CraigGrannell wrote:
Wullie wrote:
I'm neither for or against the union & polls reckon only 30% of Scots want independence anyway so what's the huge worry.
Mm. Frankly, I'm uneasy with Cameron et al getting all fighty about this—it just seems bad tactics. It would make more sense for them to let the SNP bang on about independence and not even bother responding, given that most Scots seem happy enough with their Parliament (and, according to a large number of reports I've read in the past, also happy to let certain... 'difficult' laws be dictated by Westminster, such as those on abortion).
Going off on a tangent, I'm not sure what establishing a Scottish state would achieve that a federal UK (or at least a more autonomous Scotland) wouldn't. But that's me, personally.
Quote:
^^ However, fuck that. Don't feel sorry for the English—after yesterday, it's clear they get what they deserve for being idiots, especially Labour voters and the unions. The unions were so rampantly anti-AV, and therefore cleverly shored up the Tories for at least a generation. Nice one, unions, you fucking dolts.
Yeah, I was majorly disappointed too about the big unions being anti-AV. Their thinking behind that, presumably, is that FPTP = majority governments = Labour majority governments = trade-union sponsored legislation. Which completely misses the point that a coalition government of Labour + someone else is still better for unionised working people than any sort of Tory government. The inflexible tribalism of some of these unions never ceases to amaze and frustrate... 
chinnyhill10 wrote:
parts of London where people who call their children Quentin and Flora live. Or upcoming places where Quentin and Flora will go to live.
Lambeth, Southwark, Islington, Camden, Haringey, Hackney? I've only been to Hackney, Southwark and Lambeth of those, but none of them particularly make the names Quentin or Flora spring to mind.
Two things:
(1)Chinnyhill is a bit of a sillyhead
(2) Most people don't understand anything.
(1)Chinnyhill is a bit of a sillyhead
(2) Most people don't understand anything.
Anonymous X wrote:
Yeah, I was majorly disappointed too about the big unions being anti-AV. Their thinking behind that, presumably, is that FPTP = majority governments = Labour majority governments = trade-union sponsored legislation.
From what I read, there was a lot of "this coalition is bad, therefore coalition is bad, and AV might lead to more coalition", alongside hedging bets that Labour will get a majority in 2015. I think the second of those things is a pipe dream. Even if the Libs are effectively removed from the Commons (current estimates have the party with just TWO seats in 2015), they will still get anything from 8 to 17 per cent of the vote, according to current estimates—and that's the party at a low. That vote will be at the expense of Labour, not the Tories. With AV, Labour would, in some circumstances, have got that vote as a second-choice, the idiots.
Quote:
Which completely misses the point that a coalition government of Labour + someone else is still better for unionised working people than any sort of Tory government.
This too. A Lab/Lib govt, with Libs curbing Lab's appalling record on authoritarianism but with general agreement on social mobility, and the odd row over taxation and corporations could have been great. But the more things move on now, I wonder if we're actually heading for a Tory majority in 2015, or a hung parliament where NO coalition is entirely viable (i.e. where there aren't enough Con/Lab to form a working majority, but where there are also not enough natural partners).
When do we get the results to our Official Royal Wedding and Voting System Referendum?
Currently we prefer AV to Kate, and poor old William couldn't make it past the post:
Who's the fairest of them all?
The Alternative Vote 121 points
Kate Middleton 116 points
First Past the Post 78 point
Prince William 75 points
And I have no idea how close the poll.
Who's the fairest of them all?
The Alternative Vote 121 points
Kate Middleton 116 points
First Past the Post 78 point
Prince William 75 points
And I have no idea how close the poll.
So we knock out william and recast those votes according to those voters preferences, surely?
Kern wrote:
The Alternative Vote 121 points
Kate Middleton 116 points
First Past the Post 78 point
Prince William 75 points
Kate Middleton 116 points
First Past the Post 78 point
Prince William 75 points
Had it been AV, it could all have been so different. Those who love William probably love Kate, and so she'd have won. Poor Kate!
I don't demand a recount!
CraigGrannell wrote:
Kern wrote:
The Alternative Vote 121 points
Kate Middleton 116 points
First Past the Post 78 point
Prince William 75 points
Kate Middleton 116 points
First Past the Post 78 point
Prince William 75 points
Had it been AV, it could all have been so different. Those who love William probably love Kate, and so she'd have won. Poor Kate!
