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Of course she was a bully - google it Dan - how do you know she didn't call anybody a bigot? - you don't. There was no bullying helpline then. Where in this thread have I defended Gordon Brown? Nowhere. I just said that people were niave if they didn't think others did but were not caught.

Margaret Thatcher was no bully, she was a harsh debater yes and she would challenge anybody if they disagreed with her on government policy because she could back it up, here is a good piece of the difference between Gordon Brown and Margaret Thatcher in comparison; http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2010/02/differences-between-brown-thatcher-no.html

[alexxxxx]

i think the woman is a bit rude, she isn't asking him questions, she just talking at him - but saying that he probably should be more careful with what he said. i don't honestly think it was even really a bad interview originally so why he's complaining about her i don't really know.

[Browney]

Yes, Gordon should be allowed to call a woman a bigot, but Jeremy Clarkson cannot call him a one-eyed Scottish idiot, which he truly is. :rolleyes:

Categoric proof he is of low intelligence?


Trying to defend the undefendable as ever on HabboxForum are we? If it's alright what he said why does he feel the need to apologise? You should see him cowering also when it's played back to him, truly pathetic.

David Cameron & Nick Clegg have never been called control freaks or arrogant people. As soon as he got in the car he was demanding who set him up this woman, trying to blame someone else straight away. It's been known for a while he's very arrogant, rude and angry with his staff and this is finally proof. The fact he "shouted" at people and "shoved" them with the bullying claims is just further evidence he is an unpleasant man.

This also displays how fake this whole campaign is and how he controls all of it. He meets Labour supporters, no members of the public. He tries to make it look real but it's all fake. Look at him smiling and thanking the woman before he gets in the car to let off steam. The difference is, Nick Clegg & David Cameron meet members of the general public, that's why they're used to facing abuse and getting egged, Brown is not and this is why.

The whole thing is a joke and it serves as proof what an arrogant man he is and how fake the whole campaign is. My favourite general election moment so far.


He's a control freak, he's trying to blame members of staff for setting him up with someone who would ask him difficult questions, and he's not meeting members of the general public because his whole campaign is fake.

You funny.


He didn't feel the need to apologise, else he wouldn't have said it. His advisors forced him to apologise to save face. Politics is a dirty game and they're all liars. Anyone who thinks there is honesty in politics is deluded, as are the people that always rush to defend their party's leader to the last breath as if they are honest people. Regardless of who you support, they all stand for different things with a facade of lies - you just have to choose whose lies you wish to believe.

CHEER UP, CHUCK.

[Jordy]

They're all control freaks love, they want to run the whole bloody country for starters...
All of their campaigns are fake...look at David Cameron for starters, just cos the guy has money he's slagging off Brown with these "I doubled the national debt let me do it again" posters, so you can't blame the guy...What on Earth are you on about?!

How does it make David Cameron fake because he is creating posters about the National Debt? It is a categoric fact that National Debt has doubled under New Labour, a fact nobody can deny. Because the Conservatives have election posters, it means Gordon Brown can be rude about his supporters and fake a campaign? No it doesn't.

Nor does David Camerons wealth have anything to do with it, he is not funding the Conservative party which funds the posters and that is totally irrelevant anyway. His financial status and background is totally irrelevant to politics, it doesn't make him any less. Plus if you're going to bring money into it, you'll find Nick Clegg is far richer (not that it matters).


Oh Jordy of course they do to a certain extent. They are all media savvy You are making them sound like angels - they are politicians fgs. It has always been done and if you think otherwise I am surprised. Thatcher was hardly known to be staff friendly on occasions either but I don't know her and I don't know him so who am I to pass judgment? I don't like Gordon Brown from what I have seen as you well know but they could all have been caught similiar to Clegg telling a member of the public last week he was talking a load of bilge. What's the difference?There is a difference between the "media savvy" shown by Blair, Cameron and Clegg and the "fakeness" shown by Brown. The fact he can't even smile shows what an arrogant guy he must be, he even has to control his campaign and wants to blame certain people when things go wrong.

