Be Excellent To Each Other

And, you know, party on. Dude.

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Reply to topic  [ 14340 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 ... 287  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Thu Aug 28, 2014 14:40 
User avatar
Legendary Boogeyman

Joined: 22nd Dec, 2010
Posts: 8175
It'll also be a super psychological and political blow to the Tories if a UKIP MP is willingly voted in ahead of the general election. Very cunning all round. I have no idea what his chances are.

_________________
Mr Kissyfur wrote:
Pretty much everyone agrees with Gnomes, really, it's just some are too right on to admit it. :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Thu Aug 28, 2014 14:45 
User avatar

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 16553
The expert on Radio 4 just now seemed very certain he would get back in for UKIP. Saying he is very popular with his constituents who voted as much for him as his party and the seat is prime UKIP territory anyway.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Thu Aug 28, 2014 14:54 
User avatar

Joined: 23rd Nov, 2008
Posts: 9521
Location: The Golden Country
Mr Kissyfur wrote:
Cavey wrote:
What can you say?
For me, a good deal of this and other stuff like it comes back to the unaccountability (and all-round uselessness) of the public sector - but these views don't go down too well around here.

Sigh :)

It's not like private sector supremos haven't fucked up and then walked off with massive payoffs or anything.

Anyway, agree on the original premise that he really should resign. Guy's got some serious brass neck.


Hey, fab to see you mate. How are things? :)

I daresay we've done this to death over the years ( :) ) but here's my take on it anyway. It's impossible for me to conceive of a greater failure than this one, at least based on what I know, namely 1400 kids abused over 10 years or so (enough to fill five classrooms chock full of different kids for each of those 10 consecutive years, simply unimaginable). It just seems utterly inconceivable given all the feedback of information that apparently occurred and the number of public servants involved?

By way of random comparison and off the top of my head, that geezer who'd been at Tesco, man and boy, was very publicly given "The Spanish Elbow" just because they weren't making as big profits as they'd have liked?

To my mind, there can't honestly be any serious suggestion that, in general terms, the private and public sectors are just as performance-driven, just as hire-and-fire as each other. That just seems absurd to me.

How many people were prosecuted, fired, or even just carpeted over the N.Staffs scandal, which IIRC had hundreds if not thousands of patients dying of thirst/lack of even the most basic care, with them all blaming each other? None at all? AFAIK it only came to the public's eye at all due to the persistent efforts of whistle-blower(s).

This guy is still in his job. Does anyone honestly think that'd still be the case were we talking about a similar, catastrophic-scale failure, over many years and the very job he was supposed to be doing, if we were talking about a private company? His arse surely wouldn't touch the floor?

What about all those police whose prime responsibility it was to protect these kids? I remind you again, this is the job they're paid to do and the duty is theirs to perform above all other considerations? How many of them do we think will face gross negligence, dereliction of duty charges and/or major disciplinary etc. over this, either rank and file or officers?

My guess is that bog all will happen, same as for N.Staffs as I understand it (to date). It would appear, at least to my eyes, that this is "how they roll" as it were...

_________________
Beware of gavia articulata oculos...

Dr Lave wrote:
Of course, he's normally wrong but interestingly wrong :p


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Thu Aug 28, 2014 14:58 
User avatar

Joined: 23rd Nov, 2008
Posts: 9521
Location: The Golden Country
Kern wrote:
It's good that he's actually resigned. Yes, I know that according to the constitutional theory we elect a person and not a party, but I've always felt it's the public's right to decide if they want their MP to remain representing them after switching sides.


:this:

I daresay no-one can really complain if he's voted back in fair and square though. It's unfortunate, but there we are.

_________________
Beware of gavia articulata oculos...

Dr Lave wrote:
Of course, he's normally wrong but interestingly wrong :p


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Thu Aug 28, 2014 15:06 
User avatar

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 16553
Cavey wrote:
Mr Kissyfur wrote:
Cavey wrote:
What can you say?
For me, a good deal of this and other stuff like it comes back to the unaccountability (and all-round uselessness) of the public sector - but these views don't go down too well around here.

Sigh :)

It's not like private sector supremos haven't fucked up and then walked off with massive payoffs or anything.

