Fool you once, shame on you. Fool you twice, shame on me- Weird old nursery rhyme
Expenses Scandal-Will it ever end?
What's £17 to you? Dinner for two? Cinema tickets? Everything as it turns out, if you live in the constituency of Rotheram, because your MP is claiming expenses on poppy wreaths... For Help for Heroes... Good appointment.


Don't get me wrong here, this is only £17, and won't exactly affect the taxpayer badly. But the morals and principles behind the scandal are beyond outrageous, and who's to blame? Well in 2009, it was the MP's. They were caught out clearly claiming expenses beyond reason, and created the legacy of duck houses to long remember. One incident since was in 2013, when a Conservative MP (whom I can't remember the name of) claimed expenses on party donations. However, I exclude her in this instance, because it was clearly accidental and immediately apologised to the Commons, her constituency and repayed the money claimed. This was more down to the clampdown of the expenses on MP's, creating a minefield of problems on claiming expenses, rightly or wrongly.


But this story does make me sick. Not with Labour (not this time), but my faith in British politics. The MP in question is Sarah Champion, who claimed the £17 poppy wreath as "office costs", and that the Independent Parliament Standards Agency (IPSA) had actually accepted it. I don't know what I find more disgusting. The fact that Champion made the claim intentionally, or that IPSA actually accepted the claim. If Parliament is to regain any of its broken reputation, then Champion will bite the bullet in May and lose out on her safe seat.
Another day, another rant at British politics for most. Where's the morality, they ask. Where's the humanity, they ask. But more importantly, where is common sense? Constituents have the right to hold their MP to account, then why not allow them to regularly check their expenses? IPSA release all claimed expenses, but incidents like these are still common place in British politics. It's time for politics to grow up. Stop being little children over your pocket money, and actually use your money for the better of your constituency.
Jordan Ifield (and it's a Labour MP, just had to put that out there)

Don't worry, it gets worse- Alida Nugent

British Economy- I thought this was solved?

Now they're back, and from our favorite Labour scapegoat, Ed Balls. I must agree with David Cameron and say that Ed Balls is the most annoying person in British politics, and today he justified why, because his claims are not justifiable and the ones that he proposes aren't much better either. He "claims" to have estimated Tory spending cuts on unprotected Whitehall departments to £70 billion, if they win a majority, and that the Labour alternative would be stopping winter fuel allowance for those "better off" and limiting rises in child benefits. Let me start examining....

Like many of us, I was suspecting the British economy to take a step back from the General Election this year, it's been in the headlines more often not for the wrong reasons, and now that's it back on track, we should just leave it alone. But Labour come riding in, again. I've long protested Labour's argument with the economy, simply because it stands up to as much scrutiny as paper does with water, it fall apart. Promise good social reforms. Spend investment. Deficit increases. Recession. Up sticks, better luck next time. And to say this has been a repeated time and time again is an understatement.

Ed Ball's face upon examining the deficit he created

I must agree with David Cameron and say that Ed Balls is the most annoying person in British politics


Firstly, Mr Balls deserves the sack for contradicting a statistic. It would only cost £30 billion to cut the unprotected Whitehall departments, and being Shadow Chancellor, I think he should get his numbers right. Secondly, if he doesn't like that statistic, limiting child benefits isn't going to help his record as a left wing politician, and whilst his winter fuel allowance restriction is aimed at "better off" pensioners, he's going to get some wrath from his own side. That's not the answer to a failing economy, that's not even going to save those "unprotected" Whitehall departments, all it will do is give more publicity towards Labour's economic policies, and their evident failures.

Justified by the ISF (Institute for Fiscal Studies), the Tories would cut around £23-30 billion, and Labour wouldn't barely make a cut. This is why Cameron's ideology of Labour is being accepted, More tax, more borrowing, more deficit. And where have we heard that before? Congratulations Labour if you get in, but if you do, be prepared for me to say: "I told you so!" if another recession comes along. Good day.

Jordan Ifield (Mr Balls would make a good Nazi, wouldn't he?)

