Long Live Life Posted October 6, 2010 Share Posted October 6, 2010 Did I just hear Life In Technicolour at the Conservative Party conference in the warm-up video for David Cameron? How times have changed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christopher Martin Posted October 6, 2010 Share Posted October 6, 2010 haha coldplay may not be happy, Keane certainly weren't but they should because I think David Cameron is great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Long Live Life Posted October 6, 2010 Author Share Posted October 6, 2010 Keane? haha coldplay may not be happy, Keane certainly weren't but they should because I think David Cameron is great. Where / when was Keane music used? I noted also Viva La Vida (played by the BBC in the run up to Ed Milliband's speech at the Labour conference). Viva La Vida is becoming synonymous with political programmes isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartinFan Posted October 6, 2010 Share Posted October 6, 2010 Chris isn't conservative either:thinking: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christopher Martin Posted October 6, 2010 Share Posted October 6, 2010 Where / when was Keane music used? I noted also Viva La Vida (played by the BBC in the run up to Ed Milliband's speech at the Labour conference). Viva La Vida is becoming synonymous with political programmes isn't it? Yeh you're right, it is, and the xfactor etc.. I believe Keane's music was used in the run up to the general election for the conservative party, the song was "everybody's changing" lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Osaka Sun Posted October 6, 2010 Share Posted October 6, 2010 Did I just hear Life In Technicolour at the Conservative Party conference in the warm-up video for David Cameron? How times have changed! That's not a good sign. :inquisitive: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christopher Martin Posted October 6, 2010 Share Posted October 6, 2010 That's not a good sign. :inquisitive: y not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Osaka Sun Posted October 6, 2010 Share Posted October 6, 2010 Because conservatives in general don't give a crap about the welfare of the poor and hard-working? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartinFan Posted October 6, 2010 Share Posted October 6, 2010 Because conservatives in general don't give a crap about the welfare of the poor and hard-working? BINGO:cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christopher Martin Posted October 7, 2010 Share Posted October 7, 2010 Because conservatives in general don't give a crap about the welfare of the poor and hard-working? Not true. Stereotypically yes, but the same cannot be said of David Cameron's Party. They are all about fairness. They have just got rid of Child Benefit for those earning £44,000 or more because its unfair that poor should have to pay towards the benefits of the rich. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Long Live Life Posted October 7, 2010 Author Share Posted October 7, 2010 Not true. Stereotypically yes, but the same cannot be said of David Cameron's Party. They are all about fairness. They have just got rid of Child Benefit for those earning £44,000 or more because its unfair that poor should have to pay towards the benefits of the rich. LOL - I didn't think something I noticed at the conference would turn into a political debate (I've been following all the conferences this year for various reasons ). However, I do agree with that policy - rich people should not get state support for their kids. It's funny everyone in the UK's been complaining about 2-party politics for years. Now that we have genuine 3-party politics people are complaining about that too :rolleyes: I have high hopes for this coaltion: let it be judged by the state of fairness and poverty in 5 years time. One thing is for sure: the gap between rich and poor widened in the last 13 years from a party supposedly championing the poor but spent its time obsessed with the mega-rich. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
busybeeburns Posted October 7, 2010 Share Posted October 7, 2010 Not true. Stereotypically yes, but the same cannot be said of David Cameron's Party. They are all about fairness. They have just got rid of Child Benefit for those earning £44,000 or more because its unfair that poor should have to pay towards the benefits of the rich. but not for familiies with two earners earning £43,999 each! What's fair about that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christopher Martin Posted October 7, 2010 Share Posted October 7, 2010 but not for familiies with two earners earning £43,999 each! What's fair about that! Yes I agree that is ridiculous. I really dont know why they have allowed that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TanialovesUK Posted October 7, 2010 Share Posted October 7, 2010 I think politicians should ask the bands for using songs , it may be ok to play the songs but only if the bands want to Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christopher Martin Posted October 7, 2010 Share Posted October 7, 2010 I think politicians should ask the bands for using songs , it may be ok to play the songs but only if the bands want to Yeh i think they should just out of politeness Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViVA Child Posted October 7, 2010 Share Posted October 7, 2010 I remember when Sarah Palin used "Barracuda" for her VP Campaign and Heart got all pissed and told her not to use their song. Lolz I hope Chris says something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christopher Martin Posted October 7, 2010 Share Posted October 7, 2010 I remember when Sarah Palin used "Barracuda" for her VP Campaign and Heart got all pissed and told her not to use their song. Lolz I hope Chris says something. Sarah Palin should not have been allowed anywhere near a political platform. I still find her rise shocking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arwen Evenstar Posted October 7, 2010 Share Posted October 7, 2010 Sarah Palin should not have been allowed anywhere near a political platform. I still find her rise shocking. Palin shouldn't be allowed near other human beings, I find the fact that she isn't in a mental assylum yet shocking :dozey: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nancyk58 Posted October 8, 2010 Share Posted October 8, 2010 Sarah Palin should not have been allowed anywhere near a political platform. I still find her rise shocking.[/color] The same here. If she had become Vice President, and the President had died then she would have become President. :wreck: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christopher Martin Posted October 8, 2010 Share Posted October 8, 2010 Palin shouldn't be allowed near other human beings, I find the fact that she isn't in a mental assylum yet shocking :dozey: LMAO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*MX*ColdplayObsess3d Posted October 8, 2010 Share Posted October 8, 2010 The same here. If she had become Vice President, and the President had died then she would have become President. :wreck: LMAO Hahahahahahahaaaaaaaa, pure genius words. ^^^^^^^^^^:laugh3: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViVA Child Posted October 8, 2010 Share Posted October 8, 2010 Sarah Palin should not have been allowed anywhere near a political platform. I still find her rise shocking. Palin shouldn't be allowed near other human beings, I find the fact that she isn't in a mental assylum yet shocking :dozey: The same here. If she had become Vice President, and the President had died then she would have become President. :wreck: Restated fact has been restated lol. But yeah I know Thats why I was so adimately against Mc Cain getting elected I think what happened with me happened with a lot of people.... they saw the running mate and went "FUCK NO!" and sided with Obama.... whom Chris was rooting for btw. I have no opinion Obama right now. :shrug: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Osaka Sun Posted October 8, 2010 Share Posted October 8, 2010 Sarah Palin should not have been allowed anywhere near a political platform. I still find her rise shocking. Now that's something that I agree with you upon. :P Sarah Palin and her Tea Party wackjobs is really scary shit. And the fact that such a group is trying to form in Canada...:worried2: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViVA Child Posted October 8, 2010 Share Posted October 8, 2010 ^really? ...even canada isnt safe? damn.... and ya those "Tea Parties are...... :facepalm: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Osaka Sun Posted October 8, 2010 Share Posted October 8, 2010 Yep. :( http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/870697--the-rise-of-the-tea-party-in-canada And the Conservatives here are even considering making a Fox News North. I'm not kidding. Search it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now