Those who love william are surely (either gold digging and/or very misguided) women who would hate her.
It appears I got a letter today from TVs Richard Wilson, urging me to vote "Yes" to AV.
Thanks, Richard!
Thanks, Richard!
Grim... wrote:
It appears I got a letter today from TVs Richard Wilson, urging me to vote "Yes" to AV.
Thanks, Richard!
Thanks, Richard!
Write back and tell him it only turned up today, see what his response is.
Joans wrote:
Grim... wrote:
It appears I got a letter today from TVs Richard Wilson, urging me to vote "Yes" to AV.
Thanks, Richard!
Thanks, Richard!
Write back and tell him it only turned up today, see what his response is.
Or call him up?
"4291"
Joans wrote:
Grim... wrote:
It appears I got a letter today from TVs Richard Wilson, urging me to vote "Yes" to AV.
Thanks, Richard!
Thanks, Richard!
Write back and tell him it only turned up today, see what his response is.
I'm not sure he'd understand why it wasn't sent in time.
I imagine he'd express a certain amount of incredulity at that fact.
He would find the whole situation difficult to accept
He is a rather sceptical person in general.
He requires a great deal of evidence before he is willing to endorse the likelihood of something being true.
"I find his lack of faith disturbing"
Top work, chums.
Some form of Yes Campaign autopsy here. Longer version here.
I understand both of these were a massive anticlimax.
1) If you have a child born on the same day as the Royal Baby, you get a penny
2) Because of (1)The royalist that sat near me at work and is currently right close to giving birth must be hanging on some
3) I think all Royal babys should be called after the winner of the Grand national that year.
4) KATE PUSH FEARS WITHERING TIGHTS
2) Because of (1)The royalist that sat near me at work and is currently right close to giving birth must be hanging on some
3) I think all Royal babys should be called after the winner of the Grand national that year.
4) KATE PUSH FEARS WITHERING TIGHTS
I really hope it's a girl, as I want the new law about females having equal claim to the thrown to happen at the first opportunity.
Malc
Malc
I really hope it's a horse. that'd totally fuck things up.
I hope it's all been a ruse and she just wanted to pig out for 9 months without people being bitchy.
I hope it's a mandrill, like the one Queen Elizabeth I gave birth to by mistake.
I think the poor sod should have a normal life like the rest of us and be free to enter a career and live out their time on earth in a manner of their own choosing.
Wullie wrote:
I hope it's a mandrill, like the one Queen Elizabeth I gave birth to by mistake.
Shhh - you'll have Chinny hoping its a Nimon
Kate is in labour!!!@!
MaliA wrote:
Kate is in labour!!!@!
I thought the royal family were meant to keep out of politics.
SilentElk wrote:
MaliA wrote:
Kate is in labour!!!@!
I thought the royal family were meant to keep out of politics.
Perhaps shes fisting tony blair
Interesting choice of adjective, certainly.
It almost makes me as angry as the baby formula advert that opens with "We all know it's better to breast feed your child, but.." 
TheFireFaerie wrote:
It almost makes me as angry as the baby formula advert that opens with "We all know it's better to breast feed your child, but.."
Why does that make you angry?
Curiosity wrote:
TheFireFaerie wrote:
It almost makes me as angry as the baby formula advert that opens with "We all know it's better to breast feed your child, but.."
Why does that make you angry?
I'm not a mother, but if I was, and I had chosen not to breast feed, I think I'd be pretty irate at a TV advertisement telling me I wasn't doing the best thing for my child. Everyone is different, and some people just can't do it, let alone should have the choice not to if they don't want to for whatever reason, so I hate that they are essentially saying "fact: this is what's best for your baby" when they don't know you or your baby.
But it is a fact. Unless your baby is somehow allergic to you.
Sure, some mothers can't, and this advert might make them upset, (and, in fairness, there's not a massive difference between the two methods anyway). But it's the best kind of correct.
Sure, some mothers can't, and this advert might make them upset, (and, in fairness, there's not a massive difference between the two methods anyway). But it's the best kind of correct.
It's better than saying, "this formula is BETTER than breastfeeding!"
Because that would be a lie.
Because that would be a lie.