We need arrogant people who like showing off. They can cover us from bullets in the line of fire - Toba Beta
Labour... You big show offs
I remember the run up to the 2010 election well, and for me at least, it was straight forward. Campaign, TV elections, Brown calls supporter a bigot. Conservatives win. A bit condensed I know, but it was the TV elections that were a big step in the right direction at the time. They gave a close up analysis of each candidate, held them up to accountability and scrutiny in front of a live audience. This separated the men from the boys, with Brown looking sheepish, and Cameron being the prominent professional with Clegg following up as a refreshing alternative. However, that simple ingredient has been spoiled, and won't be as tasty. Or effective.
The 2010 TV debate was successful because it was simple. 3 biggest candidates. Live audience. No fiasco. Scrutiny and accountability. It was also the first time this has ever been attempted, and it was a remarkable success in improving Cameron and Clegg's opinion polls before 2010. However, to say the 2015 will be different would be an understatement. 7 parties in 2 debates, and a supposed head on head between Cameron and Miliband separately. I must admit, I haven't blogged about the TV debates sooner I because they're unnecessarily confusing and more than a fiasco to care about in contrast to legislation. But, Cameron's stand has taken more off guard, and has left him vulnerable to accountability.
Having caused enough stir by demanding 7 parties, that should've been enough to accept. But dragging out the process over the head to head, and not participating is more of a joke than Alex Salmond. It gives Miliband a leg above Cameron, presenting him as a more willing and courageous leader, which is the complete opposite of the truth. But Labour have shot themselves in the foot... Yet again. By saying that they'll pass these debates into law will pressurise Miliband to be in Cameron's position if he were Prime Minister (god forbid). No Prime Minister wants to stand up head to head for 90 minutes against their main rival, in front of a live audience being scrutinized and held accountable, and it's law! What Labour are doing is making Cameron look like an idiot rather than pressuring themselves, but it is a big leap into law, and one that which will kill off nearly most Prime Ministers. Opinion polls will be the decider, and if Cameron/Miliband etc bottle it in the future, they can say buy to No10 Downing street and say hello to No10 Drowning Street in the Thames. Labour have overhyped their position so much, to the extent of it backfiring on Miliband in 5 years time... Welcome to the short career of politics.
Jordan Ifield (why not just 1 debate on immigration, that would be fun, wouldn't it?)

We have become dangerously close to accepting the homeless situation as a problem that we just can't fix- Linda Lingle

Hitting the nail on the head... Sort of

When I think of quotes for these blogs, I often find many weird, wonderful and inspiring quotes that fit the story perfectly. Today however, was a different story. Because for the first time, I find that the quote matches the hopelessness of the situation, but also the guilt that I feel that we'll never fix it. David Cameron has brought us this far, to deny that it was his influence on the economy and on the UK has improved our live, would be foolish. And to say it was Clegg's impact would be about as foolish as voting for them in May. But the classic question still remains..... What have the Romans ever done for us?

To think a quote so infamous from John Cleese would influence our political future is barbaric to many, but it does raise questions on the welfare and living standards whilst the Conservatives have been in power, and assess their credentials before May. The economy is theirs, end of. There is no evidence to support otherwise. But Labour have hit back, as have the Lib Dems and UKIP over what these savings doing. Have the British public been forced to save and not reap their rewards? Well David Cameron came out today and answered... The wrong questions.

Instead of NHS, welfare and budgets, Cameron talked around the issue in typical politician style and instead talked solely on pension schemes... Which in my books is about as safe as being a lifeguard in a desert. Recycling old speeches and policies, Cameron reiterated his dedication to leaving bus passes, TV licenses and winter fuel allowances alone for any "better off" pensioner. This splits them apart from Labour and Lib Dems, wanting to get rid of it, citing it as rightist policy. 

"Which in my books is about as safe as being a lifeguard in a desert."

So what's wrong? I agree with the policy myself even, but it's what Cameron doesn't mention that worries me. A recent poll was done by the BBC, which confirmed that the most important agenda in the upcoming election was the NHS, and I've seen/heard every party play their cards in the matter... But the Conservatives. I know the NHS is in a supposed crisis, and that's justified, furthermore being the party in control in such a state would be naturally regretful. Yet, to not even mention a plan for the NHS, a guideline for budget, or even a hint is preposterous. For Cameron to have not put this high on his agenda is worth ridiculing, because I think it will cost him the General Election. 5 years ago, the economy was the big one, now times have moved on, and welfare is the name of the game, with Cameron still guessing in a game of charades.

Jordan Ifield (One Nation Tory here...)   

