Anyone want to have a conversation about politics? I know it's not films, music or computer games, so doesn't really have much of an impact on the average TMOer's life, but someone might have an opinion.
Anyone watching the live debate tonight?
Posted by Cherry In Hove (Member # 49) on :
I was going to watch it but one of my stupid friends has decided that it is her birthday today so I have to go out for that instead.
I'm throwing away my vote and voting Lib Dem.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
Ugh, really? Does anyone actually vote lib dem on the strength of their policies, or is it now just the default 'third option'?
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ringo: someone might have an opinion.
I keep switching between the three major parties. I don't know. At the moment I'm erring on the side of the Lib Dems. I'd like to see them get in just to give someone else a go at it. Everyone keeps promising education reform, which is more of a concern for me last time around, but even then it feels like it's impossible to know whether or not their ideas will work. So I don't know. Childcare is another one, but again I'm not convinced it's something anyone's got a viable solution to.
I feel like I don't know enough about the running of a country to be able to make an informed decision. Unlike the American system, the three main British parties all seem to want the same end results: improved education, improved healthcare, better standards for the environment, more jobs for Brits, but seem mainly to disagree on how best to get there. Fine. I can look at all their ideas, but really I don't know whether they're good ideas, and I don't see how anyone else can either. So much rests on unknowable, chaotic factors, unforseen consequences and global influences over which we have no control that a seemingly good idea can unravel pretty fast.
It all kind of leaves me with the impression that anyone who says "Oh this is how we fix education" is kind of a fucking idiot. And of course, everyone's saying that, so I'm kind of uncertain about all of them. I mean, all three parties have logical justifications for their strategies and you think "Yeah, that would work, if everything happens as you hoped, but that's a big if". And then another party says "no, no, you fix education like this" and it's like "Yeah, again - if you're right about these other assumptions, it's a great idea. But if he's right, then your idea will be a disaster." and really, there's no way of knowing how things are going to pan out.
In summary then: undecided.
[ 15.04.2010, 07:43: Message edited by: Thorn Davis ]
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
That's exactly how I feel. Exactly. I'm torn between voting LibDem, voting Green, spoiling my vote, or not voting at all, because, y'know, it only encourages them. I'll probably go with LibDem, or vote tactically (I should find out about my constituency), or something.
I should register to vote as well, really.
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
Can anyone tell me why UKIP is a bad idea? They never seem to say anything particularly nutty, that I've heard. I suspect they are a bit nutty, but I am unaware of any nuttiness. I mean, theire main thing (leaving the EU) isn't particularly controversial, is it. I'm sure we'd all be fine... we'd get by. It's economics again, which I don't understand.
But do they have any good crazy policies? I could look them up but I trust the voice of TMO more.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
Yeah I feel pretty much the same way, but I can only really say I'm torn between Labour or Conservative.
I suppose at least the Green party are concerned with some of the issues that bother me, which seems to be getting almost no attention from the main parties. They also seem to be more or less ignoring immigration issues, with only a few vague mentions of targets for yearly caps or setting points standards. Which has the unsettling effect that anyone who feels particularly affected by immigration issues may find themselves gravitating towards right wing mentallists like the BNP, or UKIP who are hardly any better.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
it's between labour and libdem where i am, and i feel that the area could benefit from the lib dem angle. Probably go for them, but i also might not bother. we've already got boris of course, sadly. haringey is libdem, and Featherstone seems alright as far as i can tell, pretty active in campaigning to hold on to civic institutions and keep them benefiting people that need them, although she also covers muswell hill, which has gone even more ridiculously twee and remote since i moved out. We're labour at the moment, the dude has his office literally in between the six acres estate and a pub that was just transformed into luxury flats. Weird area in that respect, but you know, i'm all for getting robin hood with the people who are only living in the area because they can't quite afford to get to crouch end. Frankly, if anybody could setup a dogshit extermination squad, rounding up morning dog walkers like so many sao paulo children, then I'd probably go with that.
conservative, you know. No. Never.
[ 15.04.2010, 07:51: Message edited by: Kanye West ]
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
But what are the immigration "issues"? Has something changed in recent years with regard to immigration? If you're from the EU, you can move to the UK. That's one thing. I can see arguments for and against. What else has happened, or changed?
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kanye West: conservative, you know. No. Never.
See, this seems like an idiotic comment. What if the Conservatives came up with policies that made you think "actually, that would really work"? Saying that you won't ever vote for someone, regardless of what policies they have is fucking braindead.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
Well, people seem generally very concerned about the rate of change in their communities. It doesn't make you a racist or a bigot to have concerns about it. There are huge sections of some cities which are now home to large immigrant populations.
It's become such a dirty issue these days that it's almost impossible to talk about it without sounding like some hate mongering hitler twin. But this is a big issue on a lot of people's minds, rightly or wrongly, and it's a big enough issue that they're quite prepared to vote for any party who seems prepared to talk about it. Which unfortunately really boils down to the likes of the BNP and UKIP.
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
I agree that concern over "immigration" and "race relations" (or whatever we want to call it) are separate things (or should be), but I'm still not sure what people want to happen. I mean, from what I understand, unless you're from the EU it's already really quite hard to immigrate to this country, I think. There are rules and entry requirements and all that sort of thing. What do people who are "opposed" to immigration actually want to change?
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis:
quote:Originally posted by Kanye West: conservative, you know. No. Never.
See, this seems like an idiotic comment. What if the Conservatives came up with policies that made you think "actually, that would really work"? Saying that you won't ever vote for someone, regardless of what policies they have is fucking braindead.
So, for argument's sake, if the BNP had some really cracking plans for education reform, you'd vote for them?
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
I might be wrong about it being hard to immigrate to here. I don't know.
And:
quote:There are huge sections of some cities which are now home to large immigrant populations.
But huge sections of some cities have been home to large immigrant populations for decades. Why is it such a big deal now? Or is the fact that only some people get huffy about it now (and no one mainstream bothers to talk about it) proof that actually it's really not that big of a deal at all anymore, and the vast majority of people don't really care, because, y'know, it doesn't really matter.
[ 15.04.2010, 08:15: Message edited by: mart ]
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
quote:Originally posted by mart: I agree that concern over "immigration" and "race relations" (or whatever we want to call it) are separate things (or should be), but I'm still not sure what people want to happen. I mean, from what I understand, unless you're from the EU it's already really quite hard to immigrate to this country, I think. There are rules and entry requirements and all that sort of thing. What do people who are "opposed" to immigration actually want to change?
Well, I think one of the things people would like is a standard set of criteria to decide who is able to come here and who isn't. For instance, certain standards of education, qualifications, having a level of financial independance to be able to support yourself while finding work, and making sure that immigrant workers are distributed into areas where there's a genuine requirement. The manual building trade, for instance, I know there's a sense that there's only so much work out there and the influx of manual workers from Eastern Europe means that a lot of British workers are finding it hard to get work. Now whether or not this is correct I don't know, but it is at least a discussion worth having.
