Be Excellent To Each Other

Absolutely done already. The list of 'friends' I have on facebook that I don't follow was already significant.

Fuck you too buddy.

xxx

This is interesting. Yes.

http://i.imgur.com/ox4y7TR.png

That appears to imply that virtually no-one who voted Green in 2010 will vote Green in 2015, but their share of the vote increases?

Colour me green sceptical.

No it doesn't, one of the grey lines represents the non movers, it's small but not in relation to their 2010 share.

The 'Today' grey line is about 50% of the 2010 starting figure. So maybe not virtually no-one, but still an implication that a lot of their voter base has gone elsewhere, which seems odd for an idealistic party.

I think perhaps that might be to do with the size of the infographic and the thinnest line which would actually even show up.

I instantly remove anyone xenophobic or racist from my social life. I just don't tolerate that shit. I'm even less tolerant of that during the last 8 years of course because I'm seen how that kind of backwards nastiness affects people. Now I'm at the stage where I don't want anything to do with the 'out of Yurp' type people, because honestly, if they think people like my girlfriend and a lot of my friends should be deported and repatriated, well, fuck them.

What about if the pendulum swung far enough that it could be argued more so than now that being in wasn't a good deal for the UK, but people from the EU countries could stay and work if fulfilling visa requirements? Is it the "repatriate foreigns" that you don't like or the view that being in isn't ideal? Genuine question.

Would you be happy about the thought of your wife and child, and many friends of yours, possibly being forcefully deported in a few years time? I shouldn't have to explain that. What's going on now makes life and planning for the future incredibly uncertain and difficult.

I know what spousal visas for non-EU migrants cost and the bullshit that comes with it, I'm not realistically going to be able to afford that, neither would the majority of British people with partners and spouses from the rest of the EU. Families will be destroyed, by the thousand, lives ruined. The state has no business breaking up families and relationships purely because of nationality.

(Also: It works both ways. Leaving the EU will make life a lot harder for British citizens to work in and even visit the rest of Europe - why should we be 'caged in' to our little island and not have the opportunity to go elsewhere if we have the ability to do so?)

There is no good argument for leaving the EU, all there is is anti-immigration feelings fueled by xenophobia and ignorance. A UK outside the EU would still have to pay the membership fee in order to continue trading with the EU, and would have no democratic say in steering or reforming the EU in the future. The EU is imperfect, but it exists for a reason, will exist for a long time to come in some form or other, and we're a European nation. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater due to nationalistic hubris is not going to be good for the future of the UK.

soz Anon. Post deleted.

Come on dude, don't de-cry anyone with a differing opinion as unworthy. The EU is a necessary evil in my eyes, a bit shit but worth putting up with and ukip voters strike me as generally....... Icky.

Soz Anon. Post deleted.

Yes, that's clearly the case.

Cavey, don't start abusing me directly if you're heading in that direction. I'm not in the mood for showing screen grabs to the local police station again. Particularly not on a Friday evening when the nearest police station closed recently.

OK, sorry man. Genuinely.

If I'm having that kind of effect it certainly isn't intended; I disagree with you but mean you no harm at all. I will delete the post now.

Okay conceded X does say there's NO good reason and clearly there are a few but reading X's post without the purely literal filters on and also in my own opinion the cons to leaving outweigh the pros. Of course if I was to skew my view of the world presume that the Brits were better than everybody else and for that reason should keep our lump of rock to ourselves then that would change everything. Besides all that, this is a public forum and no one should be banished to a "lesser" thread where cranially challenged dim-wits can belm at each other without upsetting their mentally superior counterparts. That last in sarcasm of course.

Oops... Seems there's editing to be done, standing by...

I wouldn't worry. Somewhere in there one of the sentences is 50% formed, that'll do

I was merely commenting on what had been posted; no more, no less. And as I've said, no-one I can think of is more tolerant to opposing views than I.

However, if people are getting upset to the point of genuine distress, because of me, then it's just not worth it. That's just not what I want to do, and it's not what I'm about.

As for this thread? Knock yourselves out guys, I think I'm done.

I have no intention of stirring up shit here, and I genuinely believe that the above statement is true, but you really need to work on how you go about expressing said tolerance online.

OK, I'll go for a walk and calm down. Metaphorically or otherwise.

Sorry Cavey - really, sorry - I genuinely don't dislike you at all, despite coming across as like that before. Life's too short for grudges. We are both similar in being a certain argumentative way, which has it's advantages and disadvantages, I guess.