We are all here on earth to help others, what on earth the others are here for I don't know- W.H.Auden

John Prescott- Here we go again...

Returning from the dead can only be performed once, especially in politics. Look at Gordon Brown as a good example, fell into the abyss of economic failure in 2010 and came out last year to save his "beloved" Scotland from the cruel flippers of Alex Salmond's SNP. And Prescott has already made a return in the past, having been a member of "good old Labour" (even though I'm certain "good old" doesn't exist), he made a return as deputy prime minister under Tony Blair. But having rightfully resigned in 2007 over a suspected affair and an egg throwing incident, he's back. And not is all that it seems...

He's back.... And boy, don't we regret it

Many have presumed Precott's appointment as Miliband's unofficial environmental advisor as wise, bringing in old labour voters and warding them away from UKIP. However, I suspect that Prescott has more than meets the eye in this role, because whilst he has an environmental background in the EU, he isn't exactly Mr. Green. And whilst the Conservatives and Lib Dems have a strong image (but the Lib Dems is a bad strong image), Labour have the image of a weak old salad. Step in Lord Prescott.


Here's a man who has smacked both Tony Blair and Gordon Brown together and made them work, and has deep left ideologies. Perfect as far as Miliband is concerned. He gets a stronger image, as well as Labour's rotten image and he'll (hopefully) keep Miliband's feet on the ground, otherwise we're all buggered. Control our economy and tax Miliband, and I'll be happy, but with the introduction of Precott, I already think we're doomed.


There's a reason Tony Blair thought it was a good idea to rebrand the party, because it had the same image and left wing policies as Stalin's Communist Russia. Even when Thatcher's mixed reign ended, old Labour couldn't capitalize on that. Prescott is part of a dying regime, like petrolheads, there is no place for them in society anymore. And as far as I'm concerned, Prescott's appointment will give Labour some old voters back from the dark side of UKIP, but it does give the rest of us the impression that Labour has run out of ideas.... And dignity for that matter.


Jordan Ifield (why I wouldn't vote Labour reason #756)

I'm not upset that you lied to me, I'm upset that from now on I can't believe you- Friedrich Nietzsche

Lord Kinnock- If you must lie, at least lie well

Lord Kinnock- Praise the hypocrite who will have to pay
the mansion tax

Labour do know how to cock up as it seems, and none more than a Lord to justify why I wouldn't vote Labour. As usual, Labour are getting slack over their proposed mansion tax, and it's impact on election day. Not being a clear cut policy yet, Ed Balls said that those earning between £2-3 million would have to pay £250 a month in mansion tax. However, as many have pointed out, most notably some Labour MP's, in a capital with such wealth in it as London, many would be "disappointed" to lose £3000 a year over an unpopular Labour policy. It doesn't get much worse than that. 

Whilst many have justified the policy for saving the NHS through extra funding to GP's nurses and doctors etc, however Kinnock seems to have the wrong end of the stick, as does the future of the proposal. Using the analogy that mansion tax would only "cost a lunch" is inappropriate to say the least, unless they are eating golden covered cheesecakes in the Savoy every day. £3000, is not cheap, not for anyone's wallet, and it's at this point, where I state that it gets worse.... 

"Can you make me an economic policy worthy of Stalin?"

In terms of the economy, which this is supposedly set to help, Labour are going the wrong way about it. I know in terms of ideology, Labour increase taxes on the rich and all that, but just when the country is getting back on it's feet, having halved the deficit from the previous Labour government, their economic policies become crude and half hearted. It was as if Ed Miliband said to Balls, "look, I need to look more like a left win Labour Leader,,, Can you make me an economic policy worthy of Stalin?" It's a short term bomb if put in practice, Labour will not only lose votes come May because of the policy (especially in London, the most densely populated area in the UK), and if enforced, will only tax the people further, and because of that, increase public spending to the extent of putting our deficit back up.... MERRY COMMUNISM EVERYONE

Jordan Ifield (guess who I'm not voting for...)

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter- Winston Churchill

TV Debates- Interesting indeed...

Opinion polls have been round since the dawn of General Elections, and have usually been able to predict the result fairly well. However, with the opinion polls of the BBC, YouGov and ComRes all conflicting over the majority party (either Conservative or Labour), there is no stand out factor. So will televised debates be that deciding factor?

