Christmas is soon

the 6 point lead poll was untrue. we are really about 12% lead right now and will win by 26% at the election

almost at 400 love.

Michael, who introduced A* for A levels this year. Labour. Who got rid of course work, because they thought it was too easy. Labour.

So Michael look at your own camp, before your attack someone elses. Michael, why in 1997 the UK was 8th in the world for maths, but when you add 12 year of Labour and then investment of £360 billion and now we are 24th in the world for maths? Why in 12 years, they has been 3.5 million children who don't have basic understanding of maths?

Why would teachers vote Labour, when each year they get 6000 pages of government reports they need to read and plus they have no power to discipline in the class rooom. Labour is treating teachers like children and childrens like adults.

Can your explain how Gordon Brown will win the next election, When all polls indicated that the Tories would get a 58 seat majority?

Michael, Tories are cutting the waste out of the defence budget, like we need a procurement system.

Michael you are very narrow minded. I can see why policemen are unhappy with elected police officals. But are you saying that in the USA it's wrong that they're elected they police chiefs?

Michael, I do love it how nearly every Labour person forgets, how last year Labour adopted the idea of inheritance tax from the Tories. When Osbourne introduced on question time, every one cheered and Labour thought we need that. So Michael how many people does Labour's inheritance tax help then?

So Michael are your saying that OECD, IMF, the world bank, CBI, economists and EU finance minister is wrong about Britians debts problem? Michael woke up we have the biggest peace time debt in history. Are Triple AAA credit rating could be taking away next year? So thus interest rates will go through the roof, halving the debt be impossible and are currency will be even more devalued.

Michael please grows up. Your argument sound like a 6 year old has formulated your argument.
Michael, the bill doesn't tell us how Labour is going to halve the deficit? The only way to halve the deficit is to Cut. So you can't use that against the Tories as both parties will be doing it. In case Labour halves the budget it will be 7% of GDP, the same level when Denis Healey wants to the IMF in the late 1970's. So it's not good enough.
Michael, can you explain in a recent poll suggesting that majority of public workers, admit that there should be a pay freeze for a year?
Michael, Ed Balls is setting up School federations now and cut £40 million pounds out of the budget. Do you think its right that civil servants from the DofE wasted £10 million on first class tickets?
Michael, how is cutting the disability living allowance and attendance allowance for 2.4 million pensioners, helping pensioners?

And can Michael Gove stop patronising and offending our great teachers and school staff, not to mention the increasingly brightpupils by saying exams are getting easier. Why do jealous old public school boys in the Conservative Party camp never admit to state school standards getting higher and kids getting brighter. But, oh no, exams are getting easier. Tory education plans are a joke and most teachers, as the rest of public sector workers, will vote Labour and re-instate Gordon Brown for an historic 4th New Labour term.

Senior police officers across the country have threatened to walk out if the Conservatives are elected as they would force elected police commisioners on them. This, shockingly is MORE police BEURAUCRACY, and undermines democracy by shamefully politicisng our police service.

And Christoper, not that you'll answer this point but still, the tax cuts Cameron offers are to 3000 of Britain's richest millionaires inheritance estates. They won't reverse 50p per £, they'll only help the millionaires already, by slashing budgets of other departments NOW, during the reccession. Labour have said time and time again that the first few cuts will happen in 2010 (at the end), then the majority in 2012, then the last few in 2016, before INCREASED SPENDING with a tiny debt once more. Because of small cus spread over a long period and borrowing that's rational and substainable, under Labour we won't ever get to a deep depression. Under the tories we would have.

No, Rob. Unlike others, we've made a CAST-IRON GUARUNTEE (words which David Cameron has so de-valued) to half budget deficit. But, as usual, the tories have no policies or ideas to do so other than attack teachers, nurses, firemen and policemen by freezing their pay (which technically is a cut beause inflation will rise next year), and slashing education budgets NOW, reducing help for the unemployed and pensioners, and unlike Labour, the tories will CUT defence budget. Shameful.

To help our economy grow, Cameron's Conservatives will do NOTHING.