Also, there are questions regarding healthcare, schooling, and benefits, all of which are resources which can only be stretched so far. So an increase in population needs to be adjusted for in terms of increases in financial and human resources in those sectors. However there are questions over where those finances and humans are going to come from. There are questions of elligibility - whether migrants living in the UK should automatically qualify for free healthcare through the NHS, or state subsidised schooling for their children.
Again, I'm not saying that these concerns are correct or not. I'm just saying that these are the big issues in a lot of people's minds, and as far as I can see the three main parties are keeping pretty mum on the whole subject.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis:
quote:Originally posted by Kanye West: conservative, you know. No. Never.
See, this seems like an idiotic comment. What if the Conservatives came up with policies that made you think "actually, that would really work"? Saying that you won't ever vote for someone, regardless of what policies they have is fucking braindead.
i am fucking braindead... isn't this clear?
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
We should start with Chinatown in central london. Around that area it's now almost impossible for good english folk to open a noodle/rice based restaurant, start up a place where men can visit young models, or provide miracle cures for acne. Also, the staggering number of polish layabouts have totally chiefed all the bar jobs and casual labour from australian students! They even have THEIR OWN SHOPS. It's a disgrace.
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ringo: Well, I think one of the things people would like is a standard set of criteria to decide who is able to come here and who isn't.
But I think there is a standard set of criteria. Or rather, I'd be amazed if there wasn't.
quote:For instance, certain standards of education, qualifications, having a level of financial independance to be able to support yourself while finding work
I may very well be wrong, but I think those are the sort of criteria that are used.
quote:Also, there are questions regarding healthcare, schooling, and benefits, all of which are resources which can only be stretched so far. So an increase in population needs to be adjusted for...
From my understanding, immigration has far, far less of an effect on population numbers than birth and death rates do. I think it's pretty miniscule, in fact -- but I could be wrong.
I'm not having a go at you Ringo -- I think it's a really interesting area of discussion and one that I would probably be quite Draconian about -- I think (coming from a standpoint of complete ignorance about the geopolitical economics of it all) we need to reduce the population rather than increase it -- this island can only sustain so many people, etc. etc.
I just don't quite get what the real issue is. Or why people have these concerns. I suspect that they're afraid of change, rather than it being about economics and schooling and the NHS and so on. But, again, I might be wrong.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
plus they have their own culture and language and sometimes you can't understand them which is really offputting, because they always seem like they are talking about you and sharing jokes at your expense. It removes my sense of being able to completely understand my environment... these foreigners are shaping my human landscape, stealing time and space by forging pockets of human interaction that I cannot participate in. Its natural isn't it to want to know everything that goes on in your territory, like how a cat patrols its turf to make sure it knows every corner. without this i cannot feel comfortable in my tacit ownership of all of the public space that I inhabit.
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
It's Conservative or Liberal Democrat in Newbury. As the Lib Dems say in their literature Labour can't win here!"
Here's a picture of our local Tory I found on GIS: Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
I think i can understand the fear that people have of this stuff, of people who you do not consider to be part of your society. It's just a shame that people can't admit it to themselves and each other, and have to cloak it in aggression and bullshit, and then blame the PC police for silencing them. Nationalism is about this fear, but the inability to admit fear as a personal quality, and the inability to see how damaging it is, is turned into aggression. Culture, language, principles etc will always change as long as humans are alive... there's a whole new set of people every hundred years. These fears... they seem natural to individuals, but i can't help feel that they are stunting us... but then perhaps i'm assuming that without fear, or at least, if we strive to conquer this fear, we will somehow 'find a way', like we all live in fucking magic land. Perhaps without fear we would all be cheerfully fucking and killing like in a david cronenburg film. i didn't grow up in interzone, i spent 10 years growing up in Kent ffs, so i know what it's like to find comfort and safety in a moderate, homogenous community. But we could tear all this up and make it new, and part of me wants that, because we can, because there are no rules saying that we have to have a continuation. Let historians document the shifts, but make things new and better. I know its bullshit, and my principles and thoughts are just a mess, teenage nonsense... but I feel sad when i think of how protective we are of habits and systems that shield us from each other=. I can't help feel that will die and change anyway, even if we do our best to hold onto them. But i've gone full circle... i assume that a society will always 'progress'. There's no guarantee. I don't even know where this belief comes from...? Maybe, as I child, I enjoyed watching adverts for multicultural children eating mcdonalds or something. I'm naive, i know it, i shield myself from it all by living in a space that barely exists in any clearly definable way.
Posted by Tilde (Member # 1215) on :
I'm with Kanye. A Nazi Dogshit regime together with;
1. a ban on public displays of affection,
2. no religious schools. I don't go to church to learn maths do I?
3. All 4x4s to either be roofless or canvas topped. 3b. No one other than farmers and the army allowed to drive 4x4s.
4. Anyone parking in a disabled bay who is not disabled should immediately be made disabled.
5. Anyone parking in a parent and child bay who does not have a child/children must be made to foster an orphan with A.D.D.
6. A massive reduction in disabled bays in all car parks, come on we don't need a whole floor now do we?
7. All traffic lights removed. It's every man/woman for himself here.
8. Make speed humps into speed jumps, maybe over zebra crossings?
9. Make mobiles explode on trains if used for more than 20 seconds.
10. No white people allowed to do a gangsta-type walk
11. Anyone speaking too loudly in a restaurant made to pay for everyone else's food.
12. Let all the animals that look sad out of their cages at the zoo.
13. Tax on hipsters
14. Tax on people walking around wearing a Matrix-style coat.
15. Tax on people wearing sunglasses when it's not even sunny
16. Tax on men walking around without a shirt on.
17. Abolish the tips system.
That's about all I can think of for now.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
pass a proper law regarding the issue of people looking at other people in a funny way. Could stop the escalation of such incidences into violence if they could be nipped in the bud at this early stage. Also consider a law against looking at another man's bird, a law against a man saying another man is wearing a gay shirt, a law against a woman criticising another woman for being a bad mother, a law against a man having a child with more than one woman, a law against teenagers, a law against people standing still when someody is walking towards them, a law that prevents people from examining privately owned property or posessions if there is no way they could ever afford to buy it themselves, a law against txspeak, a law against teachers, a law against music that has jarring electronic instrumentation, a law against any pornography apart from pictures of smiling topless 19 y'old and upskirt paparazzi shots, a law against bottled water, a law against rain, a law against everybody and everything.
[ 15.04.2010, 08:54: Message edited by: Kanye West ]
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ringo:
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis:
quote:Originally posted by Kanye West: conservative, you know. No. Never.
See, this seems like an idiotic comment. What if the Conservatives came up with policies that made you think "actually, that would really work"? Saying that you won't ever vote for someone, regardless of what policies they have is fucking braindead.