It's well documented that Brown is avoiding any members of the public, instead preferring to share tea and biscuits in Labour supporters households. Which is a complete waste of his time seeing as they'll vote Labour anyways, Clegg & Cameron are talking to the masses and taking questions from them. I've seen myself just two streets away from me when Gordon Brown popped along two weeks ago with Alistair Darling into the house of a couple of Labour activists. I don't want some coward who can't talk to the general public leading this country and neither should you, or an arrogant man with anger issues and bullies staff members.

Of course Cameron & Clegg have things organised for them, but I will not accept that their campaigns are fake, they are meeting the general public. They are transparent politicians taking questions from anyone and everyone.

[Catzsy]

What on Earth are you on about?!

How does it make David Cameron fake because he is creating posters about the National Debt? It is a categoric fact that National Debt has doubled under New Labour, a fact nobody can deny. Because the Conservatives have election posters, it means Gordon Brown can be rude about his supporters and fake a campaign? No it doesn't.

Nor does David Camerons wealth have anything to do with it, he is not funding the Conservative party which funds the party and that is totally irrelevant. His financial status and background is totally irrelevant to politics, it doesn't make him any less. Plus if you're going to bring money into it, you'll find Nick Clegg is far richer (not that it matters).

Difference between the Media Savvy shown by Blair, Cameron and Clegg and the "fakeness" shown by Brown. The fact he can't even smile shows what an arrogant guy he must be, he even has to control his campaign and wants to blame certain people when things go wrong.

It's well documented that Brown is avoiding any members of the public, instead preferring to share tea and biscuits in Labour supporters households. Which is a complete waste of his time seeing as they'll vote Labour anyways, Clegg & Cameron are talking to the masses and taking questions from them. I've seen myself just two streets away from me when Gordon Brown popped along two weeks ago with Alistair Darling into the house of a couple of Labour activists. I don't want some coward who can't talk to the general public leading this country and neither should you, or an arrogant man with anger issues and bullies staff members.

It is possible because you don't like him so you would see him that way, anyway? I see David Cameron as fake because I don't like him. The funny thing is both parties have got some great people but they are not the people vying to be PM unfortunately. You know I don't rate GB at all. I have said so before. Where is the documentation though Jordy?

[Jordy]

It is possible because you don't like him so you would see him that way, anyway? I see David Cameron as fake because I don't like him. The funny thing is both parties have got some great people but they are not the people vying to be PM unfortunately. You know I don't rate GB at all. I have said so before. Where is the documentation though Jordy?Perhaps documented isn't the correct word to use but it's really just nitpicking. Pick up any newspaper of any political alignment when the election was called and it mentioned his political strategy was going to be going into Labour supporters houses to share tea with them. They did not just make up that information, they were told that by the Labour Party hence why they knew before Gordon Brown began entering households. He is indeed playing to his strengths but I am much more impressed by the transparency shown by the other political party leaders, they may not be angels but they are taking questions from the general public which is far more than Gordon Brown is doing, cowering in peoples houses and meeting specifically selected students & teachers in schools. I'm yet to see how David Cameron is really fake, he seems an open enough guy and his campaign reflects this. I'd say the same about Clegg.

Plus you should see this from the womans point of view, she has been personally insulted by Gordon Brown and should rightly feel offended, a devoted lifelong Labour voter asking questions does not warrant an insult. It is irrelevant if Cameron & Clegg might well do this, the fact is we don't know about it so we can't accuse them of it. If someone insulted you behind your back, would you be offended by the person who did it or the whole of society who may also be doing it? I know this doesn't apply to you Rosie but people cannot drag Cameron & Clegg into this, they have not done anything wrong.

[Catzsy]

Perhaps documented isn't the correct word to use but it's really just nitpicking. Pick up any newspaper of any political alignment when the election was called and it mentioned his political strategy was going to be going into Labour supporters houses to share tea with them. They did not just make up that information, they were told that by the Labour Party hence why they knew before Gordon Brown began entering households. He is indeed playing to his strengths but I am much more impressed by the transparency shown by the other political party leaders, they may not be angels but they are taking questions from the general public which is far more than Gordon Brown is doing, cowering in peoples houses and meeting specifically selected students & teachers in schools. I'm yet to see how David Cameron is really fake, he seems an open enough guy and his campaign reflects this.

