Be Excellent To Each Other

And, you know, party on. Dude.

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Reply to topic  [ 1765 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 36  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: General Election 2015
PostPosted: Sun Mar 29, 2015 11:23 

Joined: 15th Nov, 2008
Posts: 484
http://news.sky.com/story/1454690/milib ... -poll-lead

^ Why Cameron didn't want to do the debate. Imagine if it had been head to head.

_________________
Bye.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: General Election 2015
PostPosted: Sun Mar 29, 2015 11:26 
User avatar

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 32618
Future Warrior wrote:
I used to think along these lines, until I realised that macroeconomics is just guesswork at best. Regression to the mean shows that the economy would have got better whoever was in power. I now discount it from my thinking.

The Planet Money episode "How do politications create jobs" is worth a listen. The tl;dr is: they don't, it just happens and they take as much credit as they can. At the most generous interpretation, the levers that politicians can pull at the macro scale of the economy are several orders of effect away from anything that creates or destroys a job. It's like trying to control congestion on the train network if all you can do is build or close down roads.

Quote:
We ask Princeton economist Orley Ashenfelter what he thinks when politicians say they created jobs.

Quote:
I usually laugh. ... When someone says that they are stating a fact: "While I was in office, employment increased by 150,000," or whatever it increased by. Whether or not you can attribute that to what they did is another, much more difficult question. ... And by the way, you don't often hear people say, "I destroyed 150 thousand jobs."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: General Election 2015
PostPosted: Sun Mar 29, 2015 11:26 
User avatar

Joined: 12th Apr, 2008
Posts: 17757
Location: Oxford
Right now, I don't know who I'll vote for. I don't want to spoil my paper in a general election (on the odd occasion when I've done that, I always draw a dinosaur), and as I live in a safe Tory seat it's pretty much peeing in the wind anyway, but I am still torn.

The Tories probably have the edge on the economy for me, but I can't forgive them for the dog's dinner of a reform that was the Health & Social Care Act (despite being quite relaxed about the use of private companies to provide care free at the point of use), and whilst Theresa May started well, she's finally gone batshit, as happens to all Home Secretaries.

Labour: I just can't see any credible leaders right now, and with the world situation far darker than it was five years ago, that's worrying prospect. I've also read somewhere that they want to seriously raise the cost of a gun licence, because only toffs want them.

Lib Dems: Unfairly criticised over tuition fees, but that was a completely avoidable own goal. Probably done better in government then we've given them credit for. Can't trust them on Europe.

Greens: Disagree with them on trade issues and genetically modified organisms.

UKIP: Only benefit of voting for them would be to force the Tories to hold the long-awaited referendum, but as they are not a single issue party and composed of nasty right-wing fruitcakes I can't support them.

I hate the idea of the student politicians of the SNP holding the balance of power, and I particularly don't trust them on defence or their obsession with spending. Also, don't play the outsider card when you're holding power yourself.

I think I'll vote Whig.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: General Election 2015
PostPosted: Sun Mar 29, 2015 12:02 
User avatar

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 32618
Kern wrote:
The Tories probably have the edge on the economy for me, but I can't forgive them for the dog's dinner of a reform that was the Health & Social Care Act (despite being quite relaxed about the use of private companies to provide care free at the point of use)
For me it's about this:

Quote:
What makes the NHS unique is not that it is free at the point of need - many other health systems are - but that it is planned on the basis of need. We have to have unprofitable services as well as those that can make people money. Once you get other providers involved it is about who can shout the loudest for their service. Once that planning goes and the risk is other areas of healthcare lose out.


Danielle, having extensive experience of the shitshow that is the US system, thinks we're mad to be fucking about with the NHS. In the US, private healthcare companies bill your insurer for your treatment. Those treatments costs are quite routinely 5x-10x of what we pay here; the inefficiencies of having a fragmented landscape of pricing plus lots of middlemen all adding their profit margins mean there's no funtioning free market (plus a litigious culture tends to over-treat everything.) Here, at least the NHS can negotiate very hard with suppliers to keep costs down. Suppose we move all the way to a system where the NHS acts as a tender house, buying in many services from commercial partners, but still free to the patient. It's not at all clear than the efficiencies people claim privatisation will bring will outweigh the inefficiencies the blight the US system.

Plus it keeps going wrong. Privatised hospitals that collapse, requiring the government to bail out the company (at more expense to the taxpayer.) Contracts worth hundreds of millions granted to firms that "have been heavily criticised... for providing poor quality of care in hospitals and care homes."

Reminds me of how Serco and G4S somehow keep getting contract after contract, despite fucking up everything they touch e.g. the Olympics and a £109m fine for overcharging the government. We're considering privatising the part of the social services that decides to take children away from their parents to those firms, BTW, after ATOS did such a bang-up job of assessing fit-to-work claims that the government shut the contract down early. Oh, and don't forget we undervalued the Post Office by hundreds of millions when selling it off. I won't get started on the railways, beyond noting that the East Coast line was privatised, collapsed, was nationalised, ran at a profit as customer satisfaction soared, and has now been sold off again.

Seems to me there's two debates to be had: an ideological one about the size of the state and how many of the state's services should be privatised (there are two sides here), and a pragmatic one about whether either the Tory or Labour party are capable of privatising things without fucking it up (I don't see how anyone can argue that privatisation has a great track record of success.)

Many privatised services are like the banks: too big to fail. Companies can pitch low bids and gamble, knowing that if they fail the government will be forced to step in anyway because you can't have true market competition on running a monopoly resource like a hospital or a train line. People have to see doctors and have to get to work, so the facilities have to run. If you can't introduce actual competition -- if you can't force a new entrant to build new train lines or build new hospitals -- then you don't have a functioning market, you have a state-authorised regional monopoly. If you have a monopoly, you don't have any of the benefits of free-market capitalisation, just the costs.