So, for argument's sake, if the BNP had some really cracking plans for education reform, you'd vote for them?
If their policies reflected my concerns for the country I would. At the moment, they don't - and not just becase they haven't got a great policy on education, but because the immigration thing will get in the way for me. Apart from immigration, they're quite left wing, though, so if they ditched the whole racism schtick they might see some support from folk who feel alienated by 'new' labour.
It's pretty evident that political parties change ideology as time goes on. The Liberal party under Gladstone has more in common with the Conservative party of today than it does with the lib dems. The Conservative party of Disraeli shared some of the same ideas as the current Labour government. Obviously Labour in the seventies was a significantly different proposition to the party that was elected in the nineties.
So, this idea of just digging in and saying "Never!" seems to deny the evidence of the past couple of hundred years that the priorities and ideologies of political parties can change significantly.
The other thing the grates when people say 'never!' about the Tories, is that they're often the same people who want the Democrats to get into office in the US, despite the fact that in many ways they're more right-wing than the conservatives.
For the record, I do get just as fucked off with people saying that they'd "never" vote lib dem or Labour. It's just a bit like "You're not even going to listen to what the other guy is saying?" In that case why not just grab 20 ballots, fill them out for the next 20 elections and then shut the fuck up about it all because you've clearly got nothing meaningful to add.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
quote:Originally posted by mart:
quote:Originally posted by Ringo: Well, I think one of the things people would like is a standard set of criteria to decide who is able to come here and who isn't.
But I think there is a standard set of criteria. Or rather, I'd be amazed if there wasn't.
quote:For instance, certain standards of education, qualifications, having a level of financial independance to be able to support yourself while finding work
I may very well be wrong, but I think those are the sort of criteria that are used.
Well, maybe so. Though maybe those criteria need to be looked at? I think one of the big concerns is that a significant proportion of immigrants are focusing on specific industries, like the construction industry. So maybe some kind of rolling criteria which is based on the requirements of the country, rather than just arbitary standards which must be met. I don't totally know how the current system works, and this is part of the issue here - major parties seem oddly reluctant to talk about it. There is a debate to be had, even if the answer is that things are perfect as they are. If the process was more transparent, we might not have people going round with ridiculous notions in their heads that anyone coming to this country gets a free council house and a £2500 pcm allowance, etc etc. People seem very confused, or maybe misguided. Probably as a result of media misinformation. The Daily Mail effect. But again, it all comes back to the fact that concrete facts and figures are hard to come by.
quote:
quote:Also, there are questions regarding healthcare, schooling, and benefits, all of which are resources which can only be stretched so far. So an increase in population needs to be adjusted for...
From my understanding, immigration has far, far less of an effect on population numbers than birth and death rates do. I think it's pretty miniscule, in fact -- but I could be wrong.
That may very well be the case. In fact I'm almost certain that you're right. However it's maybe not as cut and dry as that. Because a lot of immigrants tend to choose the same locations, and resources are alocated on a regional, not a national level. So while the net increase in population in the UK may be very slight, the increase in certain boroughs may be more than the local area is able to cope with. Or maybe it's not. Maybe it's just a perception of a problem which comes from a natural sense of mistrust of anyone that's different.
quote:I'm not having a go at you Ringo -- I think it's a really interesting area of discussion and one that I would probably be quite Draconian about -- I think (coming from a standpoint of complete ignorance about the geopolitical economics of it all) we need to reduce the population rather than increase it -- this island can only sustain so many people, etc. etc.
I just don't quite get what the real issue is. Or why people have these concerns. I suspect that they're afraid of change, rather than it being about economics and schooling and the NHS and so on. But, again, I might be wrong.
A lot of it must come from the fact that a lot of immigrants these days are Muslims. When you consider, say, a Spanish or a French person, aside from having a different language, the culture and way of doing things are effectively the same as the average British person. People from a Muslim background, however, tend to want to live a different sort of lifestyle. It's a generalisation, sure, but it's something which is very easy to identify and perhaps makes immigration a much more visible thing, even if in terms of numbers the effect is minimal.
Again, I want to point out that I'm playing devil's advocate - of all people I should be pretty receptive to the principles of immigration. I work with two very skilled Polish guys, who have great English skills and are easy to get along with. These guys are probably far more representative of the immigrant population in the UK than the burkha clad terror that gets touted by the likes of the Daily Mail. I just think it's something at the forefront of a lot of people's concerns at the moment, most likely as a result of that misinformation, but for whatever reason it seems to have stirred up a certain xenophobic element who seen both numerous and vocal.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
the idea of choosing a political party purely based on policy seems like not the best way. I think that you have to mix up the ideology, history, people, current climate, global situation, and track record alongside the policy, not just sit down with three manifestos as if you were processing information in a social and political vacuum. For me, the Conservatives fail on so many levels that a decent system to say, prevent the spread of business and market forces into public institutions wouldn't even be enough to make me think that yes, i believe that this country would benefit from having these people on top. But I tend to vote not on national power, but local MP, which then makes it much easier to dismiss tories - do i want lower taxes and more corporate ownership of public services, or do i not? I believe it is more civilised and more likely to be of benefit to people and places who need help if we do not let market forces dictate all of our civic policies and decisions. I would rather we raise taxes and keep these things in the realm of democracy, putting people ahead of profit within the systems. I believe that society is what we should serve, maintain, and consider. Our top priority should be convincing people that other people matter, working towards a system that has less inequality without the use of social darwinism. And you cannot do that properly while people like david cameron, or any tory leader during the course of my life, have political power.
[ 15.04.2010, 10:11: Message edited by: Kanye West ]
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kanye West: I think that you have to mix up the ideology, history, people, current climate, global situation, and track record alongside the policy,
But with the exception of history and track record (which are almost the same thing), all the other elements of this mix are turbulent. So even if you know you won't vote for the Tories this time around, how can you know what the climate or global situation is going to be in 16 years time? While it sounds terribly laudable to claim that when you use your vote you weigh up "ideology, history, people, current climate, global situation, and track record alongside the policy", the truth is that when you say "I will never vote for party X" you're effectively saying "I will vote based on the history and track record of the party alone regardless of any changes that may take place with ideology, people, current climate, global situation, and policy."
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kanye West: do i want lower taxes and more corporate ownership of public services, or do i not?
I may be wrong on this, but don't Labour also now have a track record of increasing private sector involvement in public services? From my understanding this was one of the things that defined their move away from the Socialist party of old. Yet - you say you would consider voting Labour.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
if the funding and support and inhabitants and ideology and core political ideology changed - ie - if they completely altered overnight into a different party in every aspect apart from the name, then sure, I'd give them a go.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
What if it didn't happen overnight, but over the course of a decade or two, as it did with Labour?
[ 15.04.2010, 10:20: Message edited by: Thorn Davis ]
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis:
quote:Originally posted by Kanye West: do i want lower taxes and more corporate ownership of public services, or do i not?