Anyway, agree on the original premise that he really should resign. Guy's got some serious brass neck.


Hey, fab to see you mate. How are things? :)

I daresay we've done this to death over the years ( :) ) but here's my take on it anyway. It's impossible for me to conceive of a greater failure than this one, at least based on what I know, namely 1400 kids abused over 10 years or so (enough to fill five classrooms chock full of different kids for each of those 10 consecutive years, simply unimaginable). It just seems utterly inconceivable given all the feedback of information that apparently occurred and the number of public servants involved?

By way of random comparison and off the top of my head, that geezer who'd been at Tesco, man and boy, was very publicly given "The Spanish Elbow" just because they weren't making as big profits as they'd have liked?

To my mind, there can't honestly be any serious suggestion that, in general terms, the private and public sectors are just as performance-driven, just as hire-and-fire as each other. That just seems absurd to me.

How many people were prosecuted, fired, or even just carpeted over the N.Staffs scandal, which IIRC had hundreds if not thousands of patients dying of thirst/lack of even the most basic care, with them all blaming each other? None at all? AFAIK it only came to the public's eye at all due to the persistent efforts of whistle-blower(s).

This guy is still in his job. Does anyone honestly think that'd still be the case were we talking about a similar, catastrophic-scale failure, over many years and the very job he was supposed to be doing, if we were talking about a private company? His arse surely wouldn't touch the floor?

What about all those police whose prime responsibility it was to protect these kids? I remind you again, this is the job they're paid to do and the duty is theirs to perform above all other considerations? How many of them do we think will face gross negligence, dereliction of duty charges and/or major disciplinary etc. over this, either rank and file or officers?

My guess is that bog all will happen, same as for N.Staffs as I understand it (to date). It would appear, at least to my eyes, that this is "how they roll" as it were...

As I understand it he left that job ages ago and is now a Police Commissioner, a role he got voted into. It's simply the case that there is nobody who even can sack him.

Also you didn't comment much about all the recent private care home scandals and episodes of abuse and neglect there. Doesn't fit with your narrative I guess. :roll:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Thu Aug 28, 2014 15:10 
User avatar

Joined: 23rd Nov, 2008
Posts: 9521
Location: The Golden Country
markg wrote:
As I understand it he left that job ages ago and is now a Police Commissioner, a role he got voted into. It's simply the case that there is nobody who even can sack him.


That doesn't sound like a particularly great argument in favour of the supposed parity in accountability between public and private sectors, Mark.

Quote:
Also you didn't comment much about all the recent private care home scandals and episodes of abuse and neglect there. Doesn't fit with your narrative I guess. :roll:


Yeah, but many of those private care homes went bust, directors and shareholders lost their shirts (and IIRC some were prosecuted on top of that). Doesn't sound like scot-free bugger all consequences to me.

_________________
Beware of gavia articulata oculos...

Dr Lave wrote:
Of course, he's normally wrong but interestingly wrong :p


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Thu Aug 28, 2014 15:18 
User avatar

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 16553
Cavey wrote:
markg wrote:
As I understand it he left that job ages ago and is now a Police Commissioner, a role he got voted into. It's simply the case that there is nobody who even can sack him.


That doesn't sound like a particularly great argument in favour of the supposed parity of accountability between public and private sectors, Mark.

It isn't, what I'm saying is that it's not an argument against it either. Unless you are saying that in private sector someone would automatically be sacked from whatever job they are in now if it emerged that they were hopeless in their old one.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Thu Aug 28, 2014 15:23 
User avatar

Joined: 23rd Nov, 2008
Posts: 9521
Location: The Golden Country
markg wrote:
Cavey wrote:
markg wrote:
As I understand it he left that job ages ago and is now a Police Commissioner, a role he got voted into. It's simply the case that there is nobody who even can sack him.


That doesn't sound like a particularly great argument in favour of the supposed parity of accountability between public and private sectors, Mark.

It isn't, what I'm saying is that it's not an argument against it either. Unless you are saying that in private sector someone would automatically be sacked from whatever job they are in now if it emerged that they were hopeless in their old one.


If they were still director level management in the same company/organisation and such a grotesque failure came to light, to the likely ruination of said company? Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying, and hence my original point stands. Obviously.