Plus you should see this from the womans point of view, she has been personally insulted by Gordon Brown and should rightly feel offended, a devoted lifelong Labour voter asking questions does not warrant an insult. It is irrelevant if Cameron & Clegg might well do this, the fact is we don't know about about it so we can't accuse them of it. If someone insulted you behind your back, would you be offended by the person who did it or the whole of society who may also be doing it? I know this doesn't apply to you Rosie but people cannot drag Cameron & Clegg into this, they have not done anything wrong.

Well I didn't see the full interview and maybe her views were bigoted about immigration but I guess as a public figure
he cannot been seen as criticising a voter so you are right in that respect

[Technologic]

What a lad, ***** deserved what she got. Gordon ftw

[Gibs960]

Yeah, it's human nature to be annoyed about things such as this. Just because he is a big public figure and PM doesn't mean he hasn't got opinions, just as the woman had speaking to him. I myself would of acted the same way that Gordon Brown reacted, good on him. I haven't yet seen the actual video, but I have heard she is rather rude to him.

[Neversoft]

Mr Brown later telephoned Mrs Duffy to personally apologise for the comments, telling her he was very sorry and said she "is a good woman".

When asked did this in any way make up for the comments she said "no - absolutely not".

She definitly seems like a bigoted woman to me.

Sky are idiots as well for even releasing the private conversation.

[Ajthedragon]

Having watched the video of the woman being interviewed afterwards she seems quite rude.

It has to be remembered that Gordon, along with other Politicans is a person and people are allowed to have opinions etc. As far as Gordon knew, his conversation in that car was private.

Not one person can criticise Gordon Brown for his comments as every single one of us will make comments about people we have just conversed with behind their backs, it's a day to day thing. Gordon Brown can't stop being human.

I'm pretty certain that MOST politicians may complain to their PERSONAL PRIVATE advisors about people they have met - it's natural!

The only fault here was the fact that nobody ensured the microphone was turned off, whoever's fault that is I do not know, it could be Gordon's himself but nobody should be criticised for such comments as it's not as if they were meant to be made in public and are a simple human reaction.

The woman was clearly upset. Shows what a terrible PM he is, can't even answer questions about the strong economy his party ruined. If anyone was rude it was clearly him.

[Swastika]

people are taking this too far to be honest, im sure every single person posting here has let some steam off in the privacy of their own car or home or whatever. gordon brown is a human you all know?
just another chance for other party followers to have a dig at labour to be honest.
tories are idiots, lib dems live in a dream world and ukip havn't got a chance - sick of everybody acting like children taking digs at one anothers parties.

-rant over.

[GommeInc]

Pfft, as far as I can tell, he has the right to say it and is his opinion. The way she came across pretty much asked for that response :/

[xxMATTGxx]

It isn't a big deal to be honest, not like no other leader would say such comments about people. Everyone says stuff behind peoples backs, Gordon Brown isn't the first!

[GommeInc]

Just seen a clip of it. It's justified lol, she is a bigot. Amazed the silly woman was so shocked!

[Tintinnabulate]

The media are always acting like morons. They were showing the secret document the man carried in his hand last year past the cameras into downing street and were moaning about how dangerous it is for national security. If its that dangerous then just warn the government and not post it on every page of your news website "/

[-:Undertaker:-]

The media are always acting like morons. They were showing the secret document the man carried in his hand last year past the cameras into downing street and were moaning about how dangerous it is for national security. If its that dangerous then just warn the government and not post it on every page of your news website "/

It is a disgrace that we have a free media in this country which exposes how arrogant and corrupt our politicians really are(?) - we may aswell declare a dictatorship with that appaling party political attitude which I am sure you would not be saying if the shoe was on the other foot. Whether yourself and the Labour Party like it Saurav, we have a free media in this country which does expose stories such as this and the MPs expenses and you should be damn grateful for it if you appreciate democracy and freedom.