2010 televised debates: a great success, but much
has changed since the times of recession

First used in 2010, it differentiated the men from the boys. Well remembered by me in particular, Brown stood bamboozled as both Cameron and Clegg (still existing at the time) held new prospects for the UK. They talked of refreshing new economic policies and immigration, compared to Brown's glum expression saying all that needed to be said. So unsurprisingly, a coalition was formed between Cameron and Clegg. But 5 years later, Clegg has fallen (spectacularly), Cameron's lost ground and newbie Miliband has held his stricken personality together, to form an unpredictable finale in May.

However, not 1 month ago, Cameron refused to take part in any televised debate unless the smaller parties were included (e.g. Greens, Northern Irish parties, Welsh parties etc.). Now that some of his pledge has been fulfilled, with the Greens, Plaid Cymru and the SNP now included, Cameron now wants his entire commitment to be fulfilled. But it may be his downfall.

Not everyone wants to know about the democracy of the UK, it's hard to discriminate between one part of the UK from another, but if Cameron doesn't attend any of these televised debates, it's almost certain that Labour will gain hugely from the debates in popularity and could have May's General Election "in the bag". I agree with Nick Robinson on this issue, that Cameron doesn't want to be seen saying "no", as this will leave him out of contention, and possibly leave the Tories staring down the barrel of a gun. But Cameron can't just say "yes" either, or the Conservatives will lose popularity with many of the nationalists and unionists from NI, Scotland and Wales that are excluded.

With the lines drawn, and the consequences huge, Cameron needs to act fast. His ideal situation is to get all the excluded smaller parties from the UK into the debates, or Cameron faces a backlash from the devolution promises made to Scotland, and subsequently be ousted if not carried out to the rest of the UK. However, in reality, I can't see this feasibly working, due to the farce inevitably created by inviting unionists and nationalists to a debate on the UK.... With UKIP.... There will be eggs...

Jordan Ifield (when these debates are occurring, I'm just going to be in the background in a deck chair, with popcorn)

If you don't like something, change it. If you can't change it, change your attitude- Maya Angelou

Farage- The Tables have Turned

It was not long ago that Mark Reckless defected from the Tories to UKIP, and the entire country went up in arms, claiming that UKIP may even win over 10 seats in the General Election. And now common sense has set in.

"Egg the parrot"- Embarrassed as the NHS leaves
Farage on life support

Amjad Bashir, defected from the Conservatives to UKIP in 2014, however he made a remarkable U-turn just 3 days ago, and in the process, has taken Farage with him. By resigning from UKIP, he furthermore accused UKIP of having "ridiculous lack of policies", which has always been the case with the radical side of UKIP, always dreaming that leaving the EU would solve world hunger, poverty and answer the meaning of life. However, keen to rectify this scandal, Farage appeared on the Andrew Marr show, and inadvertently justified these accusations.

 Like many of the big parties, Farage said that our beloved NHS was in crisis and needed more funding; but that the £3billion being pumped into the life support machine, would be from not paying EU membership.... Seriously... Instead of denying the claims made by Bashir over "lack of policies", he has further exposed UKIP's policies, as the answer to everything is to: leave the EU. This isn't the only time Farage has hit rough tides when debating the EU; claiming it to be an "insurance-based health care" in 2012, and said if UKIP were in power, anyone who wasn't English, couldn't work for the NHS.

"Amjad Bashir had reached the end of the road with UKIP"- More like pushed under the bus...

So where does this leave UKIP? Well, two weeks ago, they were in poll position amongst 3rd parties, and were even expected to pull in a coalition with the Cnswrvatives come May, however whilst this is still a possibility, Farage hasgot himself in a mess, in more than one way. I've always relented UKIP's lack of policies, often using the analogy of leaving the EU as the messiah. However, this event has fully exposed this, and as an MEP has left UKIP on the issue, their credibility has been put under scrutiny. Their main economic policy is gain funding by leaving the EU, the same can be said for the NHS, and as many have gathered, the process is not as simple as that, with not many of us imagining to see the £3 billion promised by Farage. Another monty python reference in "What have the Romans ever done for us?" comes to mind regarding this topic, their entire manifesto is based on immigration and the EU, questioning their status as a "party" and not a pressure group. So it's fair to say the UKIP manifesto in May will be interesting...