I may be wrong on this, but don't Labour also now have a track record of increasing private sector involvement in public services? From my understanding this was one of the things that defined their move away from the Socialist party of old. Yet - you say you would consider voting Labour.
I don't think I did. It's between those two in terms of who might get it, but not in terms of who I'd vote for. It's either libdem or not bother, and the not bothering wouldn't be out of some kind of protest, but literally not being arsed to walk to the place and do it, because y'know, who cares really. I only REALLY care when I see cameron's weirdly plastic looking face looming at me from signs, telling me that the world is fucked and they are the solution.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
It's a lot of responsibility isn't it. Voting, like.
Worst thing for me is seeing on some forums people talking about voting a certain way because they want Brown out. As if it was some kind of X-Factor elimination where you are trying to vote off the person you like least, rather than looking for a party which is most likely to do a good job of running the country.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
I always feel like I want to vote for Brown because I read some editorial complaining that he tried to win people over by logical arguments rather than charisma.
Mainly, I find that I change my mind every time I read an article slagging one of the parties off and I think "Yeah? Well maybe that's a good idea."
I'd almost settled on Lib Dem until Octavia pointed out that it meant voting for some ginger headed twat who I'd previously mocked in the street, so that prompted a bit of a re-think. It's difficult.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis:
quote:Originally posted by Kanye West: if the funding and support and inhabitants and ideology and core political ideology changed - ie - if they completely altered overnight into a different party in every aspect apart from the name, then sure, I'd give them a go.
What if it didn't happen overnight, but over the course of a decade or two, as it did with Labour?
err, sure. But I don't think that would happen - I don't see the Conservatives moving to the left. Labour moved to the right to capture your Mondeo Man, who was traditionally a conservative. Where to the left can the tories go? Labour is right up against them. They'd have to go more left than labour, otherwise they would just be Labour. The right they used to have has been taken over by lunatics. This 'broken britain' slogan screams a lack of mobility... it's kind of courting the ukip people, but also kind of courting everybody who suffered in the recession, reads newspapers, or watches TV. It's vague, and doesn't really properly spell out where they are, just that they aren't labour.
[ 15.04.2010, 10:32: Message edited by: Kanye West ]
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Exactly - I think they're very close to labour: they seem to be wanting the same things now, and just disagree about how to get there. So once you find yourself thinking "Nrgh. Labour or Lib Dems?" you may as well consider the Conservatives also because they seem like Labour, but with a different set of tactics.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
I'm not thinking 'labour or lib dems', and I have a gut reaction of being slightly sickened whenever I see tories on the television.
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
Who do you think will win?
We should do a sweepstake. Like the Grand National. Except that was 40 horses. And I lost 20 quid.
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
Let's not do a sweepstake.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kanye West: I'm not thinking 'labour or lib dems', and I have a gut reaction of being slightly sickened whenever I see tories on the television.
No, I realised a few posts back that it's your area that's Labour/ LibDem, not your mind. Unfortunately, in my head you've now come to represent a group of friends of mine who send round doctored images of the Tory campaign posters with things like "Fuck off back to Eton" written on them and a message saying lol. Even though as second-home owning rich bastards they'd probably find they agree with most of the Tory policies.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
yeah, maybe, but again, You've got a right bunch of posh ***** at the back end (and now the front end) of the tory party, which you don't have with labour. Labour is funded almost entirely by the Gallagher brothers, the surviving members of Pink Floyd, and profits from Virgin Atlantic Upper Class seating tickets.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Things have just gotten quite tense in my office as 10 Nigerians have just turned up in four enormous cars with blackened windows, led by a fat upper-class English woman in a floral dress.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
I can understand people being unhappy with somebody like cameron in power. He's the tory equivalent of putting arthur scargill in power. He's so unbelievably posh that he's almost like a caricature, to the point where it's a shock to know that people like that even exist any more. That's quite alienating, however hard they try to make it not seem so.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
quote:Originally posted by mart: Who do you think will win?
We should do a sweepstake. Like the Grand National. Except that was 40 horses. And I lost 20 quid.
tories.
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
Who do you think has got the nicest wife.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
He may well be posh, but I do tend to think that it's more a case of who is better at nuts and bolts politics than who I'd most like to have round for dinner.
I reckon I'll be voting labour. Thorn, if you're really still undecided you could vote tory and then our votes will cancel each other out and neither of us will have had to make a decision, yet still contributed to the principles of democracy.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
I've not paid any attention to any wives. I have no idea. Probably cameron, I'll wager, having seen none of them. posh women, despite their terrible shrill voices and obsession with AGA ovens, can be pretty hot. As long as they are embracing their poshness, and not going all felicity kendall in The Good Life, who may not be posh exactly, but is borderline enough to make my point. You know. We've gone over this before. Which one off The Good Life would you rather nail, etc.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
cameron going on about broken britain seems somehow right and appropriate, but imagine him like, meeting world leaders and talking about nuclear arms. kin ell.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
no? Okay. I wonder what tmo veteran 'root' makes of all this.
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
Maybe Dave is just the chap this country needs to get things back on track.
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
Felicity Kendall.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Sam Cameron can scrub up OK, I guess. I don't know how it would feel to screw the pregnant wife of the country's Prime Minister, in her marital bed, in the home of British politics, maybe while a framed picture of her dead disabled son looked on from the bedside table. Could end up feeling a bit seedy.
[ 15.04.2010, 11:54: Message edited by: Thorn Davis ]
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
LOL LISTEN TO THIS GORDOEN YOU WILL NOT GET MY VOTE!!!! MY MUM WAS GOING TO TESOCS AND SHE PARKED WHEN SHE WAS GETTING THE TROLLEY TO THE BOOT AND WOULD YOU BELIEVE IT!!! ONE OF GODRDONS TRAFFIC WARDENS GAVE HER A TICKET AND SHE WAS ONLY THERE FOR LESS THAN FIVE MINUITES!!! SHES VERY UPSET I WROTE TO MY LABOR MP AND GUESS WHAT!!! YES YOUVE GUESSED NOTHING HAPPENED!!!! OK DAVID MIGHT BE POSH BUT AT LEAST HE IS NOT A TOTAL IDIOT LIKE GORDEN! MY HUSBAND IS ALSO VOTING FOR MR CAMERON AND I THINK YOU SHOULD TO!!! ITS TIME WE FIXED BROKEN BRITAIN I DONT EVEN REGOCNISE IT ANY MORE LOL!!! KICK THE PEADOS OUT!!!
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
OH AND BEFORE YOU SAY IT<<,, NO!!! I AMNOT WORKING FOR THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY!!! I VOTED FOR B"LAIR" BEFORE BUT ENOUGH IS ENOUGH I SAY!!!!