As for the point on the secret papers you speak of, i'm pretty sure the media censored the data in that particular case because if national security was breached they would then be partly responsible for the breach however this doesnt make this particular shambolic government free of any blame although you are attempting to insinuate that. What I just cannot work out, how much does it take for this government to do to lose your vote?

[clueless]

would love to see how much coverage it would get if cameron was in a similar situation, not alot from sky thats for sure
completely spun this story out of control

[-:Undertaker:-]

Mr Brown calls Mrs Duffy a bigot for voicing the concerns over immigration which the vast majority of people hold across the United Kingdom and in Rochdale itself (Rochdale, the home of Mrs Duffy, is an area which is being swamped and colonised by immigration/immigrants) yet Mr Brown is the one, along with his government who have opened the floodgates to this country and is the head of a government which continuously ignores the social ills of mass immigration despite it being the biggest social problem we face - who is the real bigot?

Because it certainly isn't Mrs Duffy.

[Tintinnabulate]

It is a disgrace that we have a free media in this country which exposes how arrogant and corrupt our politicians really are(?) - we may aswell declare a dictatorship with that appaling party political attitude which I am sure you would not be saying if the shoe was on the other foot. Whether yourself and the Labour Party like it Saurav, we have a free media in this country which does expose stories such as this and the MPs expenses and you should be damn grateful for it if you appreciate democracy and freedom.

As for the point on the secret papers you speak of, i'm pretty sure the media censored the data in that particular case because if national security was breached they would then be partly responsible for the breach however this doesnt make this particular shambolic government free of any blame although you are attempting to insinuate that. What I just cannot work out, how much does it take for this government to do to lose your vote?

Why go "We worry about national security" and leak everything in that document but names? Free press, sure they shouldn't gon about how much they love national security and care about it, but they leak the whole document.

If Brown had made a nice comment about the woman, it would even get reported. UKIP leader makes comments all day, none get reported. I cant believe its in todays bbc headlines too. Quite pathethic.

[Caution]

Are people so stupid to believe that politicians don't speak about people behind their back? They're only human. The sad thing is, she raised a valid point, and she's certainly not a bigot for wanting control on immigration. It's pathetic.

[kk.]

Its gone a bit out of control. He may have been wrong, but he's entitled to an opinion like everyone else, and sky news was in the wrong for releasing that clip. apparently its against the trust rules news reporters have or something which i can see why. No doubt it will come up in todays debate though, with some snide comment.

Not only that but tories are hypocrites. i got a leaflet through the door the other day saying labour are scaremongering (it was after last weeks debate) and they still didnt mention anything about free eye tests for pensioners lol, and thats what GB brought up (ive only just realised his initials are GB, GB FOR GB :P). not only that but like they said, tories have that grave stone saying DEATH TAX. come on, who brings death into a campaign, really.

[GommeInc]

Free press is a definite good, there's no denying that. It's just a shame that our press lies through their teeth, misinform people, lack any sort of research and blow things out of proportion in quite alot of cases. I remembr reading The Sun or Daily Gazette a few weeks ago, and it said how a man stole from his family and only have to pay back £1, then when you read the article (after you buy it), it says he has to pay back more once he starts earning an income. Stupid article, but it sells, which is what the media want. Money, then truth.

This is, as many have called it a "non-story". You get some dimwitted reporter saying "He called you a bigot (shock factor) ... or something to that description (ignorance/stupidity)." When actually he said "She's a sort of bigotted woman" because what she said was bigotted, she didn't talk about immigration, she targetted eastern europe. It's not Brown's fault if the silly woman can't form a proper claim and comes out like the bigot she appeared yesterday. If she had questioned immigration, which would of been more interesting, then maybe it would actually of got a proper response. What she did was:

Question immigration.
Rant about eastern europe.

She only had to say the first thing, the eastern europeans comment was uncalled for, and that's why she is a bigot - she mentioned it for no reason, probably only to get a ratty response to her half-baked ratty remark. Why mention it? She clearly has some sort of general view on them, a sort of "useless" stereotype based on them scrounging, which is quite racist and bigotted.