Jordan Ifield (I told you so)

Let me clarify this very definitely. This is not an authoritarian organization- L. Ron Hubbard

Conservative Identity- Thatcher's legacy continues

4 months before a General Election, it's usually preferable not to anger a large group of electorates. Since the Conservative's walked into power in 2010, teachers, firefighters and nurses have all walked out in strike action, often against their pension cuts. However, in typical Thatcher style, the Tories handling of such a situation is more right wing than anticipated, and because of that; it becomes crude.

The Tories proposal would compose of online voting, that must achieve a backing of at least 40% from eligible union members, instead of their previous proposal of 50% turnout, which was reported by unions as "undemocratic". But the impact on the Conservatives isn't going to be positive, that's guaranteed. Such a proposal brings thoughts of the late Margaret Thatcher to mind, and how her strict "authoritarian" regime, especially against strikes, ruined her reputation, as well as the party's.

"I think before a strike is allowed to go ahead it must have much more support from the union members and cannot be called by politicised union leaders," - Patrick McLoughlin (Transport Secretary) advertising the "flaw" in strikes, and agitate unions.

Firefighters strike 2014- will the Tories regret their new proposal?

Labour are naturally going to pounce on this, that's for certain. Labelling the proposal "undemocratic" and "not listening to the masses", and I'm afraid I can only agree with such criticisms. David Cameron is fighting a losing battle when it comes to public services; the constant cutting, strikes over pensions and now proposing to make strikes less possible. And it's going to cost them in the election, when they lose electorates to Labour. It's especially hard when your traditional ideology includes getting "ignoring" unions. Ignoring is harsh term, maybe less favourable, but it still leaves the Conservatives with a flaw, and hardly at the right time with May's General Election coming fast.

Simple solution: take a page out of Labour's book from 1997 and have some policies which in-explicitly are from the other wing. Take Labour 1997, they were compromising on privatization, and later on in the 2008 economic crash, whilst the Labour government nationalized banks, they privatized them as soon as possible. such as Northern Rock who got re-privatized back in November 2011. So embrace a more liberal policy on the public services, and the Tories may embrace the rewards, however with such a strong Thatcher legacy, and Cameron's reliance on it, I'm afraid their new proposal will come back to haunt them come 7th May.

Jordan Ifield  

I don't know if you've ever noticed this, but first impressions
 are often entirely wrong- Lemony Snicket

Jim Murphy is Robin Hood.... Unfortunately

The Scottish Independence Referendum has left it's large imprint over UK Politics, and most evidently on Labour, who have their Scottish Leader resign and in its wake, risk losing a considerable amounts of seats in one of their most recently dominant grounds. So the torch was passed on to Jim Murphy, to pick up the pieces of trust in Scotland.... And he's only become a scapegoat.

I think this was Murphy's thought process when making this proposal. NHS= In Crisis= Needs more jobs= Needs money for jobs= Re-distribution of money. When phrased in terminology such as this, he sounds too communist to be true. However, whilst this a broad term of his policy for 1,000 new nurses in Scotland for the NHS, it does show the ever growing power struggle between Scotland and England, and especially Labour. It's not the proposal of jobs, it's where the money is coming from to fund them. By using the infamous "Barnett Formula", he would gain it from taxpayers in London... Cue the civil war.

Boris Johnson, described the plan as "fiscally vindictive" to the south east of England and amounted to trying to "bribe the Scots to vote Labour", while Labour's Dame Tessa Jowell said London should not be treated as a "cash cow".

 Whilst many Scottish Nationalists would be probably happy and rejoyceful after the announcement, but even some of Labour's own MP's have waded in to knock some sense into him. Diane Abbott, Labour MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington, scrutinized his proposal was surprised, saying he was "boasting". Whilst that word baffles me for myself, because I feel the word "betrayed" should be used, but it does highlight the main problem with the Anglo-Scot relationship. The Scottish want further devolution, which we've granted, however (rightfully) the English have demanded further powers to themselves, which the Scottish deny. This can be summarized into one term: The West Lothian Question. And until that's solved, no one's going anywhere in Scotland (accept the SNP).

The deadlock in not trusting each other will only end up with Scotland being sympathized on by politicians dreamy eyed about losing them from the UK. So take away their powers in regards to the West Lothian Question and grant them their further devolution plans and then, in the infamous words of Monty Python.... "GET ON WITH IT!" I can't see any progress in Anglo-Scottish relations, or any improvement to the 6 party-way for the General Election improving. At this rate, all we'll be getting is a SNP coalition with either Conservative or Labour. Because all I can see on 7 May 2015 is Scotland being entirely SNP.

