You can obviously say what was it about the programme that you considered to be a politcal broadcast for the Tory Party. Then you can report it to Ofcom and have NF and Global prosecuted under the Representation of the People Act.

I used to work for Ofcom, albeit in a different capacity. Ofcom is part of the Establishment and therefore support the Tories/Elite. I'd be wasting my time.

If I get round to it, I will answer your points, but feel I need more time to consider all the points you make before I can give a considered reply.

Were Ofcom not in existence when we had the Labour Government? Were they not part of the Labour/Elite then?

Well I am going out now until mid-afternoon, so I will hopefully see your reply on my return.

I've said to you before I am not a Blairite. Blair changed the Labour Party into the Tory Lite Party and called it New Labour. He had no help or compassion for the working class, the poor and disadvantaged. He looked after the middle classes. Even so the economy was in a far better state when he was in power. The downfall of the economy at the was down to the bankers and affected the World, not just the UK as you well know.

Forget the polls. Watching where the punters' money is going is far more exciting and possibly more accurate. In the couple of weeks I've been watching, odds have always been on the Tories getting the most seats and that's now shortened to 1/6. Miliband was the favourite to be PM but odds on Cameron have shortened in the last couple of days and most bookies have got them neck and neck at 11/10. You can also get the odds on all sorts of likely (or unlikely) outcomes. A fun way to waste the odd half hour or so.

http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/...ion/most-seats

Tory cuts so far, 20,000 Army, 5,000 Navy, 5,000 RAF, 60,000 NHS, 16,701 Police, 730,000 Public Sector, 5,000 Firemen , 0 Bankers.

Unemployment falling faster than any other EU country

2 million more people in work than in 2010

1 in 40 jobs only on zero hour contracts. Most people on zero hour contracts don't want to change

Don't think it's the Governments job to hire and fire bankers, but the investment banks did get rid of a lot of staff.

Since posting this earlier, Cameron has overtaken Miliband.

I thought Lloyds and RBS (Giovernment owned) had axed lots of bankers so not zero is it?

What were the 730k Public Sector doing if not in the other roles? They've not been missed so do we really want our taxes to go up to employ them all again, what will they do?

Thanks for that. Very interesting, I shall follow it with interest. Are they taking bets on Thursday, before / after 10pm out of interest.

Now where shall I put my 2/6d ?!!!

Push a few pens around a desk, dig a hole and fill it again, bleat about 'savage cuts' leading to armageddon and of course vote Labour.

Bugger! It's swapped over again. Quick, Martin, your half-crown could make all the difference!

May I respectfully suggest where there are fewest lumens?

As Chinchin hasn't answered your questions, I hope she won't mind if I do.

All things were not wonderful under the last Labour government but up to the global financial crisis, and also since it hit, things were a lot better than it's been under the Tories.

In my view, the main reason why Labour were voted out is because they lost the public's trust regarding managing the economy. However, that was largely down to propaganda from the Conservatives and the right wing media which blamed Labour overspending for the financial rather than the bankers. When Labour came to power in 1997, they inherited a deficit of 3.9% of GDP from John Major and by 2008 (before the global financial crisis) it had fallen to 2.1%, so the right-wing propaganda about Labour overspending is not backed up by the facts.

You mentioned the Tory government increase in tax threshold which I don't think is something they should be proud of as it was largely funded by cutting benefits to some of the most vulnerable people in the country, including disabled people. The other Tory lie is that increasing tax thresholds help the poor but again the facts to do back that up. Increasing the personal allowance to £12,500 is worth only £28 a year to the poorest 20 per cent of households, but £445 a year to the richest 20 per cent. The UK’s five million lowest-paid employees gained nothing at all.

You also question whether homelessness has gone up, well, rough sleeping has increased by 55% in England, and 79% in London, since the coalition took power. That's not Labour propaganda, as you suggest, but official government figures . The changes in housing benefits, which helped to fund tax cuts for millionaires, has been a major factor in this increase, according to homelessness charities.