Accountability doesn't (or shouldn't) just magically disappear just because you've changed job titles (and it most certainly does not in the private sector, I can tell you).

_________________
Beware of gavia articulata oculos...

Dr Lave wrote:
Of course, he's normally wrong but interestingly wrong :p


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Thu Aug 28, 2014 15:32 
User avatar

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 16553
It's not remotely comparable. His new role is one he got voted into and there is constitutionally nobody who can sack him, it was clearly designed that way so that Police Commissioners could operate free from political interference and were accountable only to the people who voted them in. Obviously he should step down but the mechanism to fire him simply isn't in place. There is no board of directors who can get together and agree what should happen.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Thu Aug 28, 2014 15:39 
User avatar

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 16553
A better analogy might be what happened following Baby P scandal, when plenty of people got sacked as may well yet happen in Rotherham.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Thu Aug 28, 2014 15:40 
User avatar

Joined: 23rd Nov, 2008
Posts: 9521
Location: The Golden Country
markg wrote:
It's not remotely comparable. His new role is one he got voted into and there is constitutionally nobody who can sack him, it was clearly designed that way so that Police Commissioners could operate free from political interference and were accountable only to the people who voted them in. Obviously he should step down but the mechanism to fire him simply isn't in place. There is no board of directors who can get together and agree what should happen.


Well, sorry Mark, I fundamentally disagree. His employer is the same in both cases.

That said, I don't doubt that you're technically correct. :) I'm sure you're right when you say there's no mechanism to sack him, for the reasons you state. However, there bloody well should be, under these kind of circumstances, and the fact there's not is (1) a disgrace and (2) a likely unique function of the public sector employment upon which he finds himself in. That is *my* point.

Besides all this, there are loads of other much more straight forward examples. Who, if anyone, has been sacked specifically over N.Staffs? I'm betting no-one, not even the chief exec, unless you can tell me otherwise, in which case I rest my case.

I note you didn't comment on my private care home response. Surely this was a valid, fair point to make on my part? Come on, credit where it's due etc.

_________________
Beware of gavia articulata oculos...

Dr Lave wrote:
Of course, he's normally wrong but interestingly wrong :p


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Thu Aug 28, 2014 15:40 
User avatar

Joined: 23rd Nov, 2008
Posts: 9521
Location: The Golden Country
markg wrote:
A better analogy might be what happened following Baby P scandal, when plenty of people got sacked as may well yet happen in Rotherham.


Yeah and look what happened there - successful unfair dismissal tribunal(s) and payouts...

_________________
Beware of gavia articulata oculos...

Dr Lave wrote:
Of course, he's normally wrong but interestingly wrong :p


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Thu Aug 28, 2014 15:45 
User avatar

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 16553
Cavey wrote:
markg wrote:
A better analogy might be what happened following Baby P scandal, when plenty of people got sacked as may well yet happen in Rotherham.


Yeah and look what happened there - successful unfair dismissal tribunal(s) and payouts...

Only in Shoesmith's case and then really only because they went about getting rid of her the wrong way as can happen in either the public or private sector.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Thu Aug 28, 2014 15:55 
User avatar

Joined: 23rd Nov, 2008
Posts: 9521
Location: The Golden Country
markg wrote:
Cavey wrote:
markg wrote:
A better analogy might be what happened following Baby P scandal, when plenty of people got sacked as may well yet happen in Rotherham.


Yeah and look what happened there - successful unfair dismissal tribunal(s) and payouts...

Only in Shoesmith's case and then really only because they went about getting rid of her the wrong way as can happen in either the public or private sector.