Also, I realise my arguments in favour of EU membership aren't exactly watertight or objective, but just subjectively at the moment, it's doing my head in quite honestly, the anti-(im)migrant feelings around at the moment, drip-fed every day via the media, worrying more about an even more uncertain future. I've got very strong feelings about that. (And yes, I was pro-EU in a similar way years before I met my female life-partner, although I'm more 'personally invested' it in now of course, and agree that the EU is an organisation in need or a lot of reforms. I think the main case is that in the UK the pro-EU side hasn't been defensive or strong enough supporting the idea of the EU, but that's another kettle of piscines.)

Nice one Anon, genuinely. Very nice of you to post and much appreciated. As APoD quite rightly notes, I need to work on my flying anvil diplomacy but I absolutely mean no harm and abhor shit like this.

Let's allow the dust to settle then I'll put forward my ideas on this & we can discuss? Albeit I should point out, I'm still pro-EU myself, a bit of a Ken Clarke style One Nation Tory.

Have a good weekend.


Cavey

I don't think the UK does EU well as it seems we don't have the influence to fuck shit up enough to precipitate a withdrawal as it doesn't work nor do we have the skills or ambition to stick our heads down and work at it so we are running the show. Both options disappoint. I don't think we need policy makers in the there, we need gamblers and influencers to trade, barter and advance the Uk's interest. Whinging about stuff and stamping feet has gotten nowhere really, a new tack is needed. Brave decisions need to be made IN Europe to advance the UK out of Europe.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7967&hilit=+european

I still haven't had a reason to change my views since that thread.

Seems reasonable

In David Cameron we have a leader whose job is to quietly legitimise a semi-criminal, money-laundering economy.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... of-century

Having read the article I can't see any other way to interpret it?

(I appreciate the article's three years old, I just had my attention drawn to it.)

It was also laughably bad when written three years ago and was widely discredited at the time. That the writer had to enhance the article by using 'oblivia' and 'dirty oil' to make a point, rather than, say, 'facts' or 'truth', should say enough to the reader of moderate intelligence.

Indeed when it takes Robert Peston to frame your article in a coherent manner you should probably check you know what you're talking about. Mind you, its Monbiot so I don't know why I was even slightly surprised at the time.

Ahhh cheers, that's quite interesting then. As I was reading the article I did think it seemed wantonly vicious and anti-general population, even for the Tories.

Doubtless it's more stuff to go on Cavey's list of 'pure, unadulterated, hysterical nonsense' as befits an 'unthinking, morosely aggressive and above all frankly tiresome Labour and uber Socialist drone' such as myself

Without going into all my technical issues with the failings of how the article describes the legislation, the key point that monbiot almost certainly intentionally ignores (as opposed to not being aware of) is that it was legislation first proposed by Gordon brown, refined for introduction by darling, and passed by the Tories with more anti tax avoidance protections than the original contained.

So worse than pure unadulterated anti Tory hysteria. It is intentionally misleading.

That wouldn't surprise me, I'm no apologist for the travesty that was (and arguably still is) 'new Labour'.



Naughty George! I still like his articles in the main though, even if he was off-target with this one. And Polly Toynbee, she's good as well.

And not that the Tory press are averse to a bit of 'anti-anything a bit lefty' hysteria, of course

For the record, I'm as anti 'Intentionally misleading' for parties of any color regardless of my own allegiancies. I don't like any form of cheapening of the debate from whatever angle.

From the House of Commons, 21 November (Hansard link)



I don't even think he has even thought about what he is saying! Oh dear.

Record numbers of working families in poverty due to low-paid jobs | Society | The Guardian



Sure am glad we've had an economic recovery.

For me, it's the whole psychology of the thing that's the most interesting aspect here; why write, less still post, a piece that doesn't even withstand the most basic scrutiny; is intentionally misleading and as such, nothing more than piss-poor, rather embarrassing propaganda?

As you say then, far worse than mere anti-Tory hysteria. I mean, just how desperate does one have to be to carry on clinging to the dead, stinking corpse of a demonstrably failed ideology, even purposely trying to mislead and misinform others as well as yourself, rather than facing up to reality? What chance any such person bringing something constructive to this discussion and/or having an actual debate?