Capitalism cannot survive when entities become too big to fail, because letting weak companies fail is one of the vital balances in capitalism.

Quote:
and whilst Theresa May started well, she's finally gone batshit, as happens to all Home Secretaries.
Scared the shit out of me when Cameron mooted the possible future leaders of the Tory party when he steps down: Boris Johnson (a nasty piece of work cloaked behind buffoonery), May (who's as you say seems to be batshit), or Osborne. I mean, Osborne is probably the lesser of those evils, and that's saying something.

Quote:
Lib Dems: Unfairly criticised over tuition fees, but that was a completely avoidable own goal. Probably done better in government then we've given them credit for. Can't trust them on Europe.
What most angered me (as a previous LibDem voter) wasn't tuition fees, where they betrayed an election promise; I could put that down to the pragmatic demands of being in coalition government. For me the low point was the vote on judicial review, where they betrayed a founding principle of the entire party.

Quote:
But last night the party sold out whatever remaining principles it had after four years in office. There can be no excuse for what it did yesterday evening.

It was a debate on judicial review. Judicial review sounds boring but it is one of the most democratic legal mechanisms available to the British citizen. It allows us to challenge illegal government decisions, to fight government irrationality and to challenge the decisions made by authorities. In the words of one peer, it is "the British defence of freedom" and the means by which we avoid "elected dictatorship".

Chris Grayling has lost several judicial review cases this year, for the simple reason that he keeps acting illegally and irrationally. So he has decided to try and eradicate it. That's not what it's called, of course. It’s called 'reform'. But his reform will make it impossible for anyone but the very rich to use it.

The Lords fought back and voted down several of the bill's measures. Last night the criminal justice and courts bill returned to the Commons.
...
Apart from Sarah Teather, who has shown herself to be the beating heart of the Liberal Democrat soul this parliament and is consequently leaving it at the earliest opportunity, no other Lib Dem MP rebelled.

No-one else. Of all the Lib Dem MPs who liked to get on their soap box about liberalism, or how they are the only party which still believes in civil liberties, or which opposed the authoritarian tendencies of Labour – no-one apart from Teather had the courage of their convictions.


(I could write at length about the farcical number of times that Grayling has had his arse handed to him by our judiciary, but this post is long enough.)

Quote:
Greens: Disagree with them on trade issues and genetically modified organisms.
I also object to their nuclear policy. We need more nuclear, not less, if we're going to start cutting carbon emissions.

Quote:
UKIP: Only benefit of voting for them would be to force the Tories to hold the long-awaited referendum, but as they are not a single issue party and composed of nasty right-wing fruitcakes I can't support them.
Also marginally increases the risk that we end up in a Tory-UKIP coalition, which I think is a worst case scenario for the country.

Quote:
I hate the idea of the student politicians of the SNP holding the balance of power
Better Together. If one campaigns to keep Scotland in the Union -- and all our parties did, hard -- and if one also campaigned to keep first-past-the-post in place -- which, again, all our party leaders did during the AV referendum -- one cannot complain when it turns out the SNP might hold the balance of power in a hung parliament. The phrase "hoist by one's own petard" comes to mind.

Quote:
Also, don't play the outsider card when you're holding power yourself.
I find that particularly odious of UKIP. Farage is a millionare ex-banker nob. Roger Helmer, one of their MEPs, is constantly playing the anti-establishment card, despite having been a Tory MP for 20-odd years. They're about as establishment as it comes.

Quote:
I think I'll vote Whig.
SGTM. I'll join you.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: General Election 2015
PostPosted: Sun Mar 29, 2015 12:28 
User avatar

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 32618
Lords accuse Tories of ‘burying’ review that cleared EU of interference | World news | The Guardian

Quote:
In a hugely damaging move for the government, the European Union Committee of the House of Lords, chaired by former Tory minister Lord Boswell, comes close to saying that ministers tried to cover up the findings, which do not support David Cameron’s claims that the EU is “becoming a state” and has already accrued excessive powers.

By contrast, the so-called “balance of competences” review – hailed by William Hague in 2012 as the “most extensive analysis of the impact of UK membership of the EU ever undertaken” – found no area with a case for transferring powers back from Brussels.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: General Election 2015
PostPosted: Sun Mar 29, 2015 13:50 
User avatar

Joined: 23rd Nov, 2008
Posts: 9521
Location: The Golden Country
Quote:
Well, either decide if you care more about NHS+welfare or the economy, and use that to pick Tory or Labour.


Seriously - and I'm genuinely sorry to say it, as I've enjoyed our science chats in the past - what utter two-dimensional, simplistic garbage you talk, Doc.

Look, I'm certainly not presenting myself as any kind of gold standard or anything even remotely approaching it; by my own cheerful admission I frequently come acoss as a bit of a knob, I tend to get over excited and make an arse of myself on occasion. But you? You like to present yourself as some smug, chin-stroking intellectual of the forum, which I've no doubt is actually justified if we're talking about matters of science, mathematics, IT and engineering - but politics...?

Sorry to say it but the number of discussions you've (IMO) derailed with your posting of stuff that isn't relevant, isn't even disputed and/or is entirely patronising ("here's a pie chart showing poor people are suffering" in response to quite a nuanced discussion about political culpability re. the financial crisis... really?)

This latest little gem: choose Labour if you give a shit about the NHS and welfare, the implication being that Tory voters couldn't care less about these things? Has it not occurred to you that actually, without a successful economy, neither the NHS or welfare can move forwards, so it's surely a case of prioritising that first and foremost - "it's the economy, stupid"...?

Hey, here are some "empirical wotsits" for you (you'll recognise that turn of phrase, no doubt ;) ), and guess what - I've even included a graph just for you, and it's actually relevant to this discussion!