Hmm, well, that's your take on it at least, Mark. ;)

_________________
Beware of gavia articulata oculos...

Dr Lave wrote:
Of course, he's normally wrong but interestingly wrong :p


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Thu Aug 28, 2014 15:56 
User avatar

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 16553
Cavey wrote:
I note you didn't comment on my private care home response. Surely this was a valid, fair point to make on my part? Come on, credit where it's due etc.
Oh right so the Southern Cross lot are all on the bare bones of their arse now then? There are countless examples of directors of companies running their enterprises in ways that are actually criminal and then walking away from their limited liabilities and starting again with a new name. Or of executives caught carrying out some sort of misdeed or other only to be given massive payoffs as the most expedient way to get them out the door. And people do get sacked from the public sector *all the time* for poor conduct etc. So no, I absolutely don't buy your assertion that private sector automatically equals personal accountability.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Thu Aug 28, 2014 16:02 
User avatar

Joined: 23rd Nov, 2008
Posts: 9521
Location: The Golden Country
markg wrote:
Cavey wrote:
I note you didn't comment on my private care home response. Surely this was a valid, fair point to make on my part? Come on, credit where it's due etc.
There are countless examples of directors of companies running their enterprises in ways that are actually criminal and then walking away from their limited liabilities and starting again with a new name. Or of executives caught carrying out some sort of misdeed or other only to be given massive payoffs as the most expedient way to get them out the door. And people do get sacked from the public sector *all the time* for poor conduct etc. So no, I absolutely don't buy your assertion that private sector automatically equals personal accountability.


Come on, play fair. For starters, my comments were very specifically in response to your 'private care homes scandal' example. You're now straw-manning like crazy in trying to massively widen the debate into me somehow claiming no bad shit ever happens in the private sector evvvvvarr, or that *absolutely no-one EVER* gets sacked from the public sector. Etc.

I'm earnestly trying to engage you in an honest discussion here; I'm not saying I have all the answers/knowledge, far from it (and contrary to what you seem to think for some absurd reason, am not blinded by political ideology and in fact couldn't give a flying fuck about it). But this is just getting frustrating and silly.

It won't kill you to concede when your opponent actually makes a reasonable or fair point in response to stuff you've specifically said, nor is it in any way a sign of weakness. Answering their questions wouldn't go amiss, either.

_________________
Beware of gavia articulata oculos...

Dr Lave wrote:
Of course, he's normally wrong but interestingly wrong :p


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 11:01 
Excellent Member

Joined: 5th Dec, 2010
Posts: 3353
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-29358758

Looks like this twat has finally overstepped the mark.

Hopefully we can boot him out of the UK now.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 11:10 
User avatar
Gogmagog

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 48607
Location: Cheshire
No. He is a British national. You cannot make people stateless. The UK can imprison him, but that is about it, what with us being civilized and all.

_________________
Mr Chris wrote:
MaliA isn't just the best thing on the internet - he's the best thing ever.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 11:35 
Excellent Member

Joined: 5th Dec, 2010
Posts: 3353
MaliA wrote:
No. He is a British national. You cannot make people stateless. The UK can imprison him, but that is about it, what with us being civilized and all.


Yes we can

Quote:
Under section 40 of the British Nationality Act 1981 (as amended), an order to deprive a person of their British citizenship can be made if the Home Secretary is satisfied that:

 it would be conducive to the public good to deprive the person of their British citizenship status and to do so would not render them stateless; or

 the person obtained their citizenship status through naturalisation, and it would be conducive to the public good to deprive them of their status because they have engaged,in conduct “seriously prejudicial” to the UK’s vital interests, and the Home Secretary has reasonable grounds to believe that they could acquire another nationality;

 the person acquired their citizenship status through naturalisation or registration, and it was obtained by means of fraud, false representation or concealment of any material fact.


Cameron is working now to make this quicker and easier to do as well.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 11:39 
User avatar
Gogmagog

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 48607
Location: Cheshire
If he isn't naturalised or has dual citizenship then it cannot be done. My brief look suggests he is neither. So it cannot be done. Cameron had to backtrack when all this was pointed out.

_________________
Mr Chris wrote:
MaliA isn't just the best thing on the internet - he's the best thing ever.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 11:39 
SupaMod
User avatar
Commander-in-Cheese

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 49232
Considering he was born in Welling, I would expect he has solely British citizenship, so to withdraw it would leave him stateless, which is not permitted as per your quote.

_________________
GoddessJasmine wrote:
Drunk, pulled Craster's pork, waiting for brdyime story,reading nuts. Xz


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 11:40 
User avatar

Joined: 23rd Nov, 2008
Posts: 9521
Location: The Golden Country
Cras wrote:
Considering he was born in Welling, I would expect he has solely British citizenship, so to withdraw it would leave him stateless, which is not permitted as per your quote.


