Gordon Brown 'bigoted woman' comment caught on tape

[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.