I found this article just now by typing in "NHS satisfaction survey" into Google; took all of 5 seconds. Go me!

https://fullfact.org/public-satisfactio ... y-happier/

Quote:
New data published today from NatCen’s British Social Attitudes (BSA) survey reveals an increase in satisfaction with the NHS – up to 65% from 60% in 2013. At the same time, dissatisfaction is at its lowest level since the survey began 30 years ago, at just 15%.

This might seem counter-intuitive; if you’ve read a newspaper in recent weeks, with the pressure on A&E services over the winter a recurrent theme, you might find it hard to believe that people are more satisfied with the NHS than in the past. So it’s interesting to think about what might be driving this change.

The facts
Two thirds of the public (65%) said they were quite or very satisfied with the NHS. This is the second-highest NHS satisfaction level recorded on the BSA, five points lower than a record level of satisfaction in 2010 and higher than all other readings since the coalition government took power. And it is far higher than the satisfaction levels recorded during the 1990s and early noughties.


Ooh, that doesn't quite fit into this grievance-hunting, "fuck teh Tories" zeitgeist, hmmm? What have we here, NHS satisfaction levels at their second highest ever, and dissatisfaction at their lowest ever levels? (including, I might add, halving what they were in 2004).

Inconvenient facts, eh Doc? Perhaps those "evil" health reforms ain't so bad afterall..? A bit like those rather more inconvenient key facts like an economy that's growing fastest in the western world, 2 million jobs created since 2010, inflation and interest rates at rock bottom, deficit coming down, unemployment plummeting to 5%, FTSE riding high... not so much an elephant in the room, as an entire herd of 'em?

Genuinely, I'd hate to be on your side of the fence, I really would, as being proved wrong about stuff, time and again, would really brass me off.


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

_________________
Beware of gavia articulata oculos...

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: General Election 2015
PostPosted: Sun Mar 29, 2015 13:54 
User avatar

Joined: 23rd Nov, 2008
Posts: 9521
Location: The Golden Country
Awesome post EBG, thank you for your kind words and even moreso for your insightful, intelligent analysis which is like a fleetingly wonderful breath of beautiful, fresh air in a stinking, wretched, fetid bog. :luv:

I sincerely hope you can keep motivated to continue to contribute, I really do. For the sake of my own sanity for one.

_________________
Beware of gavia articulata oculos...

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: General Election 2015
PostPosted: Sun Mar 29, 2015 14:02 
User avatar

Joined: 23rd Nov, 2008
Posts: 9521
Location: The Golden Country
Quote:
It's not that simple though, they are all inextricably linked. You can't pay for a good NHS and welfare system without a strong economy to fund it.


Exactly so; see my linked info to Gaywood as well.

You're a clever guy, Trooper; unlike some, you've seen plenty of life, you have a senior management role so you know a thing or two about people, the world, and what makes everything work. You don't need to be lectured by the likes of me as regards everything follows a properly functioning, growing and performing economy.

Imagine you're interviewing two people for an absolutely critical CEO role. You have only these two people; not choosing either of them isn't an option.

One of them comes across as a nice guy, the kind of unassuming, well-meaning bloke that you'd happily have a pint with. However, looking over his record, you see that everywhere he's worked has gone catastrophically badly, and his response during interview was to candidly admit to terrible errors of judgement with appalling consequences - but that he, and the very same team of people he was proposing to appoint - had "learned their lesson", even though his fundamental mind-set and beliefs had not actually changed one iota.

The other guy comes across as a bit arrogant and cocksure, not really your cup of tea - but he's got an amazing track record of indisputable, empirical success (albeit hard won, upsetting a lot of people and with casualties along the way).

Who do you choose?

_________________
Beware of gavia articulata oculos...

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: General Election 2015
PostPosted: Sun Mar 29, 2015 14:12 
User avatar

Joined: 23rd Nov, 2008
Posts: 9521
Location: The Golden Country
Saturnalian wrote:
The Tories have fucked over the common workers access to the employment tribunals with a frankly disgusting introduction of tribunal fees and an increase of a further year before you can claim unfair dismissal (seriously? You've got to wait 2 years to get basic rights?)

So if your employer doesn't like the look of your face and sacks you for no reason such that you have to use the food banks, you won't be able to defend your rights cause you won't have any spare cash to pay £1,000 just to have your case heard.

Fuck the Tories.


Right, so never mind Labour were directly responsible by their own admission for the biggest economic catastrophe to ever befall this country, and all the abject misery and impoverishment that it entailed and continues to entail (not to mention bare-faced lying and deception leading to a catastrophic war killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people, all the tens and hundreds of billions spent on it and a whole host of unbelievably mismanaged public contracts) - but hey, those basturt Tories, they've been tinkering with employment tribunal procedures...

Perhaps they thought our bombed-out economy could not withstand the increasing number of default-option, no-risk, frivolous unfair dismissal claims, if we were to encourage employers to take people off the dole.

_________________
Beware of gavia articulata oculos...

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: General Election 2015
PostPosted: Sun Mar 29, 2015 14:16 
User avatar

Joined: 23rd Nov, 2008
Posts: 9521
Location: The Golden Country
Mr Kissyfur wrote:
Slashing legal aid access has also made it a lot easier to fuck over the little guy, believe you me.


It's called having priorities.
Given a starkly finite pot of money to play with, I suppose the Tories decided they'd rather pay nurses, doctors, policemen and teachers, than lawyers.

_________________
Beware of gavia articulata oculos...

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: General Election 2015
PostPosted: Sun Mar 29, 2015 14:30 
User avatar

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 32618
Regretfully, curiously got the better of me, so I logged out of the thread and had a look. Could the mods please tell Cavey and EBG to knock off the stream of personal abuse directed at me; I can't counter because I don't read it, and if I were reading it, it would still be needlessly unpleasant and as far as I can see entirely one-sided. I haven't written any personal attacks on either of them.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: General Election 2015
PostPosted: Sun Mar 29, 2015 14:45 
User avatar

Joined: 23rd Nov, 2008
Posts: 9521
Location: The Golden Country
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Regretfully, curiously got the better of me, so I logged out of the thread and had a look. Could the mods please tell Cavey and EBG to knock off the stream of personal abuse directed at me; I can't counter because I don't read it, and if I were reading it it is needlessly unpleasant and as far as I can see entirely one-sided. I haven't written any personal attacks on either of them.