Pity.

_________________
Beware of gavia articulata oculos...

Dr Lave wrote:
Of course, he's normally wrong but interestingly wrong :p


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 11:41 
SupaMod
User avatar
Commander-in-Cheese

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 49232
Potentially so, but I can see why you can't have someone who's not permitted residency in any country. Unless it's Tom Hanks.

_________________
GoddessJasmine wrote:
Drunk, pulled Craster's pork, waiting for brdyime story,reading nuts. Xz


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 11:46 
User avatar

Joined: 23rd Nov, 2008
Posts: 9521
Location: The Golden Country
Cras wrote:
Potentially so, but I can see why you can't have someone who's not permitted residency in any country. Unless it's Tom Hanks.


Potentially so...? Crikey, that's one high bar you've got there, man. Begrudgingly have to agree with you though; the civilised "we" can't just leave people stateless, however odious and malign to us all they might be. :(

_________________
Beware of gavia articulata oculos...

Dr Lave wrote:
Of course, he's normally wrong but interestingly wrong :p


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 11:49 
User avatar
Gogmagog

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 48607
Location: Cheshire
Cavey wrote:
Cras wrote:
Potentially so, but I can see why you can't have someone who's not permitted residency in any country. Unless it's Tom Hanks.


Potentially so...? Crikey, that's one high bar you've got there, man. Begrudgingly have to agree with you though; the civilised "we" can't just leave people stateless, however odious and malign to us all they might be. :(


Only 45% of them

_________________
Mr Chris wrote:
MaliA isn't just the best thing on the internet - he's the best thing ever.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 12:08 
User avatar

Joined: 23rd Nov, 2008
Posts: 9521
Location: The Golden Country
MaliA wrote:
Cavey wrote:
Cras wrote:
Potentially so, but I can see why you can't have someone who's not permitted residency in any country. Unless it's Tom Hanks.


Potentially so...? Crikey, that's one high bar you've got there, man. Begrudgingly have to agree with you though; the civilised "we" can't just leave people stateless, however odious and malign to us all they might be. :(


Only 45% of them


Heh. :D
(Actually it's a mere 37%, in terms of those who actually voted)

_________________
Beware of gavia articulata oculos...

Dr Lave wrote:
Of course, he's normally wrong but interestingly wrong :p


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Sun Sep 28, 2014 11:04 
Excellent Member

Joined: 5th Dec, 2010
Posts: 3353
Not a good weekend for Mr Cameron , another conservative MP jumped ship for UKIP and a minister has resigned after sending a picture of (probably) his knob to a undercover female reporter!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Sun Sep 28, 2014 13:02 
User avatar
Sleepyhead

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 27343
Location: Kidbrooke
I was annoyed this morning when I saw Nigel Farage talking about the latest war in the Middle East, and him actually making some decent points that I agree with.

_________________
We are young despite the years
We are concern
We are hope, despite the times


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Wed Oct 01, 2014 10:14 
User avatar
Legendary Boogeyman

Joined: 22nd Dec, 2010
Posts: 8175
Well you have to say that UKIP are surely shaking shit up. People are whispering about the next coalition featuring UKIP, with Con/Kip favoured. Mind you they also honked very loudly about Cleggmania and that transpired to nothing.

That seems bonkers, although the ease at which Tory supporters feel able to flip shows an overlap in perceived political sentiment.

I often think Tories are confused about what they think their party represents, so when the dodgy ones let slip a particularly bigoted remark they're surprised when they come under criticism. UKIP must seem like an increasingly credible alternative where their particulars views can be aired to the cheers of others.

_________________
Mr Kissyfur wrote:
Pretty much everyone agrees with Gnomes, really, it's just some are too right on to admit it. :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Wed Oct 01, 2014 15:18 
User avatar
Sleepyhead

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 27343
Location: Kidbrooke
Clegg is Deputy PM, which from a prior position of being a small minority party is a major success.

If Farage manages the same then it would be success beyond his wildest dreams.

That said, as much as I hate Farage, and I really do hate him, he has had the best take on the latest WAR ON ISIS from any political leader I've seen. Ugh. Hate agreeing with him!