I AM SELLING SOME BABY THINGS ON EBAY JUST SOME TOYS ETC HAVE A LOOK IF U LIKE.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
I don't even know what I'm doing on tmo any more. I'm just... I don't know. Sorry.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
quote:Originally posted by MiscellaneousFiles: Felicity Kendall.
bad luck. The correct answer was 'Margo'.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
she's like isla: She wolf of the SS, only with a perversely dark layer of seventies middle class living added on.
[ 15.04.2010, 11:54: Message edited by: Kanye West ]
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kanye West: bad luck. The correct answer was 'Margo'.
No, I've successfully progressed through my Margo phase and I'm back to good old Barbara.
[ 15.04.2010, 12:30: Message edited by: MiscellaneousFiles ]
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
Oh Iceland, you were supposed to send us cash! Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
See you tomorrow, everyone.
Come back soon root! Your in are thoughts Posted by Octavia (Member # 398) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kanye West: You've got a right bunch of posh ***** at the back end (and now the front end) of the tory party, which you don't have with labour.
Genuine laugh out loud lol.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
Talking about racism, I've just been given a graphic design to put on my current employer's homepage. It shows a selection of famous people:
Famous football manager - white Famous musician - white Famous attractive female celebrity - white Famous footballer - white Famous author - white Famous animated character off of Avatar - blue Infamous Detroit bomber terrorist - black D'oh!
Just wondering whether to say anything, or would that just make me implicitly racist for even noticing it, like the tabloids pointing out how outraged they are that padded bras for 7-year-old girls make them look sexy. Uh, do they, mate? Says... you?
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis:
Sam Cameron can scrub up OK, I guess. I don't know how it would feel to screw the pregnant wife of the country's Prime Minister, in her marital bed, in the home of British politics, maybe while a framed picture of her dead disabled son looked on from the bedside table. Could end up feeling a bit seedy.
Ooh, no. I'd far rather fuck her husband. Bind his hands, hobble him. Smash that frame on the bedstead, crumple the photo up and push it in his mouth. Then beat him across the buttocks with an electric flex until he was sufficiently bloodied to bugger him to death. The English Way.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: Things have just gotten quite tense in my office as 10 Nigerians have just turned up in four enormous cars with blackened windows, led by a fat upper-class English woman in a floral dress.
Stonewall?
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis:
Incidentally, the fairy would have to be barbecued and a quick ankle-flick to finish off the injun.
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
quote:Originally posted by Black Mask: and a quick ankle-flick to finish off the injun.
:evilgiggle:
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
I can't work out why people are saying Nick Clegg came off on top last night. (fnar)
As far as I could see he stammered and stuttered his way through repeating the same scripted lines over and over again, repeatedly dodging questions about his promises of tax cuts, and simply countering every point made by brown and cameron by saying that they won't do what they say they will.
For my money if one person came out well from that it was Gordon Brown.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
quote:Originally posted by dang65: Talking about racism, I've just been given a graphic design to put on my current employer's homepage. It shows a selection of famous people:
Famous football manager - white Famous musician - white Famous attractive female celebrity - white Famous footballer - white Famous author - white Famous animated character off of Avatar - blue Infamous Detroit bomber terrorist - black D'oh!
Just wondering whether to say anything, or would that just make me implicitly racist for even noticing it, like the tabloids pointing out how outraged they are that padded bras for 7-year-old girls make them look sexy. Uh, do they, mate? Says... you?
can't you just do some tinting to even things out?
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kanye West:
quote:Originally posted by dang65: Talking about racism, I've just been given a graphic design to put on my current employer's homepage. It shows a selection of famous people:
Famous football manager - white Famous musician - white Famous attractive female celebrity - white Famous footballer - white Famous author - white Famous animated character off of Avatar - blue Infamous Detroit bomber terrorist - black D'oh!
can't you just do some tinting to even things out?
Sounds like a good plan. So, which positive role-model celebrity white person should put on some Black and White Minstrel Show make-up, for the purposes of balance and fairness, and perhaps to raise some money for their celebrity favourite charity?
Fabio Capello off of England The singer out of The Strokes, still going apparently Sophie Dahl, the fat one that isn't actually at all fat Wayne Rooney out of Man U Terry Pratchett, book writer of some sort The blue one off of Avatar Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ringo: I can't work out why people are saying Nick Clegg came off on top last night. (fnar)
As far as I could see he stammered and stuttered his way through repeating the same scripted lines over and over again, repeatedly dodging questions about his promises of tax cuts, and simply countering every point made by brown and cameron by saying that they won't do what they say they will.
I think that's what PR folk call "staying on message".
A very good friend of mine used to work in the Lib Dem PR office. He left when the Lib Dems failed to gain any significant ground in an election where people were still wary of the Tories, yet mad at Labour for going to war. Since he left, of course, they're in the most promising position they have been for many decades.
Recently he started a job high up at the British Gas press office, which has been in the news for raising prices, letting pensioners freeze, and increasingly disruptive industrial action. I'm starting to wonder how he justifies his frankly disgusting salary.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Fabio Capello isn't white: he's a fucking wop.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Sorry. I think I've left myself logged in on my parents' computer.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
i didnt watch it, i was sinking pints in london bridge.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
something that has 'come round to bite me in the arse' today.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
is that even a phrase? Seemed like it at first, but now I'm thinking maybe not. Anyway, it was alright, I just about managed to manage myself, although somebody who I met only that last night was telling me that I was 'too negative' within like an hour. Great. Great, I thought. Great, I said, as I smashed her face through the glass table that sat between us. Thats really great. Thanks. Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Maybe you are too negative. We do a book about the power of positivity. It's called Positivity. Perhaps you should read it and follow the simple steps to improving your life.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: Fabio Capello isn't white: he's a fucking wop.
That's ok then. That's pretty much the same as being black. It'll keep Trevor Phillips off our backs anyway.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
i think that louise has a whole library books about that kind of shit. I don't know. I don't 'feel' negative at the moment.... maybe it's just my language. It's like Max Schrender, father of the atomic bomb said: "From my misery and pessimism springs a righteous cleansing fire; bow before me lest you taste my wrath, you fucking dogs".
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
actually i think i read on the side of a bottle of " ainsely harriots dangerously hot chilli pickle"
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
According to one of the Amazon reviews our book is, like, too much effort man.
quote:This book is all about the science behind feeling positive, and doesn't make you actually feel positive, only bored. Well written, but too much hard work.
I was equally disappointed by A Brief History of Time, which had chapters on the science of time travel, but didn't actually make you travel through time.
Posted by Tilde (Member # 1215) on :
We're all travelling through time...
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Actually, we're not - it's just that the way we perceive time makes it seem that way.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
woah dude you're totally right!
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Let's not have another 'gravity comes from the moon' moment, eh.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
bummer
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
If you're interested in this, be sure to check out How To Teach Quantum Physics to Your Dog, which will be hitting a bookstore near you this christmas. Alternatively, if you can't wait til then, Quantum Physics: A Beginner's Guide gives you the most in-depth, accessible introduction on the market.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ringo: I can't work out why people are saying Nick Clegg came off on top last night. (fnar)
For my money if one person came out well from that it was Gordon Brown.