I think I covered all your questions.

It's one thing to try to convince other people that Brown didn't overspend. But if you've actually convinced yourself, then that's very sad indeed.

I really admire your patience, perseverance and energy in answering these questions.

I sometimes think about the fact that newspapers, for example, tend to be affiliated to certain political parties and people traditionally would buy the newspapers that support their beliefs - sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy. That's the way it's been since 1896 when Lord Northcliffe published the first tabloid newspaper The Daily Mail, which proudly invented news when it wasn't simply reporting it through its own filtration system.

What's happening now in London, though, is that commuters get free newspapers to read on the train - The Metro in the morning, and the Evening Standard in the evening, which report chosen news stories in a very biased tabloid way and are arguably a triumph for the dissemination of propaganda to a large and willing public.

Having said that, I have noticed a slightly milder approach to the vilification of certain political parties which seem to run contrary, or appear as a threat, to the establishment, and I put this down both to a weakening of the Murdoch influence, the Levenson inquiry and the rapid increase in social networking.

Questions have been asked about the differences between life under the Conservatives, the coalition and New Labour. It's one thing to look up statistics on the internet, but another to believe the evidence of one's own eyes. In London under Margaret Thatcher, the number of homeless people was staggering - remember 'cardboard city' on the Southbank? Under New Labour these numbers diminished dramatically to very few indeed, and the Southbank, amongst other areas, was completely regenerated. It does cost money and investment to maintain a reasonable standard of living in society, but it's also a question of how the money is distributed. Certainly, no political party gets this right in every respect, but some come considerably closer than others.

It's always seemed to me that Conservative voters have an "I'm alright, Jack' mentality. Everything is fine for them, and whatever you do don't rock the boat. This seems to be coupled with a quite astounding lack of empathy for those less well off, the excuse often given being that money trickles down. It's been proven time and again that this does not happen. On the contrary, what happens is that the gap between the rich and poor just gets wider.

This was directly as a result of Liberal Democrat policy, although it's constantly claimed by the Conservatives as theirs.

Thanks

Newspapers are mainly owned by rich people who are largely interested in self-preservation. They have big incomes so they want to promote a party that will cut the top rate of income tax even if that means public services suffer. They live in big mansions so they will attack the party that will put funding the NHS above keeping their property taxes low. It's up to individuals not to believe the right wing propaganda they spew out but to find the facts ourselves so we can make an informed decision about how we use our vote.

During Brown's short reign - he literally threw extra money at those in receipt of benefits. I am not talking disabled - but rather single mothers who had baby after baby, with no income of their own, at the tax payer's expense.

I know that to be a fact - I was working in the system, at the time !!

I agree that those who can't work should be looked after - but those who can, should not be receiving more money than ordinary people on ordinary incomes.

That is wrong !!

Listening to the Nick Ferrari interview with Ed Miliband on LBC and I find I have to really force myself to keep focussed on what he (Miliband) is saying. He is a terribly dull and boring speaker. The prospect of having him as Prime Minister and Labour back in power (with their fiscal rape and abuse of our as-yet-unborn offspring) fills me with dread and I'm afraid it is likely to be the outcome of the election.

After the previous 13 years of sheer horror under Blair and Brown, anyone who votes Labour now should:-

- Be identified as the danger that they are to our nation.
- Be convicted of the crime of destroying the country or locked away in an insane asylum.
- Have any money or financial assets they possess confiscated to be used to pay off the national debt.

That's what the facts show. Labour cut the deficit until the global financial crisis hit. You may find the truth inconvenient because it doesn't fit in with the right-wing propaganda you have been fed for the last 7 years but is true.

Far from over spending, Labour was paying off the deficit it inherited from John Major. After the global financial crash, all governments were forced to bail out their economies, not just the UK one. Had the Tories been in power, they would have been forced to do the same.

Harriet was hopping about a bit when asked about her husband being at the segregated rally.