So Alistar where would you put yourself in the Labour party? Would say your in the John Mcdonall camp Or the Charles Clarke camp?

What do your think about the OECD report that this Labour government needs to live with it's mean, because of it's excessive borrowing?Apparently government borrowing gone up to £200 million this year. OECD forecast that Britain will be borrowing about £215 million next year. The net debt of this country is about £829 billion now, this highest in peace time history. Also the OECD are worried about UK's credit rating, as are triple A status could be taken away. So this could lead to high interest rates,a devalution of the pound and harder to manage the debt. Labour is bankrupting this country!

Love Britain

Conservatives forn life

lower taxes

I dont think Labour have any leading men who exemplify what I want in a PM to be honest. And neither do any of the parties. We live in an age of political mediocrity where we have no great men. Just career politicans with no conviction, patrician public schoolboys with only intellectual committment to causes, trade unionists who lack the policy knowhow to lead and other uninspiring nobodies that do not lift my heartrate. Brown is the closest to what I want but I do feel somewhat let down by a man who I expected so much of.

I am not a One Nation Tory because it is a doctrine that disenfranchises the working class majority. The slogan 'change to conserve', if you really think about it, is a synonym for 'give them something so we dont have to give them more' and is a cop out ploy by ruling elites to statisfy real, everyday people without giving them the full benefits of their contribution to society.
I believe in rule by the someone who represents the interests of the majority, not an aristocrat with no emotional passion and deep understanding of the realities of what the real people in society face every day. We live in a nation where if you come from the landed interest, you do well easily and if you dont then life is a struggle. I believe we should be inspiring young children in drab comprehensives and inner cities by having a PM that embodies their aspirations.

Macmillan was the last example of a 'born to rule' aristocrat PM. And he was not very good, lets be honest. Because his experience of poverty was what he read in papers and reports and not something he had been around during his life, and nor did he properly understand it. Thats why I have qualms about the Queen's cousin becoming PM. I dont want a PM who only knows about poverty from the context of what he has read. In this climate, you need a meritocrat. Hence why Obama was swept into office on this tide of good feeling. Yes, he has brilliant schooling and education, but he has first hand experience of the problems the Western world faces. Cameron is a step backwards in terms of social progress.

Up until the end of the Second World War, Britain had only two non-aristocrat PMs. Disraeli and Lloyd-George. One was a political opportunist who invented One Nation Toryism as a ploy to preserve the hegemony of the aristocracy and one was a genuine non-aristocrat who championed the cause of the disadvantaged. All other aristocratic PMs did nothing and the emergence of the working class as a political force was a product of naturally occuring economic progess and expansion. NOT the work of aristocrat PMs. This is why I believe social class is important to consider when talking about who holds power in society.

Theres a lot to reply to there, so I apologise if this reply seems to lack a linear narrative and is hard to follow.
My point is that the class system in Britain is the largest issue in politics, whether or not it is the most talked about as all social issues stem from the idea of social stratification. This point is exemplififed in my mentioning 18th / 19th century PMs.
With regards said PMs, we talk about some of them (Walpole, Chatham, Gladstone, Disreali, Pitt et al) being the great PMs. However, we talk about them being great within the context of their time. What that is code for in Britain is 'they were aristocrats ruling for aristocrats in a time where ordinary people meant nothing'. Gladstone was 'The Peoples William' and was a champion of the plight of the poor. RHETORICALLY. Gladstonian liberalism was the ideal that kept people in the most tragic and hopeless poverty imaginable in the UK.

Alistar I can see your point about Disraeil, Churchill and Macmillian. But I think at the current time they're were the right people for being PM. Ok Disraeil only had a short period as PM and got outwitted by Glastone. Or that Churchill was responsibility for Galilopi and Macmillian was a tad wrong about his slogan "we never had it so good" and then that eventful night in 1961 when 11 cabinet ministers resigned. All prime ministers have made mistakes no matter what every party is in power.

Alistar your sound a bit of a one nation tory? Are you? Or i'm completing barking up the wrong tree? Who do you think should be leader of Labour now? And who was your favourite Labour leader every?

Carol Vorderman for Education secretary. The best woman for the job.