I can't work out the Nick Clegg thing either. Looks like the entire media has decided that he won outright, but he just looked silly to me. Cameron did his act of "I'm basically already in charge, which is what the people want, OK? Yah." and looked like a complete asshole. Brown is easily the most convincing as a leader and experienced politician (as John Sergeant pointed out on Question Time to general astonishment and disbelief), but so many people have decided it's "time for a change" that he could be Churchill and still lose (er, as Churchill did in 1945, in fact).
So, maybe they mean Clegg won outright because he doesn't look like a complete asshole and isn't Labour. That's not really winning.
I just hope it took Cameron down, but some people are claiming he did really well. Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
I looked at the beginners guide books on your online store. I love books like that, to nip in and out of subjects you'd never ordinarily have time to go through but want a taster. But then being sat on public transport with a book saying 'beginners guide' kind of sends off a beacon of 'this guy knows DICK about: x' Could you buy alternative covers that say 'Definately paid attention to reniassance art in college and isn't trying to make for it now'?
Posted by Tilde (Member # 1215) on :
I watched some of the debate last night. I didn't really think anyone 'won' in my eyes. Mostly it left me feeling that:
a. Nick Clegg: had an easy job of it here, pointing out that the 'other two' were bickering again, points thumb over shoulder to Brown and Cameron, smiles at audience, raises eyebrows. Repeating the same answer, slightly rephrased up to three times - possibly the hosts fault for going back to him when hes's already answered.
b. Gordon Brown: Kept trying to get his opponents to agree with him "and I think Nick agrees with me here.." tried a few attacks on Cameron.
c. Cameron: Mr Reasonable, agreeing with the others, didn't really seem to go on the attack much.
A lot of anecdotes, "I met a bloke in a school, who said blah blah blah and that's why we have to change so and so policy."
Mostly I just feel that all the politicians can answer any question given by the audience and sound sincere, give a satisfactory answer.
..but, it doesn't actually mean anything's going to get done does it?
anyhow. whatevs.
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
I got a bit hooked on this last night for some reason, and even watched an hour or two of follow-up on various channels after the main event. The approval lines (aka The Worms) were bewitching.
Paddy Ashdown said that Clegg had "something of the Obamas about him", but on my screen it looked more like Cameron did.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
X, Stevie
[ 16.04.2010, 06:21: Message edited by: Thorn Davis ]
Posted by Tilde (Member # 1215) on :
lol
Posted by Tilde (Member # 1215) on :
That was at misc's joke BTW. Not at Thorn who just totally stevied it.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tilde: ..but, it doesn't actually mean anything's going to get done does it?
I went through a period a couple of years ago of really despising Labour, but one thing that has brought me back - to the point where I'm going to vote for them in May - is that they really have done things. Big, big progress in schools, the NHS and public transport, which I'm really surprised that they aren't blowing their own trumpet about.
I also believe that the way they handled the financial crisis was the right way for everyone and headed off what might have been a genuine disaster. They may have just postponed it, mind you, time will tell.
Posted by Tilde (Member # 1215) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: Actually, we're not - it's just that the way we perceive time makes it seem that way.
Hawking isn't that clever. He just copy and pastes stuff from wikipedia into his voice machine.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tilde: That was at misc's joke BTW. Not at Thorn who just totally stevied it.
Yes, I read that back and thought "No I've just trodden all over that". Sorry Misc. Sorry TMO.
[ 16.04.2010, 06:15: Message edited by: Thorn Davis ]
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
I wasn't watching it but was, stupidly, following the comments on one of the BBC's HYS things. The reactions seemed to be:
:- ITV is rubbish and can't hire camera crews or producers that know what they're doing :- The presenter is rubbish :- This would be much better if it was just Question Time, with some good heckling :- They all just delivered sweeping generalisations that nobody in their right mind would disagree with. "It's time to sort the economy out." "Education and the NHS have got to be a priority." Etc. :- Nothing in the debate was relevant to Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, so all three had alienated three-quarters of the electorate :- Clegg won :- No, Cameron won :- Brown easily won :- I'm voting LibDem now! :- Look at Cameron's hair :- Bye bye Brown :- DC actually came across really well :- What a breath of fresh air Nick Clegg is :- I was actually quite impressed with Gordon Brown :- This has nothing to do with Scotland (repeatedly)
[ 16.04.2010, 06:18: Message edited by: mart ]
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
quote:Originally posted by mart: Nothing in the debate was relevant to Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, so all three had alienated three-quarters of the electorate
LOL
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
Cuh, who gives a crap about scotland and wales? If they want to piss about having their own pretend little 'parliaments' then why do they expect their issues to be addressed by the wider government?
Anyway, I think it's interesting that very little has been said about the promises of parliamentary reform. In particular Brown's pledge to halve the size of the house of Lords, and abolish hereditary peerships in favour of elected representatives.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
I suppose if you compress the whole of the 90 minute debate into about 5 minutes worth of reading, then the Lib Dems do appear to come out looking at least as strong as Labour or the Tories.
I'm kind of surprised no one (that I've heard about) has questioned the legality of giving an allowance to one group of people, basically because they have voluntarily joined a club.
I'm talking about this Tory married couples' allowance here. Marriage may be a very good thing (apparently), but so is joining the Boy Scouts, or the local Round Table Club, or being a Help The Aged shop volunteer, but no one would suggest that those people get paid by the public purse for the duration of their membership. It's a voluntary status, marriage, which suits some people and doesn't suit others.
I realise that it also holds legal implications, mainly around Inheritance Tax, but what is the justification for an additional payment - not based on need like a disability allowance or a tax credit on low income - but based on a fictional status bestowed by a redundant, quasi-religious ceremony? Why not give the druids a special allowance? Or witches. And what if a witch married a druid? These are the issues people want discussed.
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
I think it got roundly derided when it was announced.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by mart: I think it got roundly derided when it was announced.
Yeah, well, anything that any of them say gets roundly derided. I was thinking more about someone actually challenging the legality of it. But I suppose it's only a manifesto policy, and is therefore completely meaningless anyway.
Posted by Octavia (Member # 398) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ringo: abolish hereditary peerships in favour of elected representatives.
I don't understand why anyone wants an elected House of Lords. The House of Lords as it stands is the one voice of sanity in government - they're not controlled by the whips, they're not saying whatever they think will get them elected, they're now largely people who've got to the top of their career tree on merit (the hereditary element was actually downsized a lot several years ago) and usually genuinely know what they're talking about. It's all very well saying it's unrepresentative but anyone who thinks MPs are representative has probably never met one. The House of Lords is the only thing that might actually represent the will of the people rather than the will of the party machine and the whips.
What I'd rather see is ministers who aren't MPs. MPs shouldn't be allowed to run ministries, they should be in charge of challenging the people who are running the ministries. Who should be people who actually understand the thing the ministry is supposed to be in charge of.