I am not purposely abusing you at all (and in fact I've been quite complimentary). Many is the time that you have posted provocative stuff about things I have said (including just yesterday with your unprovoked "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" post when I'd said nothing at all to you), not so much the views themselves which are entirely fair enough, but the use of patronising language and all the rest.

I'll save the mods here the trouble though, I've said what I've wanted to say (so thanks for this opportunity) and have no wish for any unpleasantness, so just delete the account/posts as you see fit. I'm done.

_________________
Beware of gavia articulata oculos...

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: General Election 2015
PostPosted: Sun Mar 29, 2015 14:53 
User avatar
Legendary Boogeyman

Joined: 22nd Dec, 2010
Posts: 8175
Cavey wrote:
Awesome post EBG, thank you for your kind words and even moreso for your insightful, intelligent analysis which is like a fleetingly wonderful breath of beautiful, fresh air in a stinking, wretched, fetid bog. :luv:

I sincerely hope you can keep motivated to continue to contribute, I really do. For the sake of my own sanity for one.

Hahaha, thanks chap, and there I was thinking my post was invisible. :kiss:

Aside from yourself I am only particularly interested to know what Kern thinks, as he more than anyone actually approaches things logically and with some thought. I don't actually disagree with any of his points in the previous post. Everyone has their pros and cons, and the assessment is fair. There are certainly some barmy Tories with funny ideas; Gove shouldn't have been trusted with so much as a carrot during the last term.

But given the options my support isn't remotely in question. Ironically I might end up voting Labour in Scotland purely to take support away from the SNP who would otherwise try to defy the democratic will of the United Kingdom by voting down a minority Tory government's Queen Speech, purely for their own small-minded political ends. Truly, they are the worse of the ideological mentalists and I regard anyone who supports them to be either profoundly ignorant or simply a dyed-in-the-wool parochial tribal tosser.

Second place mental goes to the Greens who, among other policies, believe that women shouldn't be put in prison at all because they have "particular vulnerabilities and domestic and childcare commitments" (Source). Natalie Bennett recently did an AMA on reddit, and her response to these completely sexist elements of her party's manifesto were downvoted to oblivion - which is funny as reddit is largely pro-left and most of the comments were to the tune of 'I support the Greens but this is sexist and stupid'. Turns out these bits of the policy were unduly influenced by the feminist wing, Green Party Women. Men obviously have no vulnerabilities that need be considered, etc.

I don't support giving prisoners the vote either. We've fought tooth and nail in defiance of the EU to retain that sovereign right to decide that for ourselves. At least Lib Dem policies are somewhat grounded in reality, whereas the Greens are just a smorgasbord of unrealistic, impractical bullshit designed to appease various aspects of different left-wing groups.

So yes, vote ideologically for the small party that will never achieve real power and will never be able to enact their head-in-cloud policies if they ever did, because pesky reality would get in the way. At least the Tories and Labour have some experience of government, which does dampen their electoral promises at least a little, because they don't have the luxury of being completely unrealistic.

UKIP have played their part by forcing the Tories to respond, and we'll get a referendum in 2017 to put the EU question to bed. If Cameron thinks he's got a shot at negotiating favourably for the UK in a reformed EU then I'm happy to give him a shot. If he fails miserably it will make the referendum even more critical. Labour are utterly terrified of the EU and nothing would compel them to give the people their say on the matter. Ed's response to Paxman that 'We have other things to worry about, it's not a priority', just shows how utterly out of touch he is. Just a few more votes for A N Other.

_________________
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: General Election 2015
PostPosted: Sun Mar 29, 2015 14:55 
User avatar
Legendary Boogeyman

Joined: 22nd Dec, 2010
Posts: 8175
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Could the mods please tell Cavey and EBG to knock off the stream of personal abuse directed at me

Well if you could knock off the countenance of being a smug twat, then truly I would not have to tell you that's what I think of you.

"I've just read it, but I can't counter it, because I can't read it."

'Stream of personal abuse' indeed - get a grip.

_________________
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: General Election 2015
PostPosted: Sun Mar 29, 2015 17:26 
User avatar
UltraMod

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 55715
Location: California
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Regretfully, curiously got the better of me, so I logged out of the thread and had a look. Could the mods please tell Cavey and EBG to knock off the stream of personal abuse directed at me; I can't counter because I don't read it, and if I were reading it, it would still be needlessly unpleasant and as far as I can see entirely one-sided. I haven't written any personal attacks on either of them.

That's really quite sad. I don't see any of the bullshit they post either, but persistent personal attacks against someone who's not even responding to you? These people need to step away from their keyboards and reevaluate their lives.

_________________
I am currently under construction.
Thank you for your patience.


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: General Election 2015
PostPosted: Sun Mar 29, 2015 17:30 
User avatar
Hello Hello Hello

Joined: 11th May, 2008
Posts: 13381
We need some sort of ignore master list so everyone can work out who it's pointless trying to talk to.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: General Election 2015
PostPosted: Sun Mar 29, 2015 17:30 

Joined: 15th Nov, 2008
Posts: 484
Cavey wrote:
Quote:

The facts
Two thirds of the public (65%) said they were quite or very satisfied with the NHS. This is the second-highest NHS satisfaction level recorded on the BSA, five points lower than a record level of satisfaction in 2010 and higher than all other readings since the coalition government took power. And it is far higher than the satisfaction levels recorded during the 1990s and early noughties.


Ooh, that doesn't quite fit into this grievance-hunting, "fuck teh Tories" zeitgeist, hmmm? What have we here, NHS satisfaction levels at their second highest ever, and dissatisfaction at their lowest ever levels? (including, I might add, halving what they were in 2004).

