Duncan Clench

Okay so now we are getting to the crux of it.  I think I've answered the SNP point but I will just do it again anyway.  The SNP vote is irrelevant.  They are a party left of labour.  If labour had won all the seats in Scotland that the SNP won the tory majority would still be the same because the SNP are more against the tories than Labour are.  The tories would still have the same number of seats

 

You are also suggesting there are some potential labour voters who voted UKIP, a party to the right of the tories who have solely been created and based their campaign on one issue which is to take the UK out of the EU, because Labour ruled out a coalition with the SNP to get the tories out.  Do you not realise how ridiculous this is?  There are plenty of people who voted UKIP who would have voted labour, conservative etc but if you think they chose to vote for UKIP because Labour ruled out a coalition with the SNP you are more stupid than I thought  They did so because they hate immigrants, are racist or are thick as fuck.  They aren't voting UKIP because Labour refused to go into coalition with the SNP.  Anyone clever enough to worry about something like that south of the border wouldn't be stupid enough to then vote for a party more right of the tories.

 

This is all ignoring the fact UKIP and the greens only got 2 seats and their votes weren't enough to have significantly lowered votes on labours or the conservatives side to lose the marginals.  Labour lost the marginals because more people voted tory in them.  It's a simple as that.

 

It's a laughably stupid point to make.

 

This is the exact quote

 

"I strongly feel that if Ed Miliband hadn't completely dismissed the idea of coalition with the SNP then they'd be in power right now."

 

And it's fucking thick as pigshit.

Mate I'm bored of explaining the same point to you over and over again while being called all sorts. Sort yourself out.

Yes, I'm suggesting that some Labour voters (not supporters) might vote UKIP. You don't know why people vote the way they do, and we've touched on the fact, in this very thread (that you appear reluctant to read, preferring to take snippets at which you can spout bilious crap) that there are more than a few people who vote based on such wealth of information as what a person looks like. Just as easily, they could vote for the Tories. And they did. Why you think it so mind-blowing that Labour could turn UKIP I don't know... especially when a whole load went Tory.

http://diamondgeezer.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/majority-2015.html?m=1 This article shows how close some of the marginal were (and goes on to suggest that 901 votes could have changed the outcome which I wouldn't take too much notice of unless that's the bit you decide to focus on and then rant about). Lots of people went from Labour to Tory (and to UKIP and Green), I think if Milliband had not dismissed the notion of a coalition then he would have kept more of those voters, and it's clear that it doesn't take many to make a big difference in the marginals. 

If someone could change their vote based on the looks of a leader, then why couldn't they change based on the fact that Miliband would rather let the Tories in than entertain a coalition?

I just don't understand where these "costed" votes you are on about were going?

 

"I'm not going to vote labour because they've refused to go into coalition with the SNP to guarantee getting the tories out, what I'm going to do is actually vote tory or not vote at all."

 

It just doesn't make any sense.

As I said in my original post, the UKIP and Green votes were up massively. As was, obviously, SNP - where previously Labour held seats. It didn't take many seats to weaken the Tory majority and they would've struggled to create a coalition. Which is what the polls were predicting, no?

You don't think that rejecting the almost guaranteed option to get the Tories out didn't sway the option of some floating voters in England? I think it would have.

I'm honestly struggling to put into words how fucking stupid this is.

 

Politicians don't answer questions directly because they are scared they will look stupid because they may have to go back on it later and therefore lose credibility and votes.  In your head you seem to have twisted this into the public preferring politicians that don't answer questions directly because that means they don't have to hold them to account when it turns out it's a lie which they don't know if it is yet because what's been proposed hasn't actually even happened.  Absolutely bizarre.

 

Specifically you are saying Labour lost votes because they said no to a coalition with the SNP.  The only votes they would potentially lose for this would be in Scotland which wouldn't have made any difference anyway because the SNP (a party on the left would vote against anything tory anyway) total number of seats still doesn't get near the majority of the tories if they had been won by labour.  Unless you are suggesting there are English voters who would be turned away from Labour because they ruled out a coalition with SNP and just decided to either turn Tory or not vote at all?

 

The point which you have spectacularly missed is that if Labour hadn't have categorically said no the right wing tabloids would have absolutely slaughtered Labour for not ruling it out and told general public that they were going to be run by the SNP.  The tories would have won by a landslide.  They won by a landslide anyway and if you think that's because they ruled out a coalition with the SNP you are a fruitcake.

Jesus... you're really struggling with this simple premise today aren't you?

At no point did I say the public prefer politicians that don't answer. The twisting is being done in your head, not mine. I said it's best not to be so firm in rebutting the SNP's offer. Just play the game.