It's amazing how responses on this forum differ from forums that all members should, in theory, be able to vote :P

[ifuseekamy]

She seemed typically ignorant like most people from that generation. Who else asks "What about these Eastern Europeans, where are they all flocking from"? lol :rolleyes:

[Axel]

They're all control freaks love, they want to run the whole bloody country for starters...
All of their campaigns are fake...look at David Cameron for starters, just cos the guy has money he's slagging off Brown with these "I doubled the national debt let me do it again" posters, so you can't blame the guy...

Oh Lord, please never talk about politics ever again...

[sammy]

The whole idea was that he got to answer questions from the voters and get their feedback. He should of respected this woman's views and opinions, most things she said were actually very good points.

[-:Undertaker:-]

This is, as many have called it a "non-story". You get some dimwitted reporter saying "He called you a bigot (shock factor) ... or something to that description (ignorance/stupidity)." When actually he said "She's a sort of bigotted woman" because what she said was bigotted, she didn't talk about immigration, she targetted eastern europe. It's not Brown's fault if the silly woman can't form a proper claim and comes out like the bigot she appeared yesterday. If she had questioned immigration, which would of been more interesting, then maybe it would actually of got a proper response. What she did was:

Question immigration.
Rant about eastern europe.

She only had to say the first thing, the eastern europeans comment was uncalled for, and that's why she is a bigot - she mentioned it for no reason, probably only to get a ratty response to her half-baked ratty remark. Why mention it? She clearly has some sort of general view on them, a sort of "useless" stereotype based on them scrounging, which is quite racist and bigotted.

Do you know why she brought up the immigration remark?

Because her local area Rochdale has been swamped by uncontrolled immigration and just because she hasnt got the vocabulary of a politician doesnt mean she is a rascist or a bigot, infact i'd say otherwise because i'd say shes a real person. In response to general comments in this thread and others;- this is not a media gang rape of Gordon Brown and the Labour Party, he got caught for what he himself really is; a bigot, who, like the rest of New Labour, do not agree that alternative views should be aired.

I cannot wait until we get out of this ridiculous tribal politics because then we will get real change, most people [the vast majority] in this country want controlled immigration including Mrs Duffy yet they still vote Labour - family traits I guess, proportional represention should blow a hole in this in due course which will bring the whole rotten system down.

[Bailey]

Do you know why she brought up the immigration remark?I cannot wait until we get out of this ridiculous tribal politics because then we will get real change, most people [the vast majority] in this country want controlled immigration including Mrs Duffy yet they still vote Labour - family traits I guess, proportional represention should blow a hole in this in due course which will bring the whole rotten system down.

I agree about the family traits, my parents continue to vote labour because "the conservatives only help the upper class/better the devil you know" and they expect change..

[kk.]

I cannot wait until we get out of this ridiculous tribal politics because then we will get real change, most people [the vast majority] in this country want controlled immigration including Mrs Duffy yet they still vote Labour - family traits I guess, proportional represention should blow a hole in this in due course which will bring the whole rotten system down.

I want controlled immigration, yet ill be voting labour. It depends what people would prefer to have. I have particular things which are important to me and labour is the only party that would represent me. I dislike other party policies and hence i wouldnt vote for them based on just the immigration policies, and i believe that is probably why other vote labour too who want controlled immigration

[-:Undertaker:-]

I want controlled immigration, yet ill be voting labour. It depends what people would prefer to have. I have particular things which are important to me and labour is the only party that would represent me. I dislike other party policies and hence i wouldnt vote for them based on just the immigration policies, and i believe that is probably why other vote labour too who want controlled immigration

But why would anybody vote for Labour policies which are; more immigration, higher taxes and so forth and have always been a part of Labour Party policy, Labour believes in higher taxation and thus higher state spending despite the fact we are in immense debt as a nation and as individuals.

Gillian Duffy brought up all good points to Gordon Brown yet she would still vote for them, it just does not make sense and can mostly be attributed to family voting traits which still linger and will continue to linger while we have this first past the post voting system, although its looking as though its days are numbered thankfully. I mean its fine saying you agree with Labour, but somebody like Mrs Duffy who brings up issues important to her and when its obvious Labour are for mass immigration - her still voting for them just doesn't make sense.