Inconvenient facts, eh Doc? Perhaps those "evil" health reforms ain't so bad afterall..? A bit like those rather more key facts about an economy that's growing fastest in the western world, 2 million jobs created since 2010, inflation and interest rates at rock bottom, deficit coming down, unemployment plummeting to 5%, FTSE riding high... not so much an elephant in the room, as an entire herd of 'em.

Genuinely, I'd hate to be on your side of the fence, I really would, as being proved wrong about stuff, time and again, would really brass me off.



2 million part time, zero hour or self employed jobs. Have to be subsidised by the tax payer because they dont pay enough to live on.

Inflation at zero is actually worrying economists, its not a sign of a healthy economy. Most of that is down to the oil price crash, also a worrying sign of the state of the global economy

Interest rates at rock bottom is also not a great indicator. Interest rates actually were cut to 0.5% in March 2009, a year before the Coalition. The fact its stayed at that level is because of a flatlining economy.

Deficit was supposed to be eliminated, Osborne only managed to get it down by just over 1/3, which is what Labour promised to do in 2010.

Unemployment isnt 5%. Its 5.7%. Add the 1 million people sanctioned last year to that figure to get the real figure. Then add anyone else in who hasnt got a job but doesnt count in the figures like 16-18 year olds, carers etc.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united- ... yment-rate

FTSE riding high, yes, it was this high just before the Dot com crash in 1999. What goes up, must come down, and it will. Reason it is so high, see interest rates being so low that people buy shares to hopefully get an income from dividends and profit taking from upward share price movements.

Your facts are facts you read about but dont delve a little deeper. Go watch that first Dispatches, which shows the sanctions imposed on a pregnant mother and the disabled father of two. Go on. It's only there for 3 more days.

You'll learn more watching that for 27 minutes than 27 minutes reading the Daily Mail.

_________________
Bye.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: General Election 2015
PostPosted: Sun Mar 29, 2015 17:45 
User avatar
Bad Girl

Joined: 20th Apr, 2008
Posts: 14353
Cavey wrote:
Saturnalian wrote:
The Tories have fucked over the common workers access to the employment tribunals with a frankly disgusting introduction of tribunal fees and an increase of a further year before you can claim unfair dismissal (seriously? You've got to wait 2 years to get basic rights?)

So if your employer doesn't like the look of your face and sacks you for no reason such that you have to use the food banks, you won't be able to defend your rights cause you won't have any spare cash to pay £1,000 just to have your case heard.

Fuck the Tories.


Perhaps they thought our bombed-out economy could not withstand the increasing number of default-option, no-risk, frivolous unfair dismissal claims, if we were to encourage employers to take people off the dole.


increasing number? Where have you got that from - the Daily Mail. The statistics speak for themselves that the introduction of tribunal fees*, reduction of legal aid, amendments from the Enterprise Act and so on and so forth have had a catastrophic impact on access to justice. But so what if the "hard working family**" has been priced out of justice, aye? So what if the "hard working family" can't afford basic rights? Least the rich will still be able to afford it. That's the kind of society I want to live in.

Seriously: Fuck. The. Tories.

*http://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/index/pressoffice/press_index/press_20140727.htm

**http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/meet-the-hardestworking-family-in-british-politics-8422961.html?action=gallery


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: General Election 2015
PostPosted: Sun Mar 29, 2015 18:01 
User avatar

Joined: 23rd Nov, 2008
Posts: 9521
Location: The Golden Country
Cobracure wrote:
You'll learn more watching that for 27 minutes than 27 minutes reading the Daily Mail.


What, and you actually expect me to answer? Hot on the heels of your earlier provocations about Downton Abbey, me and my "well fed" world view, my being compassionate is a myth and all the rest, in pretty much every unasked for, unwanted and entirely unhelpful, "I've seen it on the telly so it must be true" response to more or less every one of my own posts that you tiresomely make? I'm seriously fascinated - and for once, would actually appreciate your response on this? Amazing.

I get "the abuse card" played on me, but hey, it's okay for others, including you, to in effect, accuse me of not giving a damn about people who have to use foodbanks (despite the fact that, quite possibly uniquely among this forum or at least part of only a small percentage of it, I personally help and buy for the foodbank here every single week), not giving a hoot about the NHS, my intelligence overtly offended with "aircraft fuel not melting steel beams" comments (entirely unsolicited), and now that old favorite: Daily Mail jibes yet again? [Edit: see also above - true to form though, no attempt made to actually address the substantive element of my post]

I have posted admittedly robust political comments, up to and including in response to others' equally robust comments - in a general election thread one month before the election itself that no-one has to read (especially since there are specific "whole thread ignore" options as I understand it, among other ignore functions that apparently are even in use).

It's all just so absurd. I, like pretty much everyone else here, simply want the best outcome for all the people of this country; my views are just as genuine and earnest as anyone else's. Yes, the methodology might well differ, but the good intentions/goodwill are precisely the same; I have, to my mind at least, expended reasonable effort and have presented interesting information as part of what I've said (which has naturally gone entirely unchallenged and uncommented on of course; just a bunch of sardonic, facetious shite, overt baiting and personal insults in lieu. "Play the man, not the ball", right Beex?)

It seems pretty clear that unless one subscribes to the ultra left leaning consensus around here, Beex is most certainly a political discussion free zone (let alone political debate), which is very sad considering the fine legacy this forum had for lively debates over the years - and WoS before it. (Even Stu, who is about as left-leaning and uncompromising as it gets, didn't have a problem with such debate, in fact actually encouraged it).

Well, so be it. Enjoy your unpleasant little echo chamber.