_________________
We are young despite the years
We are concern
We are hope, despite the times


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Fri Oct 10, 2014 7:49 
User avatar

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 16553
A UKIP MP then. I was inevitable I guess. So sick of seeing all these right wing fuck faces all over the media these days, whether it's UKIP or the fucking Tories promising that it's safe for racists to vote for them because they are some despicable cunts too just like UKIP. Just make it all stop.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Fri Oct 10, 2014 8:00 
User avatar

Joined: 23rd Nov, 2008
Posts: 9521
Location: The Golden Country
markg wrote:
A UKIP MP then. I was inevitable I guess. So sick of seeing all these right wing fuck faces all over the media these days, whether it's UKIP or the fucking Tories promising that it's safe for racists to vote for them because they are some despicable cunts too just like UKIP. Just make it all stop.


It's not going to stop though, Mark. In fact, the Right is building up a massive head of steam, seems to me.

I'm not rejoicing the success of UKIP, but have to be honest here - I welcome this embrace of the Right generally. I suppose people are waking up to the fact that, despite all the left wing naysayers foretelling doom as a result of austerity (including plenty on here), the UK economy is now steaming ahead now with 4% annual growth coupled with very low inflation, while others remain in the doldrums; tax cuts are on the horizon now for aspirational earners on £40k a year (hardly 'the rich', but ordinary hardworking professional people with mortgages to pay).

What with the defeat and rejection of the Scottish Nationalists and their pie-in-the-sky socialist utopia, I've never been more optimistic about the unfolding political landscape of this country? At this rate, we could even now be at the eve of our regeneration as a great economic power, especially if the Tories win the next GE with an outright parliamentary majority. Which, incidentally, I now fully expect them so to do - incredibly, they're already ahead in the opinion polls just a few years from taking over from Labour economic meltdown.

For me, then, happy days. Socialism, and even 'social democracy' (Socialism-lite) is well and truly dead, at least in the UK.

_________________
Beware of gavia articulata oculos...

Dr Lave wrote:
Of course, he's normally wrong but interestingly wrong :p


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Fri Oct 10, 2014 8:31 
Filthy Junkie Bitch

Joined: 17th Dec, 2008
Posts: 8293
Margate isn't quite the story here either. A somewhat unique constituency, with a sitting MP resigning his seat to give rise to a by election. On that point, Kudos to UKIP where it is due - they didn't need to do this, but it does mean that the gamble that they took here gives them significantly more credibility for winning in an open contest, rather than switching the seat.

The bigger story is the Heywood seat, where a sitting Labour MP died (the official opposition, in a safe seat, in a by election 9 months before a General election). Any historical statistics say that should have been an increased majority (Sympathy, dissatisfaction with government) and it went to a recount. If this was 12 months ago as opposed to today, I don't think Milliband would have survived that.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Fri Oct 10, 2014 8:38 
User avatar

Joined: 23rd Nov, 2008
Posts: 9521
Location: The Golden Country
ApplePieOfDestiny wrote:
Margate isn't quite the story here either. A somewhat unique constituency, with a sitting MP resigning his seat to give rise to a by election. On that point, Kudos to UKIP where it is due - they didn't need to do this, but it does mean that the gamble that they took here gives them significantly more credibility for winning in an open contest, rather than switching the seat.

The bigger story is the Heywood seat, where a sitting Labour MP died (the official opposition, in a safe seat, in a by election 9 months before a General election). Any historical statistics say that should have been an increased majority (Sympathy, dissatisfaction with government) and it went to a recount. If this was 12 months ago as opposed to today, I don't think Milliband would have survived that.


I totally agree; very good point mate. Totally unprecedented and surely as good an indicator as you'll find for the public's rejection of these politics. Finally and not before time.

Labour are finished in my view.

_________________
Beware of gavia articulata oculos...

Dr Lave wrote:
Of course, he's normally wrong but interestingly wrong :p


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Fri Oct 10, 2014 9:21 
Excellent Member

Joined: 5th Dec, 2010
Posts: 3353
The big parties must surely wake up now, UKIP came close to winning a Labour seat.

Starting to show that the EU votes for UKIP were not just protest "waste" votes.