[kk.]

But why would anybody vote for Labour policies which are; more immigration, higher taxes and so forth and have always been a part of Labour Party policy, Labour believes in higher taxation and thus higher state spending despite the fact we are in immense debt as a nation and as individuals.

i dont think you realise that party policies change. This comes straight from their website about immigration policies:


Net inward migration has fallen. Office for National Statistics' figures show it fell by 30 per cent from 233,000 in 2007 to 163,000 in 2008. We are delivering the biggest changes to our immigration, citizenship and border security systems for decades – we are bringing in a new Australian-style points-based immigration system which allows us to be more selective so that only those with the skills that we need to build a stronger economy can come here, and to ensure that as growth returns, we will see rising levels of employment, skills and wages not more immigration.

Like hes said in the other debates (which somehow he keeps losing which i dont see why? he puts across the best points, although of course im probably biased), the immigration system would be changing so we can be more selective. Labour are also more about the redistribution of wealth. Why shouldnt the rich help the poor. Its hardly a major decrease on salary for an extra 10p to be taken out per pound after £130,000.

[-:Undertaker:-]

i dont think you realise that party policies change. This comes straight from their website about immigration policies:

Like hes said in the other debates (which somehow he keeps losing which i dont see why? he puts across the best points, although of course im probably biased), the immigration system would be changing so we can be more selective. Labour are also more about the redistribution of wealth. Why shouldnt the rich help the poor. Its hardly a major decrease on salary for an extra 10p to be taken out per pound after £130,000.

Well each time Labour has stood for office it has pledged to cut immigration - it does the opposite everytime and more to the point it cannot do anything about immigration while it is a member of the European Union. It is like giving sweeties out to children to get votes from them, but time shows us (a 13 year period in office) that it is totally and utterly false. I would understand perhaps if they were in opposition and had long been opposed to full scale immigration, but these guys are in office and have been for the past 13 years - adding to that the fact that they were the ones who removed the last border controls we had. In conclusion you are right, party policies do change, especially when an election is running.

The wealth re-distribution is another word for state theft, why should somebody who has worked hard and worked their way upwards be forced into paying more taxes? (in other words, punishing somebody for success). Labour did the same in the 1970s and all socialist countries have done it, and it led to a brain drain where our brightest and best left the country for the United States and the rising Asian economies thus leaving the country worse off. If you tax a business (little as it may seem to you) it does hurt business and that then starts off the typical left wing cycle that is tax more = business forced to lay people off = more unemployed = more tax raises needed to fund unemployed = business lays more people off = more unemployed and so forth.

The rich help the poor in providing jobs and business, once you start talking about the gap between rich and poor you begin to convey the message of the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats which is that you would rather the poor be poorer provided the rich were less rich.

[kk.]

Well each time Labour has stood for office it has pledged to cut immigration - it does the opposite everytime and more to the point it cannot do anything about immigration while it is a member of the European Union. It is like giving sweeties out to children to get votes from them, but time shows us (a 13 year period in office) that it is totally and utterly false. I would understand perhaps if they were in opposition and had long been opposed to full scale immigration, but these guys are in office and have been for the past 13 years - adding to that the fact that they were the ones who removed the last border controls we had. In conclusion you are right, party policies do change, especially when an election is running.

The wealth re-distribution is another word for state theft, why should somebody who has worked hard and worked their way upwards be forced into paying more taxes? (in other words, punishing somebody for success). Labour did the same in the 1970s and all socialist countries have done it, and it led to a brain drain where our brightest and best left the country for the United States and the rising Asian economies thus leaving the country worse off. If you tax a business (little as it may seem to you) it does hurt business and that then starts off the typical left wing cycle that is tax more = business forced to lay people off = more unemployed = more tax raises needed to fund unemployed = business lays more people off = more unemployed and so forth.

The rich help the poor in providing jobs and business, once you start talking about the gap between rich and poor you begin to convey the message of the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats which is that you would rather the poor be poorer provided the rich were less rich.