Jordan Ifield (I'm actually pro-union... Which is scary)

It's good to shut up sometimes- Marcel Marceau

Nick Clegg- Lightning Strikes Twice

I return to the BBC News Politics Home after my last blog and I see another Lib Dem boast.... Is it Christmas? It just seems that Nick Clegg wants to attract attention to his desperate situation, and this is politics I'm talking about, and it seems more like a homeless charity at this moment. Boldly claiming that the Lib Dems would "provide heart to the Conservatives and spine to Labour" is almost contradicting beyond belief when they themselves have neither in Nick Clegg. 

Nick Clegg: As sorry as his promises

"A strong coalition government with Liberal Democrats anchoring it in the centre ground, and not lurching to the extremes of left or right, remains the best way to make sure we finish the job and finish it fairly,"- Nick Clegg, sounds as if they're already in another coalition

But it's his ease of manner that scares me, being a Lib Dem sympathizer makes this cringe worthy, and I'm not sure whether they're the same party that were strong in 2010 (or at least stronger than now). Most Lib Dems are becoming scared of a potential implosion come May's General Election, but as Simon Hughes justified yesterday, the ones at the top of the tree are taking no notice of this apparent threat. And as many expect, this'll come back to haunt them.

As I said in my last blog, UKIP will beat the Lib Dems in the next General Election at this rate, but Clegg's oblivious nature makes me lose confidence in politics itself. Accountability is the clear culprit in this case, how can Clegg stay as Leader if he can't understand what his party want? He isn't listening, or at least he's appearing to. Perhaps trying to ignore UKIP, but it's one of many reasons the Lib Dems aren't popular anymore, they aren't taking their responsibilities seriously. And so, by consequences of the biggest culprit of politics of them all, they are discouraging electorates from politics. Game over.

Jordan Ifield (self-implosion imminent) 

More tears are shed over answered tears than unanswered ones- Mother Teresa

Lib Dems- Desperate Times

Dear... Oh dear.... Implosion imminent. Not only did I forget to update my blog over the festive period, but the Lib Dems have now passed the line of "no return". Simon Hughes, former Deputy Leader of the Lib Dems, has stepped into the thick mist of this years' General Election, as he says that the party will go in a coalition with any party, starting with the largest party, with no specific preferences....Talk about begging.

Not too long ago, I predicted that the Lib Dems would implode. They just seem to have so much less support since their coalition with the Conservatives has started, seeking criticism from their lack of involvement/strength and poor policies. All are debatable, but are agreeable with the vast masses, even by Liberal Democrats. So when Mr Hughes, over in the dark corners of the Lib Dem trash zone, steps in and implies that they've already lost, the laughing stock is on. During the run up to the 2010 General Election, many saw the Lib Dems, and Nick Clegg as a fresh alternative to David Cameron, without any Labour nonsense too. But as always with the Lib Dems in General Elections, they fell hard and only just about clinched a coalition. So now that their popularity is as low as their common sense, they are surely expected to flop. And with them expecting a coalition, and UKIP currently beating them in opinion polls, I don't think they'll even achieve that.

"We will work as we did this time with any other coalition partner because the national interest has to come first." - Simon Hughes, when the reality sank in

The two most likely competitors for a "coalition".... God Help Us

Much of the problem is his, as quote "third party" label for the Lib Dems, which just isn't justifiable any more. The uprise of UKIP and the SNP (to name a few) have at least some contention now for the label "third party", and I wouldn't be surprised if any of these 3 parties challenged for a role in a coalition. Nigel Farage and Nicola Sturgeon are more strong willed and passionate than Nick Clegg, and can actually stand up to some scrutiny. At this current moment of time, Clegg and the Lib Dems are behind UKIP, as I said earlier, and whilst I'm certainly no UKIP supporter, I can see why. The Lib Dems have only, as far as I can see, made one successful policy in school meals. And then to lose a lot of credibility in the university "promise" and the contradiction created through it to their "broken promises" propaganda. Could it get any worse? Oh yeah, they've done nothing else. Better?

Jordan Ifield (sorry for the lack of posts, I'll make up for it)