UKIP doesn't have many policies and there is a odious element to the party, but there is no denying for some reason Farrage come across as a decent bloke supporting the man in the street to many people.

I would never want them in power, but what they are doing is kicking the 3 main parties into waking up and seeing that there are millions of people affected by what they do that don't live in central London. That in its self is a good thing, just hope support doesn't go so far as to give them a lot of power at the next general election.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Fri Oct 10, 2014 9:28 
User avatar

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 16553
Fuck that. They are winning votes by appealing to simpletons with horrible views. The main two parties should not be pandering to that bullshit and shame on the Tories for doing so.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Fri Oct 10, 2014 9:33 
User avatar

Joined: 12th Apr, 2008
Posts: 17757
Location: Oxford
UKIP, like the Greens (who already have an MP) and the SNP, are appealing to those dissatsified with the majors. Mostly it is a protest vote, but it also represents an underlying unhappiness with the system and a sense that Westminster is a cosy club.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Fri Oct 10, 2014 10:11 
Excellent Member

Joined: 5th Dec, 2010
Posts: 3353
markg wrote:
Fuck that. They are winning votes by appealing to simpletons with horrible views. The main two parties should not be pandering to that bullshit and shame on the Tories for doing so.


They don't have a lot of choice, UKIP are winning seats and they at least need to look at why that is happening, you don't get a seat in parliament from the votes of simpletons with horrible views alone!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Fri Oct 10, 2014 10:12 
User avatar
ugvm'er at heart...

Joined: 4th Mar, 2010
Posts: 22256
They've gone from 3% to 39% support (according to the BBC this morning) in the Heywood by election. That's a serious issue that needs to be addressed, it can't be brushed under the carpet.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Fri Oct 10, 2014 10:17 
SupaMod
User avatar
Est. 1978

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 69502
Location: Your Mum
asfish wrote:
markg wrote:
Fuck that. They are winning votes by appealing to simpletons with horrible views. The main two parties should not be pandering to that bullshit and shame on the Tories for doing so.


They don't have a lot of choice, UKIP are winning seats and they at least need to look at why that is happening, you don't get a seat in parliament from the votes of simpletons with horrible views alone!

Unless you're a labour MP ;)

_________________
Grim... wrote:
I wish Craster had left some girls for the rest of us.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Fri Oct 10, 2014 10:21 
User avatar

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 16553
I think it's a somewhat unique situation. I'm not saying UKIP won't win more seats but Carswell was immensely popular with his constituents. There's a very large extent to which they have gone along with him rather than UKIP as such. Right from the outset he was a shoe-in.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Fri Oct 10, 2014 10:28 
User avatar
ugvm'er at heart...

Joined: 4th Mar, 2010
Posts: 22256
markg wrote:
I think it's a somewhat unique situation. I'm not saying UKIP won't win more seats but Carswell was immensely popular with his constituents. There's a very large extent to which they have gone along with him rather than UKIP as such. Right from the outset he was a shoe-in.


As APoD said, it's the other by election that is the real worry.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Fri Oct 10, 2014 10:43 
User avatar
Sleepyhead

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 27343
Location: Kidbrooke
UKIP are succeeding because they are appealing to both Tory and Labour voters.

The anti-immigration stance plays well with a LOT of working class people at the minimum wage end of the scale, who are the people actually affected by immigration.

Farage being a millionaire posh type who will give massive tax cuts to the richest people and go further right than the Tories plays well with the right wing types who dislike Cameron's centrist policies (those that exist) and who hate how the Lib Dems have tempered at least some of their schemes.

I should, in theory, vote Tory. The government's tax plans for the next few years will see me significantly better off... but I find them absolutely abhorrent. I don't want tax breaks. I want the working poor to get them. The current model feeds inequality and celebrates it. I can't vote for that.

_________________
We are young despite the years
We are concern
We are hope, despite the times


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Fri Oct 10, 2014 10:47 
User avatar

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 32618
Cavey wrote:
It's not going to stop though, Mark. In fact, the Right is building up a massive head of steam, seems to me.