_________________
Beware of gavia articulata oculos...

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: General Election 2015
PostPosted: Sun Mar 29, 2015 18:02 
User avatar
Legendary Boogeyman

Joined: 22nd Dec, 2010
Posts: 8175
Future Warrior wrote:
That's really quite sad. I don't see any of the bullshit they post either, but persistent personal attacks against someone who's not even responding to you? These people need to step away from their keyboards and reevaluate their lives.

Well if that doesn't take the cake. Someone who hasn't read the posts, taking the misleading characterisation of someone who also says he can't read the posts, in order to cast a judgement while completely lacking any of the facts required for such a statement.

If this is what we're up against Cavey, I think we're going to be able to struggle on.

_________________
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: General Election 2015
PostPosted: Sun Mar 29, 2015 18:04 
User avatar

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 32618
Saturnalian wrote:
The statistics speak for themselves that the introduction of tribunal fees*, reduction of legal aid, amendments from the Enterprise Act and so on and so forth have had a catastrophic impact on access to justice.

It also didn't work. The House of Commons public accounts committee issued a [url=http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmpubacc/808/808.pdf]report[/ur] in January which said:

Quote:
Almost two years after the reforms, the Ministry is still playing catch up: it does not know if those still eligible are able to access legal aid; and it does not understand the link between the price it pays for legal aid and the quality of advice being given. Perhaps most worryingly of all, it does not understand, and has shown little interest in, the knock-on costs of its reforms across the public sector.


There's a good summary here, which not only supports your point -- that access to justice has been severely compromised -- but also this:

Quote:
7. The MoJ did not know whether the reduction in spending on civil legal aid was ‘outweighed by additional costs in other parts of the public sector as a result of the reforms’.


In other words, if you give people legal aid, they come into court prepared with a professional solicitor and things proceed well. If you cut legal aid, they represent themselves, they don't have the right paperwork, they don't understand they jargon; trials are delayed, mistrials are more common, and horrorshow stuff like this happens: "a man who was just over the financial threshold for legal aid, and so representing himself, would be forced to cross-examine a teenager he had allegedly sexually abused."

There is every chance that the reduction in efficiency to the courts has cost more than the cuts to legal aid saved. I say "every chance" because the MoJ hasn't produced any figures; either it does not know (which is itself damning) or the figures are not favourable.

So: less justice for no money saved, then.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: General Election 2015
PostPosted: Sun Mar 29, 2015 18:05 
User avatar
Legendary Boogeyman

Joined: 22nd Dec, 2010
Posts: 8175
Cavey wrote:
Enjoy your little echo chamber.

It's the lefty-SJW standard of casting broad aspersions on people who they accuse of casting broad aspersions on others. The super-mega-ear-popping irony is lost on them entirely.

_________________
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: General Election 2015
PostPosted: Sun Mar 29, 2015 19:32 
SupaMod
User avatar
Est. 1978

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 69502
Location: Your Mum
If everyone could go back to talking about UK politics rather than about each other, that would be great, thanks.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: General Election 2015
PostPosted: Sun Mar 29, 2015 23:55 

Joined: 15th Nov, 2008
Posts: 484
Rather than watch a 27 minute Ch4 Documentary and have his paper thin view of the real world challenged Cavey decided to flounce, maybe he did watch it and found it too hard to defend. That poor pregnant girl in the docu now has a permanent facial disfigurement for life from the stress the DWP put her through.

I'd love anyone to try and argue she deserved that.

For those not up to speed, being sanctioned means you have zero money for 4 weeks, 2nd time round its 3 months, and 3rd is 3 YEARS.

You'll notice I wasn't even rude to him, I dont hate Cavey, if he really does take food to food banks good for him, his heart is in the right place but politics can be bruising.

Tories haven't won a General Election since 1992, and if they keep behaving with such utter disdain and cruelty, I cant see them winning ever again.

_________________
Bye.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: General Election 2015
PostPosted: Mon Mar 30, 2015 0:03 
User avatar
Legendary Boogeyman

Joined: 22nd Dec, 2010
Posts: 8175
If you think pulling out a single example of an individual suffering during a parliamentary term is sufficient to denounce the entire government then that's an incredibly short-sighted view. It would be a low hurdle to find a story of someone, or tens of thousands of someones suffering as a direct or indirect result of shitty Labour policy between 1997 and 2010.

As for the future, we'll see. The level of dilution that we're seeing from historical majority party support will lead to 3-4 mid-sized party coalitions, given enough time. You'll miss the days when legislation could actually get through parliament and not be road blocked by a single partner.

_________________
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: General Election 2015
PostPosted: Mon Mar 30, 2015 0:13 

Joined: 15th Nov, 2008
Posts: 484
Watch the programme. It had 3 individuals. It was 27 minutes long, you want more, there are 1000s, and 1 MILLION sanctioned last year.

Thats no money for 1 month. Good luck explaining that to your landlord.


I'd say watch the 2nd programme but if you wont watch the first, there is no point is there.

_________________
Bye.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: General Election 2015
PostPosted: Mon Mar 30, 2015 8:06 
User avatar
INFINITE POWAH

Joined: 1st Apr, 2008
Posts: 30498
Cavey wrote:
Mr Kissyfur wrote:
Slashing legal aid access has also made it a lot easier to fuck over the little guy, believe you me.


It's called having priorities.
Given a starkly finite pot of money to play with, I suppose the Tories decided they'd rather pay nurses, doctors, policemen and teachers, than lawyers.

It's not about paying lawyers (and legal aid work for civil matters pays very little indeed, which is why few enough lawyers would do it anyway), it's about individuals' access to our justice system. It has made it immeasurably easier for companies to fuck over individuals (such as teachers, nurses and policemen). I mean come on, cavey, you know who gets affected by this, and it's widespread.

The rise in litigants in person is also hugely clogging up the courts, at great delay and expense to the taxpayer. A good number of judges are packing it all in as a result. There were easier ways to save money.

Edit - turns out Saturnalian and docg gave already covered this, better than I have.