Why would the only votes they lose be in Scotland? He turned down the option to get the Tories out. That potentially riles many a Labour voter.

Marginal seats could have been won from the Tories (or not lost in a lot of cases) therefore reducing the majority and making it very difficult for the Tories to form a government.

...and the point I have spectacularly missed is not much of a point at all is it? It's conjecture from someone who seemingly doesn't have the ability to read what people write.

I didn't say that you said rule out a coalition.  I'm specifically saying that if you can't see the major pitfall of him not saying a categorical no to it you haven't got a clue.  He did say a caterorical no and that still scared off the majority of the south because the Tories and the tabloids pushed that angle.  God knows the shitstorm that would have been created had he not said no every single time he was asked.

 

You are now talking even more absolute nonsense.  People fucking hate politicians and generally hate the way they don't answer yes or no to questions.  Let me get this right though you are actually saying people prefer it when they dodge questions because then they don't have to hold them to account for it afterwards?  You are a fucking fruitcake.  You are now saying that because the Tories dodged questions they got more votes and because Labour actually said no about a coalition with the SNP they lost votes because it potentially would have come back to bite Miliband on the arse?  I can't actually put into words how fucking ridiculous this post is.

Yes, I haven't got a clue. I'm so sorry. Either that or you aren't actually thinking things through, or indeed reading what I post. Let's be clear on one thing though; I am allowed to have an opinion without being called a fucking fruitcake, so do try to keep the name calling down. It doesn't offend me in any way, but it's not a good way to debate, is it? You're obviously very emotional about it, but it wasn't my fault that the Tories got elected.

From the top then...

Re the SNP. He should have said 'I'm fighting to win and I won't talk about hypotheticals'. Repeat, ad nauseum.

Yes, people hate politicians because they don't answer questions directly, among the other things like lying, stealing and generally being odious. But that's a fact. They don't answer questions directly. Why? Because they can be held accountable. I'm not saying it's right, but it's a fact. I don't like it, nobody does, but it ain't about to change.

I'm not saying that because the Tories dodged questions they got more votes, obviously. I'm saying that because Miliband answered a direct question, nay PLEA, from Nicola Sturgeon saying (I'm paraphrasing because I don't have the quote) 'don't dismiss this and let the Tories in' - with a resounding NO - that people might well have been turned away from the party.

I think the Labour party did offer an alternative.

 

No zero hours contracts as opposed to zero hours contracts, no bedroom tax as opposed to bedroom tax for example, as well as less drastic and front loaded cuts.

 

The problem was these things didn't resonate because they weren't given publicity by the media, and if they were, we've been manipulated and engineered into a culture that begrudges each other absolutely everything so nobody would have given a fuck.

 

Only scare tactics resonated in the end, the lies - blatant lies- that Labour had ruined and would ruin the economy, that the Tories are a steady hand, and that the SNP were going to sack York.

 

We're a nation of slaves and mongs. Every time you go out the house you see joggers dressed like fucking Dynamo from the Running Man and fat middle aged cyclists dressed in 'Team Sky' gear, that's how easy it is to make people conform now, we're an identikit nation. 

Not a good enough alternative though, that's my point. A few policies here and there, but actually it's status quo. 

This election has highlighted to me how utterly stupid and uninformed a lot of people are.  By that I mean people I have known for years that I wouldn't have expected it from and not the general idiotic public you would expect it from.  The main whinges usually found on facebook but sometimes in person and on my whatsapp mates groups:

 

• People who live in Liverpool whinging about other people in Liverpool voting for smaller parties and not labour "putting" the Tories in power. 
• Dickhead scots voting SNP and handing the Tories power.
• Miliband ruling out an SNP coalition caused the Tories to get power.
• The SNP will stab people in the back and form a coalition with the Tories

Absolutely bewildering nonsense. 

 

If you live in Liverpool it doesn't matter who you vote for you are getting a Labour MP.  Your vote in the grand scheme of things means fuck all.

 

If Labour won every scottish seat the Tories would still have a majority.  For some reason the BBC and a lot of the press are pushing the view that the loss of seats in Scotland for Labour directly cost them the election.  It evidently didn't.  I'm not talking about the knock-on effect of people voting tory to stop a Labour/SNP coalition which I believe is what caused a lot of seats to go Tory.  The people I'm talking about are completely oblivious to this fact. 

 

Miliband shouldn't have ruled out an SNP coalition which has been posted in here as well is the nearly the most comically stupid thing I've heard all election.  If you couldn't see the danger of him saying anything other than a categorical no then you shouldn't be commenting on anything.