You're not in the least concerned about UKIP splitting the right-wing vote and letting Labour claim seats they wouldn't otherwise have won, then? That happened a number of time in the US with the Tea Party, and to my mind the parallels are clear. I imagine there's a few Tory MPs this morning wondering if opposing AV was the smartest move they could have made.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Fri Oct 10, 2014 10:48 
User avatar
Prince of Fops

Joined: 14th May, 2009
Posts: 4296
Curiosity wrote:
I can't vote for that.


No, no can do.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Fri Oct 10, 2014 10:52 
User avatar

Joined: 12th Apr, 2008
Posts: 17757
Location: Oxford
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Cavey wrote:
It's not going to stop though, Mark. In fact, the Right is building up a massive head of steam, seems to me.

You're not in the least concerned about UKIP splitting the right-wing vote and letting Labour claim seats they wouldn't otherwise have won, then? That happened a number of time in the US with the Tea Party, and to my mind the parallels are clear. I imagine there's a few Tory MPs this morning wondering if opposing AV was the smartest move they could have made.


The positive thing about the Tea Party was that they made incumbents in safe areas worry about their seats. No politician should ever take his position for granted, although it would have been better if it hadn't been up to a bunch of vocal fruitcakes to make them realise this.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Fri Oct 10, 2014 11:26 
User avatar
Legendary Boogeyman

Joined: 22nd Dec, 2010
Posts: 8175
This is quite the result, and I'm not so sold on this MP being such a local character that he could sway quite such a huge majority of people over to UKIP on personality alone.

As others have said, that second seat could easily have been won if the kippers weren't otherwise distracted - perhaps they didn't appreciate the potential to snag the seat from Labour, and that would have been an enormous upset.

I have to say Cavey I don't see this as an unstoppable charge of the right. I don't think very many people identify or are aware of their political leanings on the left-right scale, and I think quite a lot of people are voting UKIP for vastly different reasons. They clearly think they represent their views in some way, but being able to snag votes from Labour voters shows they're appealing to all but the hard left.

It's a fascinating time for politics. I think the odds are very strong for UKIP to become the third party with the Lib-Dems essentially a dead duck. They might retain 20 seats, but I reckon Farage could siphon enough marginal seats from the red and blue to put them up at the same level.

I'm excited for the outcome of the election however it goes.

_________________
Mr Kissyfur wrote:
Pretty much everyone agrees with Gnomes, really, it's just some are too right on to admit it. :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Fri Oct 10, 2014 11:30 
User avatar

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 16553
You'd have to say that's too close to call right now:

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/voting-intention-2

Although I don't put much faith in polls I don't think they're biased any particular way except perhaps that there might be a lot of ashamed secret UKIP voters out there.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Fri Oct 10, 2014 12:30 
User avatar
Sleepyhead

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 27343
Location: Kidbrooke
ApplePieOfDestiny wrote:
Margate isn't quite the story here either. A somewhat unique constituency, with a sitting MP resigning his seat to give rise to a by election. On that point, Kudos to UKIP where it is due - they didn't need to do this, but it does mean that the gamble that they took here gives them significantly more credibility for winning in an open contest, rather than switching the seat.

The bigger story is the Heywood seat, where a sitting Labour MP died (the official opposition, in a safe seat, in a by election 9 months before a General election). Any historical statistics say that should have been an increased majority (Sympathy, dissatisfaction with government) and it went to a recount. If this was 12 months ago as opposed to today, I don't think Milliband would have survived that.


Worth noting that the Labour vote share actually did increase. It was the Tory and Lib Dem vote shares that both completely collapsed, and where the UKIP votes came from.

_________________
We are young despite the years
We are concern
We are hope, despite the times


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Fri Oct 10, 2014 13:15 
User avatar
Gogmagog

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 48607
Location: Cheshire
And the lib Dems lost their deposit. For 10 th tine since GE. Although I dunno how they did last time, so I might be unfair.

_________________
Mr Chris wrote:
MaliA isn't just the best thing on the internet - he's the best thing ever.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 14340 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 ... 287  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search within this thread:
cron
You are using the 'Ted' forum. Bill doesn't really exist any more. Bogus!
Want to help out with the hosting / advertising costs? That's very nice of you.
Are you on a mobile phone? Try http://beex.co.uk/m/
RIP, Owen. RIP, MrC.

Powered by a very Grim... version of phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.