_________________
http://www.thehomeofawesome.com/
Eagles soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: General Election 2015
PostPosted: Tue Mar 31, 2015 9:35 
User avatar

Joined: 23rd Nov, 2008
Posts: 9521
Location: The Golden Country
@Mr Chris

I wasn't going to bother with this any further frankly, but in your case I'll make an exception old bean. :)

Look, I was saying what I thought the Tories' thought process on this was (in a sentence or two), not necessarily that I agree with it, and most certainly not that I personally think its a grand old outcome (see also posts on employee rights, catastrophically misread and misinterpreted as per).

That said, I'm sure I don't need to point out to you that, given the economic earthquake this country suffered, there was always going to be a terrible squeeze on public resources as an unavoidable aftermath, and thus terrible casualties too - whoever was haplessly left in charge of it all and holding the baby.

Me? I just wanted to talk about Ed Miliband's (to my mind) quite incredible revelations and candid admissions of his own, and his party's liabilities, but sadly no-one else did and we just ended up with the usual generic 'fuk the Tories', derails and what a heartless twat I must be personally etc. etc. Yet again, people failing to blame those actually responsible for the crash upon which all the other shit follows on from, even when self confessed? It's all quite weird.

For the avoidance of doubt, I do not rejoice at the thought of no doubt many 'ordinary people' (to coin an awful phrase) not have their due access to justice, just as I hate the prospect of people who've been 2 years in a job having no recourse to argue their case for unfair dismissal, without committing to major expenditure which they doubtless do not have in many cases. I'm sure you appreciate this.

However, as I've said, if people are looking for something to blame for these contractions in public expenditure, then they need look no further than those who made the catastrophic errors of judgement, policy, regulation (or lack thereof) and governance that lead to the near collapse of our entire economy in the first place, and all the terrible fall out, increased debt, unemployment and deprivations like these that followed, as a direct result.

Now, truly the last word from me regarding politics on this forum, but I will say I've always enjoyed our chats over the years, chap, as you know of course. Take care.

_________________
Beware of gavia articulata oculos...

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: General Election 2015
PostPosted: Wed Apr 01, 2015 2:53 

Joined: 15th Nov, 2008
Posts: 484
http://www.itv.com/news/2015-03-31/podi ... rs-debate/

I think this 7 leader debate will be a mess with each wanting more than that their 10 minute share.

But we'll see.

Only format David Cameron agreed upon so he better make a decent show of it.

I cant vote for 2 of the parties so they are irrelevant to me, but will be of interest to the Welsh and the Scottish. :attitude:

_________________
Bye.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: General Election 2015
PostPosted: Wed Apr 01, 2015 8:49 
User avatar

Joined: 12th Apr, 2008
Posts: 17757
Location: Oxford
Rumours are circulating that the SNP might work with UKIP on an 'independence for you, independence for me' platform. Sturgeon has, after all, only ruled out propping up the Tories.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: General Election 2015
PostPosted: Wed Apr 01, 2015 9:14 
User avatar
Kinda Funny Lookin'

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 3266
Location: Sheffield or Baku
Cobracure wrote:
http://www.itv.com/news/2015-03-31/podiums-potential-dramas-and-catchphrases-behind-the-scenes-at-the-itv-leaders-debate/

I think this 7 leader debate will be a mess with each wanting more than that their 10 minute share.


Steel Cage Match

_________________
If work was so rewarding the rich would have bought it all.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: General Election 2015
PostPosted: Wed Apr 01, 2015 11:00 
User avatar

Joined: 12th Apr, 2008
Posts: 17757
Location: Oxford
They should use 'Just a Minute' rules, with Nicolas Parsons as host.

To be honest, I don't know if I want to watch it or not. I cna just foresee the minor parties ganging up on Cameron and Miliband without their own policies facing the same kind of scrutiny (I'd love to hear the SNP's take on how to handle Russia, for instance). But then, silly me for thinking that a debate should be about an exchange of ideas rather than pithy catchphrases. We shall see.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: General Election 2015
PostPosted: Wed Apr 01, 2015 11:01 
User avatar

Joined: 12th Apr, 2008
Posts: 17757
Location: Oxford
Also, it's amusing that us English speakers refer to Plaid Cymru as simply 'Party'.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: General Election 2015
PostPosted: Wed Apr 01, 2015 11:06 
User avatar
Gogmagog

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 48607
Location: Cheshire
Kern wrote:
Also, it's amusing that us English speakers refer to Plaid Cymru as simply 'Party'.


We were at a wedding in North Wales and we're standing by the bar. My mate pointed to the Brain's beer slogan ("We put the ale in Wales") and remarked that ale might be "ymru" in Welsh. the barman overheard us and we got really shitty service for the rest of the evening.

Even the people in the shops treated us poorly.

North Wales: Funny coves

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: General Election 2015
PostPosted: Wed Apr 01, 2015 11:10 
User avatar
Gogmagog

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 48607
Location: Cheshire
Kern wrote:
They should use 'Just a Minute' rules, with Nicolas Parsons as host.

To be honest, I don't know if I want to watch it or not. I cna just foresee the minor parties ganging up on Cameron and Miliband without their own policies facing the same kind of scrutiny (I'd love to hear the SNP's take on how to handle Russia, for instance). But then, silly me for thinking that a debate should be about an exchange of ideas rather than pithy catchphrases. We shall see.


I agree with Kern.

Regional tv should do regional parties.

National TV should do the big 3.

And the Lib Dems.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: General Election 2015
PostPosted: Wed Apr 01, 2015 11:13 
User avatar

Joined: 12th Apr, 2008
Posts: 17757
Location: Oxford
MaliA wrote:
Kern wrote:
Also, it's amusing that us English speakers refer to Plaid Cymru as simply 'Party'.


