Oh dear

[John Byrne's Underpants]

The woman clearly was a bigot - blame the nation's problems on &quotimmigrants&quot. Where are all these Eastern European immigrants flocking from?

How can you possibly tell from one brief converstation? Frustrated and angry perhaps, maybe not the most articulate in getting her point across, but I couldn't say she was a bigot from that one brief conversation. If anything, Mr Brown came off worse by showing his complete inability to listen and understand the concerns of the people of the country he runs. For him (and probably most politicians to be honest), it's easier just to dismiss someone who doesn't agree with you than to admit that maybe they might have a point.

If this incident helps bring the immigration issue to the forefront over the next week or so then perhaps it's not such a bad thing after all as it's about time we had a serious and adult debate on this issue.

[boris]

The woman clearly was a bigot - blame the nation's problems on &quotimmigrants&quot. Where are all these Eastern European immigrants flocking from?

At a guess, I'd say Eastern Europe.

[GodalmingYellow]

If you use headline's like a string of failed businesses to make an argument, that's no better than Daily Mail politics.

Why if it is a matter of fact?

The short-list of candidates was drawn up by Tory central office and was a clear, manufactured attempt to address the racial and gender profile of the Parliamentary party.

The winning candidate was portrayed as a successful entrepreneur but it has subsequently emerged that his businesses have been rather less than successful - one of which collapesd owing approximately £3m. In response he has denied being involved with one of the companies at the point of collapse despite Companies House records showing him still a director at that time. Significant numbers of the local party are not happy about this and feel that they have been duped - on top of the anger already felt at the imposed short-list.

So it's not an issue about his experience per se, but the way it has been presented in what appears to be a less than accurate light. And this is the substantive point - the expenses scandal was supposed to bring a new honesty to politics, but that simply has not happened.

Also, considering how gleefully you seized on Brown's gaffe yesterday, I find it odd that you are now complaining about &quotDaily Mail politics&quot.

Because, in exactly the same way that Daily Mail &quotAll coming over here taking our jobs&quot type headlines give a distorted view of the truth and no information as to why the headline is justified, which it rarely is.

The strap line you used doesn't tell us what the businesses were that failed, why they failed, or even if they did fail rather than being parked.

I've no idea whether it is fact or not, but personally I don't think headlines are a sensible basis for a point of view, or the foundations of a good argument.

How is the Gordon Gaffe in any way related to Daily Mail politics? That was a story of fact. I didn't use a headline to distort a story or portray anything untrue or to make a point that the underlying events did not substantiate. The fact is that Brown made a huge blunder. I can't see any connection between that and your use of a headline to batter a parliamentary candidate.

Turning to the additional details you have provided about the PPC, what business failed owing £3m? How did it build up that debt? Was the debt mainly to the PPC himself? Did it actually fail? What were the consequencies? What type of business was it? Has he had other successful businesses? There are many questions which need to be answered to justify an attack of business failure to support an argument against election. You may well be right that this PPC is completely inappropriate to the seat, I have no idea on that. I'm just asking if the complaint is genuine and justified, or simply a case of taking a headline to produce a story for whatever motive.

[boris]

There are many questions which need to be answered to justify an attack of business failure to support an argument against election.

I'd have thought that the fact the candidate is a Tory is the best argument against his election.

[GodalmingYellow]

There are many questions which need to be answered to justify an attack of business failure to support an argument against election.

I'd have thought that the fact the candidate is a Tory is the best argument against his election.

The same could be said for virtually every PPC over every party:

Gordon Brown because he is excessively socialist.
Nick Clegg because he is excessively liberal.
Nick Griffin because he is a racist thug and a wanker.

[tomoufc]

There are myths that need dispelling here.

Firstly immigration from Eastern Europe is not a new thing, for example there have been Latvian immagrents in London for over 400 years. Indeed a large proportion of our population are decended from Eastern European immagrents.

Whilst people moving to this country do take jobs they also create wealth because in order to live anywhere you need to spend a large proportion of your earnings. In turn this expenditure leads to the creation of new jobs. There is no finite amount of people that can fit into a labour market. If this was the case almost everybody in China or the US wouldn't have a job.

Furthermore where there is a distinct lack of available posts Eastern Europeans will not move to that area, knowing that they are not entitled to any social security until they have been in this country for at least 2 years.

I live in an area of Manchester called Rusholme. This is, I have to say, a model of multicultralism with well over 100 nationalities represented in a small area. It is a much better place for it and I encourage anyone concerned about immigration to come up to Manchester to be shown round. I can proudly say that Rusholme is porbably one of the least racist parts of the country.

Almost wherever you go in the world there are people living there from other countries. International capital is now truly globalised and the international labour market is becoming increasingly so. Pleople tend to move to where the work is. The British do this and continue to do this, so it is hypocritical for us Brits to critisise people from other countries for moving here to take 'our' jobs when we are doing the same.

Further more our country disgracefully sends people back to war zones after they have claimed asylum. Places like Iraq and Afghanistan which are only warzones because of decisions taken by our government.

[GodalmingYellow]

There are myths that need dispelling here.

Firstly immigration from Eastern Europe is not a new thing, for example there have been Latvian immagrents in London for over 400 years. Indeed a large proportion of our population are decended from Eastern European immagrents.

No myths need dispelling here. But your spelling needs attention.