I dont know whether you would prefer conservatives if it were between the two, until recent, main partys, but conservative views mean that they want to be a part of the EU as well as stopping immigration. In fact, they want to limit the amount of non-eu migrants annually. You cant just turn a around and say sorry you cant come in, we're full. What if we needed someone specific, like a doctor, rather than someone else? Its complete nonsense to want to leave the EU. They bring so much trade, and with this comes free trade. Whether the trade is in goods or services and labour, its better than just being us. By being a part of it, UK businesses have access to a greater amount of customers than they would because the tax on imports would be vastly greater for UK companies.

Because its called being selfish. Why do they need that much money? Whoever it was that was at the top of the rich list, he has 22 billion. Who needs that much money!? Why have we allowed someone to get that much money. Ok, hes worked hard and what not, but if people are able to survive on £20000 a year, then why shouldnt the rich get taxed more. That cycle comes around a lot in economics, whether it means a company has gone out of business, or whatever, and it never gets as serious as what people make out.

also, the guy whos standing for UKIP in my town is 84 years old O_O

[-:Undertaker:-]

I dont know whether you would prefer conservatives if it were between the two, until recent, main partys, but conservative views mean that they want to be a part of the EU as well as stopping immigration. In fact, they want to limit the amount of non-eu migrants annually. You cant just turn a around and say sorry you cant come in, we're full. What if we needed someone specific, like a doctor, rather than someone else? Its complete nonsense to want to leave the EU. They bring so much trade, and with this comes free trade. Whether the trade is in goods or services and labour, its better than just being us. By being a part of it, UK businesses have access to a greater amount of customers than they would because the tax on imports would be vastly greater for UK companies.

The Conservative Party is no longer conservative at all in nature, although i'd like to point out that the majority of the British public want out of the European Union despite what the main parties may think (because a lot of people from the main parties, especially the Labour Party, go on to have nice gold-plated jobs within the European Union; Mandelson, Kinnocks and so on).

The point on immigration if fairly straightforward and simple yet as usual you (the left) attempt to portray me and UKIP (the right in general) of being totally against immigration - well you are wrong. Although you can turn around and stop immigration fully (a sovereign state has that power if it wished to do so) that would be working against yourself as immigration does help the economy, the point however which the left just refuses to grasp is that we need controls over immigration so that we only allow those whom we need/who are not criminals into the country. Infact you yourself have now flip flopped, first you started off with saying you support a tougher immigartipn policy that Laboyur are apparently implementing and now you are saying that controlling immigration is madness - one or the other, which is it?

The European Union - nobody is saying lets stop trading with Europe therefore no jobs would be lost - that is a total and utter lie spun by the main parties who attempt to fight popular opinion with that message. The cost on British business each each from our European Union membership and the regulations that come from it every single day are over £100 billion per year. That is not good for trade and neither is the European Union free trade, it is a secular trade bloc which is a small and declining part of the world and it would be far better for us to return to trading with our Commonwealth friends more (if you wish for us to stay within trade blocs) because nations like India are within the Commonwealth which within a few years, may even surpass the strength of the entire European economy put together.

Trade with Europe, yes.
Friends with Europe, yes.
Ruled by Europe, no.


Because its called being selfish. Why do they need that much money? Whoever it was that was at the top of the rich list, he has 22 billion. Who needs that much money!? Why have we allowed someone to get that much money. Ok, hes worked hard and what not, but if people are able to survive on £20000 a year, then why shouldnt the rich get taxed more. That cycle comes around a lot in economics, whether it means a company has gone out of business, or whatever, and it never gets as serious as what people make out.

Because they earned it.

Why do some people need a big back garden? - lets take it away from them.
Why do some people have a nice living room? - lets take it away from them.
Why do some people have a nicer car than others do? - lets take it away from them.