 

The last one was probably the most comical thing I heard.  It came after the election as well which made it even worse.

 

The only positive thing to happen in this election is that the lib dems have been taught a very harsh lesson about garnering left thinkers with left policies and then going into coalition with the tories.  It's near enough wiped the party out.  I can't understand why they thought it would be anything different.  They pushed a more left wing view than Labour at the last election to the point I nearly voted for them and then they ended up fucking everyone who did that over.  I don't know if they will ever come back from it but there will have been a lot of young leftish voters who voted for them who will never ever do that again.  It will take a few generations before they will be able to make any sort of comeback.

 

Where does politics go from here is the question?  How are Labour going to respond?  They are too right to pull back voters from Scotland and can't go any more left without scaring off the southerners.  It's going to take a catastrophe from the Tories to get them out in the next decade I think.  In my own opinion Labour need to go back to their roots.  They need to become a proper left wing party again that offers something different, wait for that catastrophe to happen, because it will, and take charge of the country.  Do it as a left wing party not a right wing party masquerading as one.  My fear is that history will repeat itself.  The tories will get in the next few times meaning labour will shift right again to get into power.  By that time the country will have had enough of the tories anyway.

Sorry mate, didn't realise we had someone on the forum that knows absolutely everything about politics, and not only that, knows how people would vote in hypothetical situations. Quite a talent.

Anyway, I didn't suggest he go into coalition but that he didn't dismiss it out of hand. Much like the Tories who didn't dismiss ANY type of coalition but simply stuck to the mantra of 'we're not getting into hypotheticals'. Non-committal, doesn't alienate any voters (in fact does the opposite) and also doesn't even give an answer... which is what politicians love. The very simple reason that they never give straight answers to questions is because it comes back to bite them in the arse. Miliband did it, and in MY opinion, it cost Labour votes. maybe not enough to win... but the seats go somewhere.

Not forgetting of course that a lot of people, myself included, voted for a 'small' party to send the message that the legacy parties are not up to it. Hence the swing towards Greens, UKIP and SNP in Scotland.

How does that maths work?

 

The reason that a lot of people voted Tory in England was to avoid giving power to the Scots. The Tories were happy that for every vote Sturgeon won the SNP she was winning two for them.

Perhaps I didn't explain that very well. I'm not suggesting that he actually GO into coalition with the SNP, just not dismiss the idea out of hand. More seats in Scotland that way (possibly/probably) and more votes from the Labour 'supporters' that voted elswhere, because they're then seen as doing anything to get the Tories out which is a vote winner for them.

I don't think we can have any complaints to be honest. Yes the idea of a majority Tory Government isn't great, but rather than blaming 'cunts' for voting Tory, shouldn't the blame be laid firmly at the Labour party's door? They didn't offer a good enough alternative. The Lib Dems didn't campaign hard enough on what they did right in the coalition, so their vote was diluted and given to UKIP, Green and Tory.

I strongly feel that if Ed Miliband hadn't completely dismissed the idea of coalition with the SNP then they'd be in power right now.

In short, you can't blame Tory voters for voting Tory. You should be blaming the Labour party for not gaining more of the Lib Dem and SNP vote, which was fair game and on offer. The cunts.

Loving all this. Been in bands since I was a kid and have always been into unsigned stuff, probably more than mainstream music. Excellent work all round.

Spent the last 2 years (yes, seriously that long) designing and creating an app through which my band will be releasing all its music. As far as we're aware nobody else is doing it, and we've had a good number of downloads so far. Every time we release a new song you get a notification and the song is automatically on the app. Pretty smart.

The app is for iOS and Android at the mo, working on the Windows version now.

That's not really the point of the thread, granted... but if you wanted to have a go you can get it from www.mrmsith.co.uk/app - and here's a couple of tracks for a listen.

https://youtu.be/bUfIR-gFz-8

https://youtu.be/612K5QANiFU

I do think the fact that it was an atomic bomb brought an end to the war faster than if it were blanket bombing. Imagine the leaders of Japan and Germany thinking "Fuck, how many of THESE have they got? We've got no chance.".

I hear they are but I remain very attached to the idea of gas burners. Lots of them.

 

The biggest real decision is going to be wall mounted ovens or below the hob. I wish I could have both but we dont have the space for that

Well that's up to you... if you want to try and clean those bastards that's up to you.

Ovens... go for mid-height, and get one of these:

http://www.neff.co.uk/features-slide-hide.html

We went for deep drawers all-round, with corner cupboards obviously. It works really well. The top drawer has a 'hidden' drawer within it to accommodate cutlery and stuff.