Posted by Octavia (Member # 398) on :
quote:Originally posted by dang65: I'm kind of surprised no one (that I've heard about) has questioned the legality of giving an allowance to one group of people, basically because they have voluntarily joined a club.
Why would it be illegal?
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
quote:Originally posted by Octavia:
quote:Originally posted by Ringo: abolish hereditary peerships in favour of elected representatives.
I don't understand why anyone wants an elected House of Lords. The House of Lords as it stands is the one voice of sanity in government - they're not controlled by the whips, they're not saying whatever they think will get them elected, they're now largely people who've got to the top of their career tree on merit (the hereditary element was actually downsized a lot several years ago) and usually genuinely know what they're talking about. It's all very well saying it's unrepresentative but anyone who thinks MPs are representative has probably never met one. The House of Lords is the only thing that might actually represent the will of the people rather than the will of the party machine and the whips.
What I'd rather see is ministers who aren't MPs. MPs shouldn't be allowed to run ministries, they should be in charge of challenging the people who are running the ministries. Who should be people who actually understand the thing the ministry is supposed to be in charge of.
Yeah, I'm a bit torn on the matter really. The house of lords has been responsible for vetoing some of the more hair-brained ideas put forth by parliament, and you wonder if maybe such ideas would be effectively unopposed if the house were comprised entirely by people who are very possibly motivated by personal gain.
It adds a bit of balance and reducing the size of the house surely reduces the balance. Hereditary peers aren't really the answer, but maybe elected officials isn't any better a solution.
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
I largely agree with Octavia. The Lords might not be perfect, but I think it needs tweaking rather than replacing entirely.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
readers will be cheered to know that I'm feeling better, but still not 100%
Posted by Tilde (Member # 1215) on :
Perhaps if they cut it down to just a couple of lords and made their accommodation a lot smaller. Two Lords and a static caravan.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
or one Lord. Theo Paphitis.
Posted by dance margarita (Member # 848) on :
or THE lord. lord andrew lloyd- webber. call me a radical, but i think that a nation which is afraid to give control of all its checks and balances to the man who wrote 'benjamin calypso' is a nation afraid to look itself in the eye.
Posted by Cherry In Hove (Member # 49) on :
Could we not just have the lord of the dance Michael Flatley as the person who makes all the final decisions for the country?
I suppose the worry is that he could be explaining his decisions and people would be so transfixed by his flailing legs that they don't notice he's just passed a new law forcing people to listen to Irish folk music for twentyfour hours a day.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by Octavia:
quote:Originally posted by dang65: I'm kind of surprised no one (that I've heard about) has questioned the legality of giving an allowance to one group of people, basically because they have voluntarily joined a club.
Why would it be illegal?
Well, I'm not sure where the law really stands on such things, but what this plan boils down to is rewarding certain people simply because they have voluntarily joined a club - The Married People - which doesn't actually make them any different from anyone else.
Having a child makes you different from people who don't have children - and you get Child Benefit to help you. Being too old to work makes you different from young people - and you get a State Pension to help you. Being handicapped or disabled makes you different from the able-bodied - and you may get care or special equipment supplied to help you. Being married does not make you in any way different from people who are not married - and the Tories want to give you an allowance for it.
Why? How is that justified? It's actually being treated like an insurance premium. You're a 40-year-old woman, so you're statistically less likely to have an accident than an 18-year-old lad - so have a discount on your car insurance. You're a married couple, so you're statistically more likely to... what? Settle down and buy a house and have kids and be jolly nice, *cough* and vote Tory *cough* ? - so have a discount on your tax payments. Eh?
If it is legal to give out allowances like that, then I don't think it should be.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by dang65: Why? How is that justified?
How is it justified? As I understand it a man stands up and says "If you vote me in I will give a handout to married people". So then aaallll the people of Britain over 18 go out on the same day and then decide whether they want this man to get into power and do the things he says he's going to do. If more people say "yes we want you to do it", then he is allowed to give his hand out to married people. It is therefore justified on the grounds that people voted him into government after he stated that this was something he was going to do if voted into government.
If people don't like the things the man says, then they vote for another man, who isn't going to give a handout to married people. If most of the people vote for that guy then giving a handout to married people isn't justified and doesn't happen.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
I think the name is a bit misleading. It also affects those in civil partnerships. It's basically a tax allowance for any long term couple who are prepared to legally declare themselves to be a partnership. Whether you achieve this by havving a big wedding, or just by signing some papers in a registry office, is entirely up to you really.
Regretting the divorce?
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
I do agree that the marriage allowance thing seems like a blatant bribe. It's not even that substantial a bribe, either, compared to the 'buy your council flat' thing that Maggie came up with to bribe people to vote Tory who would never normally vote Tory.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
EDIT: Response to two posts back.
Yeah, it's a little bit more complicated than that though, isn't it.
There are still rules and regulations. You're saying that this can be stopped by people voting against it, which is fine and reassuring, but I'm saying that it should actually be against the law of the land to do it. I don't mean, just not in the legislation; I mean it should be a crime.
There would be media outrage if the Tories said, "Vote for us and we will ensure that all businessmen who give funds to us will have their taxes cut." And I'm pretty sure that would be illegal. But really, it's the same thing, near enough. Just giving money to people who have no greater need for it than anyone else.
[ 16.04.2010, 11:04: Message edited by: dang65 ]
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by dang65: EDIT: Response to two posts back.
Yeah, it's a little bit more complicated than that though, isn't it.
There are still rules and regulations. You're saying that this can be stopped by people voting against it, which is fine and reassuring, but I'm saying that it should actually be against the law of the land to do it. I don't mean, just not in the legislation; I mean it should be a crime.
Wha? You can't make it illegal for the government to implement policies that the people of Britain voted them in to implement. That's madness. Who on earth would get to decide which policies were illegal? If there's an unelected body deciding that the elected government can only make certain types of policy, that's anti-democratic, surely?
quote:There would be media outrage if the Tories said, "Vote for us and we will ensure that all businessmen who give funds to us will have their taxes cut." And I'm pretty sure that would be illegal. But really, it's the same thing, near enough. Just giving money to people who have no greater need for it than anyone else.
Well, arguably a lot of Tory policy does amount to doing favours for big business. If they literally came out and said "Vote Tory and Vote to give big business a fat tax rebate", then yeah, they would be roundly mocked in the papers, and all the rest of it. And if they did that, people probably wouldn't vote them in. On the other hand if people said "actually - fuck it man, big business deserves a break" and did vote them in... well. It would then be unethical for the party - as the elected representatives of the will of the people - not to follow through on their promise.
Also, although to give rebates to favourite businesses might not be illegal, it would be unpopular with every party other than the Tories (and maybe even some tory Mps would be against it) therefore, when it came to getting something through parliament, MPs who were anything other than Tory would vote against it. Unless they vocally agreed with it, in which case - again - they're obliged to perform the will of the people, which - one assumes - is to carry out the ideas and policies they said they would do before they were elected.