Everyone in the World is descended from Africa, so talk of Latvian's in this context is irrelevant.

[boris]

There are many questions which need to be answered to justify an attack of business failure to support an argument against election.

I'd have thought that the fact the candidate is a Tory is the best argument against his election.

The same could be said for virtually every PPC over every party:

Gordon Brown because he is excessively socialist.
Nick Clegg because he is excessively liberal.
Nick Griffin because he is a racist thug and a wanker.

I agree, but &quotGordon Brown ... is excessively socialist.&quot is just simply untrue. One of the main problems with the Labour party since Blair arrived on the scene is their progressive distancing from anything slightly resembling Socialism, beginning with the removal of Clause 4 from their mandate. Christ, if you think Gordon Brown is a Socialist then I'd hate to see on a scale how far to the right you are!

[tomoufc]

There are myths that need dispelling here.

Firstly immigration from Eastern Europe is not a new thing, for example there have been Latvian immagrents in London for over 400 years. Indeed a large proportion of our population are decended from Eastern European immagrents.

No myths need dispelling here. But your spelling needs attention.

Everyone in the World is descended from Africa, so talk of Latvian's in this context is irrelevant.

A bit patronising but you're right in a sense. Obviously it's not quite the same because of the timescales involved: there wasn't a London when Africans started migrating into Europe.

What do you think about the rest of what I said. Do you not think there are anti-immagrent myths peddled in the red tops on an almost daily basis?

[tomoufc]

There are myths that need dispelling here.

Firstly immigration from Eastern Europe is not a new thing, for example there have been Latvian immagrents in London for over 400 years. Indeed a large proportion of our population are decended from Eastern European immagrents.

No myths need dispelling here. But your spelling needs attention.

Everyone in the World is descended from Africa, so talk of Latvian's in this context is irrelevant.

Check your grammer before you start critisising as well.

[Myles Francis]

I can't see any connection between that and your use of a headline to batter a parliamentary candidate.

Before I respond to the substantive points, can we just clarify what you mean by this?

[GodalmingYellow]

I'd have thought that the fact the candidate is a Tory is the best argument against his election.

The same could be said for virtually every PPC over every party:

Gordon Brown because he is excessively socialist.
Nick Clegg because he is excessively liberal.
Nick Griffin because he is a racist thug and a wanker.

I agree, but &quotGordon Brown ... is excessively socialist.&quot is just simply untrue. One of the main problems with the Labour party since Blair arrived on the scene is their progressive distancing from anything slightly resembling Socialism, beginning with the removal of Clause 4 from their mandate. Christ, if you think Gordon Brown is a Socialist then I'd hate to see on a scale how far to the right you are!

You see boxing people left and right doesn't work, and I don't fit into one of those boxes. That's is the problem with politics based around a party system.

On my Facebook page I describe myself as socially lef tof centre and economically right of centre, but even that doesn't work very well.

I like Green Party policies on creating green jobs and use of renewables and refusal to accept nuclear energy, but their economic and social justice arguments are laughable.

I like the Lib Dems policy of scrapping nukes and increasing personal allowance to £10k, and proportional representation, but their immigration amnesty is a joke, and Saint Vince has no idea about economics despite the media portrayals of the opposite, and their manifesto on the economy has huge holes in it.

I like the Tory cap on immigration and their guarantee to raise NHS spending ahead of inflation, but George Osborne is a buffoon.

I don't really like any Labour policies, and I think they've made a terrible mess of almost every aspect of this country, except maybe foreign aid, despite inheriting economic heaven.

I don't want to go on at length (collective sigh of relief , but politics should be about getting policies right for the country as a whole, not improving it for some areas and not others, and not for meaningless irrelevant political ideals.

[GodalmingYellow]

There are myths that need dispelling here.

Firstly immigration from Eastern Europe is not a new thing, for example there have been Latvian immagrents in London for over 400 years. Indeed a large proportion of our population are decended from Eastern European immagrents.

No myths need dispelling here. But your spelling needs attention.

Everyone in the World is descended from Africa, so talk of Latvian's in this context is irrelevant.

A bit patronising but you're right in a sense. Obviously it's not quite the same because of the timescales involved: there wasn't a London when Africans started migrating into Europe.

What do you think about the rest of what I said. Do you not think there are anti-immagrent myths peddled in the red tops on an almost daily basis?

I never read red tops. I agree that there are plenty of myths about immigration in the media generally though.

Whether London had been named when homo sapiens decided to go for a walk from Africa, isn't relevant to descendancy. And your spelling is still rubbish.

[GodalmingYellow]

There are myths that need dispelling here.

Firstly immigration from Eastern Europe is not a new thing, for example there have been Latvian immagrents in London for over 400 years. Indeed a large proportion of our population are decended from Eastern European immagrents.

No myths need dispelling here. But your spelling needs attention.

Everyone in the World is descended from Africa, so talk of Latvian's in this context is irrelevant.

Check your grammer before you start critisising as well.

What is wrong with my grammer? Looks fine to me.

[GodalmingYellow]

I can't see any connection between that and your use of a headline to batter a parliamentary candidate.

Before I respond to the substantive points, can we just clarify what you mean by this?

I would have thought it looks self evident Myles. Unless I have mis-read your original post, you used a single headline, with little evidence to support the headline, to complain about a PPC being not good enough for front bench duties as claimed by Cameron.