We also went for Corian, which I recommend but it is expensive.

Oh, and get and induction job. They're brilliant.

Waiting for Walk On to say that grafting for a better your life is an easy argument.

Damn right!

No, but it raises another good point. Neither UKIP or anyone else is saying that we need to send people back. Nor are they arguing with asylum, which of course is the right thing to do. AF's experience is one which wouldn't be blocked, as far as I can tell anyway. He works hard I'm sure, he's got a job here. The point being that nobody is saying close the border to immigration, just get better control of it. 

It's the thinly disguised racism I don't agree with, not the decision to vote UKIP. Anyone can vote for who the fuck they like.

The Polish thing yeah? Well that's his experience. It's going to have an influence on how a person votes, no? He might be an outrageous racist as far as I know, but there are better ways of debating the points made.

Your opinion may be the polar opposite, but does that mean you want as many Polish people in the UK as possible? There isn't a party that are saying they want more immigration from Europe, and that's because it would be unpopular.

Just playing devils advocate... trying to get the discussion back on track.

Of course there are, but those parties don't define themselves by having a worldview that is based on limiting freedom of movement and opportunity based on a person's immutable characteristics - such as place of birth or nationality-  rather than their individual talent, work rate and attitude.

 

it is my opinion that the worldview outlined above has a lot in common with racism.      

Well, for the sake of debate (and coming from a left-wing political bent, I should add)...

From what I gather from interviews and the UKIP manifesto, their actual stance is that they would limit the European freedom of movement (in employment terms obviously) with a view to open it up globally. Farage said in interview that the options are currently limited to Europe, but what if the best man for the job is from outside of Europe? I.E. currently we're obliged to take Europeans. I don't know if these are facts by the way.

...and just as an aside, I think the UKIP debate is always overshadowed by the racism angle. Tell me there are no racists in the Labour or Tory parties. 

Ah the beauty of political debate.

Do you vote for your own interests? Do you vote for the good of the Country? If you opt for the latter, how do you know if what's good for one area is bad for another?

I'm a liberal chap (not voting like that necessarily), so surely we'd be better off discussing the pros and cons of the minor parties like UKIP/Green/Lid Dem rather than shouting down anyone whose opinion isn't what you agree with?

We've had status quo with the 'main' parties for so long it's hardly a surprise that a party, or parties, that offer something clear and different are going to attract votes is it? Government has been pretty fucking awful for decades, and now there is an apparent 'other choice'.

Having said that, it's going to be a coalition, right? So what's the best coalition? Labour/SNP, Labour/LibDem? Tory/UKIP or Tory/LibDem. How much influence can the smaller parties possibly have?

Them's your options, as far as I see it.

Yeah it's the hub. They're shit. Get them to send you a new one. While you're on the line just say you can't connect despite anything they tell you to do.

It really is worth investing in a good router, regardless of the fact you feel you've paid them. You pay for the service, not the hardware, so it's shite. Bag yourself a good router and your Infinity will be reliable and fast.

Also, you should go into the admin settings in there and turn if you bandwidth sharing. They nab loads of your bandwidth to make BT hotspots.

Their customer service is fucking diabolical.

If you're into it, it's a good career move because there are so many options open to you after you qualify. My wife did Accountancy and Business at Uni, then got a job with KPMG who pay well from the start and put you through your professional training (well they used to anyway). She was doing ICAEW and got the best score in the Country (clever one she is) and then immediately left KPMG because they don't pay well, comparatively, once you're qualified. She then got a job as CFO in a small London-based insurance brokers and hasn't looked back since.

Moral of the story? Well it is what you make of it, like any other job I suppose. 4 years of training for the professional qualification though, and the CPD is strictly required in order for you to remain a part of your institute. Which costs around £800p/a for ICAEW.

Is this an amnesty thread?

Pesti, I mentioned before that my mother-in-law has a Q3 which I took out for quite a long drive. Was very impressed by it. Test drive the 3 litre diesel if you can. Goes very well and I think it's got an 8 speed auto which is very efficient.

Anyway, something a bit 'in between' to look at maybe.

Flixanity claimed that cartoonHD had stolen their database and were making moves to shut them down. Don't know how much truth there is in that. Flixanity themselves were being the attention seeking teenager themselves not too long ago.

The Kanger tanks are very nice looking but I've never actually used one. From a purely aesthetic view I don't like the Nautilus tanks because I like the more modern look so I got the v scope tank which is £20 and holds 3.7ml liquid. All the new ones coming out seem to be sub ohm and that's clearly not for me.