The Government has been fiddling the figures for the social security deficit to make them look better than they are. And, surprise, surprise, they've done it just before the election. whodathoughtit?!?!?!?
So now you know what you'll get under Labour, for it is the French govt that is lying...and it's the French cantonal elections....and as Miliband Minor is fond of telling us, he believes Britain's economy should be more like that of France..including no doubt the 10.5% unemployment,a shrinking economy, collapsing economy, heath costs spiraling out of control and a currency in free fall...but at least its a socialist govt.
All just assertions, none of it backed up. I drive every day, approx. 40K pa and I know what I see about the standard of driving. If serious casualties have been reduced, it's because cars have been made safer. Clarkson IMO is a menace and the sooner he's removed from TV the better I'll like it. His politics don't interest me so long as he doesn't try and force them down people's throats.
Apologies for my smart-arsed response and if I misread/misled. I agree with you that driving standards in young can be atrocious. You can see this from the fact that young drivers comprise just 7% of driving population but are involved in 24% of KSI accidents. 1 in 5 young drivers crash in 1st year after test and 1 in 3 crash within 2 years. There is ample evidence of why this is and no evidence at all that its anything to do with Clarkson.
So John, let me get this right, you're actually arguing that the public should be denied the opportunity of watching their current and prospective leaders debate each other on televsion during an election campaign purely at the whim of whichever of them deems it not to be to their party political advantage to do so?
My argument is that these debates are a key means of engaging millions of people in the campaign, in an era when millions are disengaged from 'traditional' ways of doing things, and ought to be 'locked in', by statute if necessary, to this and all future GE campaigns, thus removing the opportunity for ANY PM or Leader of the Opposition to duck out when they don't fancy it.
That means, in 5 years time, if Miliband were PM at that point, he would be required to take part in the TV debates to defend his record in front of the public and quite rightly be able to be challenged on any empty guff he might have promised in the previous ones while Leader of the Opposition.
All this ducking and weaving for party political advantage while pretending it's some sort of principled stand quite honestly makes me puke, whichever side is indulging in it.
Your argument is flawed, though. These debates would be A complete waste of time. Its stretching credulity somewhat to expect that you really want to see these debates as " a key means of engaging millions of people in the campaign,"
No one will learn anything about anything, other than that the media village is just as bad as the Westminster village . Promoted by those Miliband supporters who just hope that Miliband will somehow triumph over adversity, and looking for a stick ( or index finger) to beat Cameron with.
And as for "legislating" for them. That really is a nonsense!!
" in 5 years time, if Miliband were PM at that point, he would be required to take part in the TV debates to defend his record in front of the public and quite rightly be able to be challenged on any empty guff he might have promised in the previous ones while Leader of the Opposition."
yes, well, I can see THAT happening. It doesn't take much imagination to visualize him blaming the" bankers" or "the last lot" or the "Bullingdon Club" for anything and everything.