In other words its jealously, its because its theirs and not yours to take away from them - they earned it, you didnt therefore its their right to choose what to do with it. The rich provide the poor with jobs and without the rich, you would not have jobs and thus the poor would be made poorer and plunged into more poverty. Please just take a look at history at nations which tried socialism and failed, including our very own. In the 1970s that system did come into play and with other contributing factors, it destroyed the economy. The basic principle of what you have just told me is the same principle that the North Korean economy is ran on - and look at the state of it.

[Tintinnabulate]

The Conservative Party is no longer conservative at all in nature, although i'd like to point out that the majority of the British public want out of the European Union despite what the main parties may think (because a lot of people from the main parties, especially the Labour Party, go on to have nice gold-plated jobs within the European Union; Mandelson, Kinnocks and so on).

The point on immigration if fairly straightforward and simple yet as usual you (the left) attempt to portray me and UKIP (the right in general) of being totally against immigration - well you are wrong. Although you can turn around and stop immigration fully (a sovereign state has that power if it wished to do so) that would be working against yourself as immigration does help the economy, the point however which the left just refuses to grasp is that we need controls over immigration so that we only allow those whom we need/who are not criminals into the country. Infact you yourself have now flip flopped, first you started off with saying you support a tougher immigartipn policy that Laboyur are apparently implementing and now you are saying that controlling immigration is madness - one or the other, which is it?

The European Union - nobody is saying lets stop trading with Europe therefore no jobs would be lost - that is a total and utter lie spun by the main parties who attempt to fight popular opinion with that message. The cost on British business each each from our European Union membership and the regulations that come from it every single day are over £100 billion per year. That is not good for trade and neither is the European Union free trade, it is a secular trade bloc which is a small and declining part of the world and it would be far better for us to return to trading with our Commonwealth friends more (if you wish for us to stay within trade blocs) because nations like India are within the Commonwealth which within a few years, may even surpass the strength of the entire European economy put together.

Trade with Europe, yes.
Friends with Europe, yes.
Ruled by Europe, no.



Because they earned it.

Why do some people need a big back garden? - lets take it away from them.
Why do some people have a nice living room? - lets take it away from them.
Why do some people have a nicer car than others do? - lets take it away from them.

In other words its jealously, its because its theirs and not yours to take away from them - they earned it, you didnt therefore its their right to choose what to do with it. The rich provide the poor with jobs and without the rich, you would not have jobs and thus the poor would be made poorer and plunged into more poverty. Please just take a look at history at nations which tried socialism and failed, including our very own. In the 1970s that system did come into play and with other contributing factors, it destroyed the economy. The basic principle of what you have just told me is the same principle that the North Korean economy is ran on - and look at the state of it.

I am very tired right now so I might be talking crap below, but I think I am correct:

Dont Convervatives want to reduce taxes for the richest people "/
So let the rich become richer?

David Cameron says people on £20,000 are not rich. Why then is he proposing to cut support for households earning over £16,000?

[-:Undertaker:-]

I am very tired right now so I might be talking crap below, but I think I am correct:

Dont Convervatives want to reduce taxes for the richest people "/
So let the rich become richer?

David Cameron says people on £20,000 are not rich. Why then is he proposing to cut support for households earning over £16,000?

All taxes on earnings need to be cut and once out of the debt as a nation I support a flat tax meaning we all pay a low tax however the solution to lift ourselves out of that debt is to slash taxes on small business and the general population first, but you should not tax the rich more because it loses you revenue as they simply move away as they did in the 1970s. The Conservatives are proposing something like £10 billion worth of cuts and the Labour Party and Liberal Democrats propose smaller cuts, this is all totally and utterly irrelvent to the debt because it is over £1 trillion - we pay more on our debt interest than we do on the entire education/military budget.

We need savage cuts to the public sector and state spending whilst also drastically cutting taxes for business and the general population because believe it or not, revenue actually increases for the state when you slash taxes because people have more money to spend, thus more business prospers and government actually takes in more tax. It is the same idea Margaret Thatcher used in Britain in the 1980s and the same with Ronald Reagan over in the United States which George H Bush actually described as 'voodoo economics' but it actually worked. The worst thing an incoming government can possibly do at this stage is to raise taxes on any section of our countries workforce whether it be the rich or the poor, or the business down your street.