Of course, it's this latter point that I was (rather clumsily) trying to explain to Wookie before. I'm not necessarily trying to be 'elitist' when I say that I wish a few usual suspects would keep out of this thread, merely that these characters can simply never, ever be 'reprogrammed' by facts or argument, no matter how compelling or persuasive? They have their life-long held political narrative, mantra and beliefs, and that's that - period. The analogy I'd draw is that of die-hard football supporters or even a cult?

There are many left wing contributors here like Curio, Peter St John etc. who bring quality discussion and debate to the table, without resorting to misinformation, getting personal about whether X or Y have 'flounced' and/or accusing their opponent of 'pressing their buttons' (even when they're speaking to someone else entirely), and/or just plain old sputtering ire. Let's have a cerebral, quality political discussion for grownups.

There was a piece in The Telegraph the other week about this, (and of course The Torygraph is no left-wing thinktank ), saying how Osborne's going to miss all his deficit reduction targets, how most people don't feel in the slightest that the economy's recovered (hence the Tories continuing to struggle in the polls when they should be on an economic poll bounce), tax receipts are struggling because so many workers are on low-pay/zero hours and technically in poverty, there'll be nothing to offer tax cuts with etc.

An economic recovery is no such thing when it's just a few at the top making out like bandits, whilst everyone else has to make do with declining wages in real terms, terrible underemployment and zero job security, and taking any old shit they get offered.

When Pizza Hut are able to pick and choose from graduate job applicants, something's gone wrong.

Me too.
Still having one too, very much against the grain and in stark comparison to the Euro Zone and even the G7.

Cripes, even The Guardian thinks so.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/201 ... owth-slows



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29627831

So much, then, for the "austerity will be teh disaster for the UK and can never engender economic growth and/or a way out of the shit we were in" brigade, eh Doc?

(See also: pointing out, yet again, that a complete government or economy, in its absolute entirety, isn't perfect <> proving any point whatsoever, least of all something, you know, relevant to the discussion. _No_one_is_arguing_this_ )

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 11910.html

The contempt with which this government treats the disabled is beyond words. What sort of a vile, callous, lowlife absolute piece of fucking shit would you need to be to invent a scheme like that to save some money?

Working within government, I can almost guarantee you that policy itself probably isn't too bad, it's the civil servants who interpret it and either run it themselves or farm it out to shitty companies without doing any real due diligence, that are the problem. You have no idea quite how imbecilic a lot of them are.

Unfortunately, the civil servants stay the same regardless of the government they work under. Nothing will change there no matter how you vote.

Yeah, clearly the government intended to raise disability benefits but stupid civil servants done got it all backwards. No, I'd take some convincing that anyone in government really gives much of a shit about any effects of their "difficult decisions" beyond counting the beans and minimising losses due to malfunctioning and unviable economic units such as ill people.

That article does seem to be atos being cunts rather than the policy behind it.

Hiring a private company to do their dirty work doesn't absolve them of any responsibility at all. The government hired them, the buck tops there. There have been far too many well-publicised cases of intolerable cruelty doled out by this bunch of psychopaths.

Agreed. You want to hire a third party to administer the assessment process? Knock your socks off. You have an obligation, however, to provide oversight to ensure that those most vulnerable in society aren't made to suffer as a result. For a start this sort of thing should fall under the purview of the health ministry, not the DWP. If you tell ATOS they're doing a good job if claimant numbers and totals fall, what do you expect they're going to do?

Outsourcing requires reliable metrics to validate its effectiveness. If cost is the only metric, this shit happens. There needs to be a way of ensuring that the most vulnerable aren't out through hell to get the support they need.

My point was, the "government" didn't hire them. Civil servants hired them. Those civil servants don't change between elections.

While I take that point, someone at the ministerial level is seeing all the press about the fucking horrendous decisions ATOS are making, and taking no action. I have no issue with ATOS being hired, I have an issue with the lack of oversight.

Aye, that's a fair assessment.

I'm assuming you have seen yes minister? It's surprisingly accurate when it comes to who actually runs the show and makes the decisions. Short of sacking the individuals involved, the power the minister has over changing behaviour is shockingly low.

We have a guy at work who was given thousands in grants from the job centre to get him back to work, they paid for an Ipad, specialist chairs and other equipment to allow him to work at our place. I'm not 100% sure what his condition is but its like a very bad RSI.

So there does look to be some sensible schemes out there, as usual those who aren't in the know will be treated like shit by process monkeys who aren't qualified to asses a condition, its rather shocking that somebody with a illness like Parkinson's who would have to been signed off long term by a GP or specialist can now have this cancelled by a nurse.