SilentElk wrote:
Because that would be a lie.
Ah, but the actual line is (I'm fairly sure) "We all know that breast-feeding is better for your baby", and I'm fairly sure that not everyone knows that so it is a lie!
Any advert involving mothers is guaranteed to offend at least 20% of the mothers watching it anyway, so you might as well just go for it.
"Hey You! Yes, You! You the terrible mother! Feeling guilty enough yet? No? Good!"
"Hey You! Yes, You! You the terrible mother! Feeling guilty enough yet? No? Good!"
Grim... wrote:
But it is a fact. Unless your baby is somehow allergic to you.
Sure, some mothers can't, and this advert might make them upset, (and, in fairness, there's not a massive difference between the two methods anyway). But it's the best kind of correct.
Sure, some mothers can't, and this advert might make them upset, (and, in fairness, there's not a massive difference between the two methods anyway). But it's the best kind of correct.
Not everyone can breast feed, and some people have trouble with it, but if you can do it, then broadly speaking you should give it a go in terms of health benefits. But it's not like you're otherwise going to be feeding them coke and burgers. Formula milk is fine; we've used gallons of the stuff. I certainly agree that people who don't breast feed shouldn't be demonised or anything.
Indeed, save the demonisation for those mothers that really deserve it. Like the ones that breast feed in public.
Yeah, it's genuinely accepted as fact that breast-feeding really is better for babies. Certainly it's what the midwives and health visitors recommend for new mums. My ex gave it a go for a few weeks with Zioette, but it was too painful for her. Switching to formula was obviously better for us anyway, because I could easily mix up formula for her when I had her - otherwise my ex would've had to express into bottles for me to store at mine when I had her over which would've been a bit awkward.
But yeah, it is a fact that breast-feeding is the best way for feeding a baby in terms of health benefits.
But yeah, it is a fact that breast-feeding is the best way for feeding a baby in terms of health benefits.
Curiosity wrote:
Grim... wrote:
But it is a fact. Unless your baby is somehow allergic to you.
Sure, some mothers can't, and this advert might make them upset, (and, in fairness, there's not a massive difference between the two methods anyway). But it's the best kind of correct.
Sure, some mothers can't, and this advert might make them upset, (and, in fairness, there's not a massive difference between the two methods anyway). But it's the best kind of correct.
Not everyone can breast feed, and some people have trouble with it, but if you can do it, then broadly speaking you should give it a go in terms of health benefits. But it's not like you're otherwise going to be feeding them coke and burgers. Formula milk is fine; we've used gallons of the stuff. I certainly agree that people who don't breast feed shouldn't be demonised or anything.
And I agree, give it a go, health wise it is better, but that ad really feels demonising. Guilt? Here, have a shit ton of it.
I think that advert is the opposite, "breast is best, but if you can't manage that, we're a good 2nd choice"
Pauline breastfed all of our kids, but with our daughter she couldn't produce enough (and she was losing weight) so she went 50/50. The thing is with that once we started supplementing (it was good for me, as I could get more invloved with feeding her) it was always going to make it harder to get back to 100% breastfeeding, as obviously the demand dropped. We felt annoyed that we had to pay so much for the powedered milk (and all the hassles with cleaning etc).
I get more annoyed about the sexist adverts ("Mum's shop in iceland", "girls shop in boots" "yorkies and mccoys are for men"
FUCK OFF!
Malc
Pauline breastfed all of our kids, but with our daughter she couldn't produce enough (and she was losing weight) so she went 50/50. The thing is with that once we started supplementing (it was good for me, as I could get more invloved with feeding her) it was always going to make it harder to get back to 100% breastfeeding, as obviously the demand dropped. We felt annoyed that we had to pay so much for the powedered milk (and all the hassles with cleaning etc).
I get more annoyed about the sexist adverts ("Mum's shop in iceland", "girls shop in boots" "yorkies and mccoys are for men"
FUCK OFF!
Malc
Zio wrote:
But yeah, it is a fact that breast-feeding is the best way for feeding a baby in terms of health benefits.
That's not the point though. The point is that you're effectively just saying to a group of people already shitting themselves that they're failing their children that they're outright doing it wrong.
I think the tabloid press would be delighted for the Duchess of Cambridge to publicly breastfeed the poor child.