We were at a wedding in North Wales and we're standing by the bar. My mate pointed to the Brain's beer slogan ("We put the ale in Wales") and remarked that ale might be "ymru" in Welsh. the barman overheard us and we got really shitty service for the rest of the evening.


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: General Election 2015
PostPosted: Wed Apr 01, 2015 11:18 
User avatar

Joined: 12th Apr, 2008
Posts: 17757
Location: Oxford
MaliA wrote:
Regional tv should do regional parties.


It's useful to a voter to know how the minor parties might behave in a hung parliament, which promises are sacrosanct and which are up for negotiation (although they'd never fully declare their hand like that). Doubt very much that would be on the agenda though.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: General Election 2015
PostPosted: Wed Apr 01, 2015 11:18 
User avatar
Gogmagog

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 48607
Location: Cheshire
Kern wrote:
MaliA wrote:
Kern wrote:
Also, it's amusing that us English speakers refer to Plaid Cymru as simply 'Party'.


We were at a wedding in North Wales and we're standing by the bar. My mate pointed to the Brain's beer slogan ("We put the ale in Wales") and remarked that ale might be "ymru" in Welsh. the barman overheard us and we got really shitty service for the rest of the evening.


Wow. Maybe it wasn't that, then.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: General Election 2015
PostPosted: Wed Apr 01, 2015 11:21 
User avatar

Joined: 12th Apr, 2008
Posts: 17757
Location: Oxford
Sadly, I don't think it's the term for beer though. That's just 'beer', spoken slowly and loudly.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: General Election 2015
PostPosted: Wed Apr 01, 2015 11:22 
User avatar
UltraMod

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 55715
Location: California
'bwr' isn't it? Pronounced 'beer'

_________________
I am currently under construction.
Thank you for your patience.


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: General Election 2015
PostPosted: Thu Apr 02, 2015 19:07 

Joined: 15th Nov, 2008
Posts: 484
Just under an hour for the 7 way leaders debate on ITV.

Could be entertaining, could be a mess, could be a boreathon or a mix of all 3.

:shrug:

_________________
Bye.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: General Election 2015
PostPosted: Thu Apr 02, 2015 20:32 
User avatar
INFINITE POWAH

Joined: 1st Apr, 2008
Posts: 30498
God this is a shambles. The person umpiring couldn't be more ineffectual.

As much as I dislike her politics, Nicola Sturgeon is the clear winner so far.

Ed did OK on his own last time, but he's coming off badly now there are 6 people to compare to. Utter div.

Clegg is good as ever.

Cameron isn't coming off well.

Garage is shown up for the shallow, fact free twat he is.

_________________
http://www.thehomeofawesome.com/
Eagles soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: General Election 2015
PostPosted: Thu Apr 02, 2015 20:36 
User avatar
Decapodian

Joined: 15th Oct, 2010
Posts: 5134
I thought the Green lady was sounding quite sane and reasonable, and Nigel Farage was being a cock as usual, but the total lack of control meant I switched off.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: General Election 2015
PostPosted: Thu Apr 02, 2015 20:40 
User avatar
INFINITE POWAH

Joined: 1st Apr, 2008
Posts: 30498
The green and plaid cymru leaders both sound sane. At least.

Christ Ed has lost me entirely.

_________________
http://www.thehomeofawesome.com/
Eagles soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: General Election 2015
PostPosted: Thu Apr 02, 2015 20:41 
User avatar
INFINITE POWAH

Joined: 1st Apr, 2008
Posts: 30498
Oooooooh! Using the dead disabled kid again!!!!!

_________________
http://www.thehomeofawesome.com/
Eagles soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: General Election 2015
PostPosted: Thu Apr 02, 2015 21:40 
User avatar
INFINITE POWAH

Joined: 1st Apr, 2008
Posts: 30498
The democratic engagement here is awesome.

_________________
http://www.thehomeofawesome.com/
Eagles soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: General Election 2015
PostPosted: Thu Apr 02, 2015 22:01 
User avatar
Legendary Boogeyman

Joined: 22nd Dec, 2010
Posts: 8175
Amazing how people can see the same thing different ways. Sturgeon is a sneering muppet whose only trick is ranting at Cameron and decrying the Tories while churning out political banalities of no substance. I've no doubts the Nats will be wanking off to pictures of wee Jimmy Krankie in celebration.

You might think Farage is a twat but I've always thought he's the better orator of any of them and speaks far more naturally than anyone else. The rest appear to be trying to read variations of their pre-prepared statements.

Clegg was actually doing a strong, fine job, and it's a shame the Lib Dems are hopelessly downtrodden at this point. I might have voted for them, once.

_________________
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: General Election 2015
PostPosted: Thu Apr 02, 2015 22:06 
User avatar
ugvm'er at heart...

Joined: 4th Mar, 2010
Posts: 22256
I'm watching an hour behind, farage is a cunt. He can talk well, but he is still a cunt. Why do we spend money to help foreigners? Because of basic human compassion. Why do we treat people with HIV? Because it's the right thing to do.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: General Election 2015
PostPosted: Thu Apr 02, 2015 22:09 
User avatar
Legendary Boogeyman

Joined: 22nd Dec, 2010
Posts: 8175
I can't think of anything less relevant than Plaid Cymru 'The Party of Wales' (for the avoidance of doubt). Derp derp derp IN THE VALLEYS.

_________________
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: General Election 2015
PostPosted: Thu Apr 02, 2015 22:12 
User avatar
ugvm'er at heart...

Joined: 4th Mar, 2010
Posts: 22256
Plaid woman is an empty seat.
Green is terrible at speaking, so can't get any traction.
Cameron is just attacking the Labour of 5 years ago.
Ed is just freaking me the fuck out, stop addressing every answer to the camera.
Sturgeon is doing OKish, but is irrelevant to me.
Clegg is also talking reasonably well, but us tarred with hanging on the coat tails of Cameron, so his arguments get shot down too easily.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 1765 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 36  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Columbo, Malc 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:
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.