[ 16.04.2010, 11:22: Message edited by: Thorn Davis ]
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: Wha? You can't make it illegal for the government to implement policies that the people of Britain voted them in to implement. That's madness. Who on earth would get to decide which policies were illegal? If there's an unelected body deciding that the elected government can only make certain types of policy, that's anti-democratic, surely?
There are restrictions on what policies elected governments can implement. There are constitutional conventions and fundamental principles. Technically, these can be changed, but they are entrenched in our history and customs and, basically, they don't get changed.
One of those fundamental principles is equality before the law - "each individual is subject to the same laws, with no individual or group having special legal privileges".
Giving a tax allowance to married couples may not class as "legal privileges", but there probably is a similar fundamental principle relating to financial privileges being given to individuals or groups for no justifiable reason.
To me, it's the same as, say, allowing judges to be let off when they're caught speeding, or allowing MPs to claim moat cleaning on expenses when anyone else claiming that would have HMRC round banging on their portcullis first thing in the morning.
Also, there would be no requirement for debate or parliamentay vote involved in introducing this allowance. The Chancellor would simply put it in his budget and there it is, allowance allocated.
Plenty of people who voted Tory may completely disagree with the allowance, but voted for lots of other policies which they really liked (just as I'm going to vote Labour despite disagreeing completely with ID cards). Plenty of other people won't have voted at all, or will have voted in constituencies where the party they voted for didn't stand a chance against the established party (like where I live )
So a tiny, tiny minority of citizens/subjects may actually favour this policy, but you would consider it unethical if the Tories failed to follow through on their promise. What I'm saying is that something else should override such promises, from the very start. A right of equality, basically.
Posted by Octavia (Member # 398) on :
quote:Originally posted by dang65: Also, there would be no requirement for debate or parliamentay vote involved in introducing this allowance. The Chancellor would simply put it in his budget and there it is, allowance allocated.
Umm. That's not how the Budget works. The Finance Bill gets debated in both houses - it's simply a convention that it gets voted through more or less unchanged, though there are nearly always minor changes. A good example would be the 10p tax rate that they were going to get rid of. There was a storm of protest and they had to retain it.
In any case, none of our constitutional principles are written down, and the principle of equality before the law in no way prevents any government (and ALL governments do this) doing its bit of social engineering. In the simplest terms, the government makes the law. We have consented to tax being collected from us, and we get no say in precisely how it's arranged. For example there are plenty of arguments to be had around the things that VAT is applied to - one man's cake (taxed) is another man's biscuit (untaxed). If they want to tweak the way taxes are collected and who they are collected from, it can't possibly be illegal. In this particular case, the Tories have got a bunch of research demonstrating that, statistically, the married or civil partnershipped couple is a stable social unit that in general (and you can only deal in generalities here) contributes more in terms of social structure - childcare etc - than single units. Plus, you know, we're talking about less than £3 a week here, which won't buy your married couple so much as a pair of cappuccinos.
It doesn't mean, of course, that there aren't thousands of hard-working, responsible single mothers - just that the stats are against them.
[ 17.04.2010, 04:21: Message edited by: Octavia ]
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by Octavia: Umm. That's not how the Budget works. The Finance Bill gets debated in both houses - it's simply a convention that it gets voted through more or less unchanged, though there are nearly always minor changes. A good example would be the 10p tax rate that they were going to get rid of. There was a storm of protest and they had to retain it.
I'm a bit dumb about these things, admittedly, but if it's all debated in both houses first then how come the Budget is always such a surprise to everyone when it's read out?
quote:Originally posted by Octavia: In any case, none of our constitutional principles are written down, and the principle of equality before the law in no way prevents any government (and ALL governments do this) doing its bit of social engineering.
I thought that was one of those urban myths? We don't have a written constitution, but we do have written statutes and so on.
quote:Originally posted by Octavia: In the simplest terms, the government makes the law. We have consented to tax being collected from us, and we get no say in precisely how it's arranged. For example there are plenty of arguments to be had around the things that VAT is applied to - one man's cake (taxed) is another man's biscuit (untaxed). If they want to tweak the way taxes are collected and who they are collected from, it can't possibly be illegal.
It may not class as "illegal", as in being a crime, but I still think that it's contrary to the fundamental principles of the law. Budgetary allowances are based around need - old people get heating payments, children get free school dinners if their parents earn below a certain amount, etc. But I don't know of any financial allowances which are granted to a group of people simply because they are members of a club. There is nothing whatsoever which distinguishes married couples from other couples or other people in general, other than that they have gone through the ceremony of marriage. Nothing that distinguishes their needs or financial situation or entitlement, I mean.
quote:Originally posted by Octavia: In this particular case, the Tories have got a bunch of research demonstrating that, statistically, the married or civil partnershipped couple is a stable social unit that in general (and you can only deal in generalities here) contributes more in terms of social structure - childcare etc - than single units. Plus, you know, we're talking about less than £3 a week here, which won't buy your married couple so much as a pair of cappuccinos.
It doesn't mean, of course, that there aren't thousands of hard-working, responsible single mothers - just that the stats are against them.
You must see the absurdity of those last couple of paragraphs, surely? You can't start favouring people (even with a free cappuccino) just because they statistically contribute more in terms of social structure! Like I said before, that's turning tax into an insurance premium scheme. Where next? More allowances for the Middle Classes? More allowances for people who wear suits and ties instead of hoodies?
I know I'm making a fuss about something which may appear to be a really minor issue, but it's the principal of the thing. It's discriminating against people because of their beliefs. Many people don't believe in marriage, or, in fact may not be able to afford to get married. And so on.
This will be another TMO debate in which I'm taking a view which no one else seems to agree with, or they think it's so unimportant that it's not worth even discussing, but it's the sort of thing that really riles me. Just ignore it if you want. Posted by Octavia (Member # 398) on :
I meant to come back to this dang and then forgot to check the thread.
quote:Originally posted by dang65: if it's all debated in both houses first then how come the Budget is always such a surprise?
It's debated later, after the speech has been read out. The speech is essentially a long summary of the provisions of the Finance Bill as it will be put before both Houses, with a bit of PR-y spin added in.
quote:I thought that was one of those urban myths? We don't have a written constitution, but we do have written statutes.
Yes, but our statutes don't actually refer to any kind of constitutional arrangement. For example, Mrs T was able to start and Tony Blair to continue a concentration of power in Downing St - causing a far more Presidential style to emerge and doing a great deal to hamstring both the Ministries and Parliament. There's nothing in statute to hinder that. If we did have a constitution then it would be 'above' statute, as it were. If you compare with the US model, you need different (far bigger) majorities to amend the Constitution than you do to simply pass a bill.
quote:It may not class as "illegal", as in being a crime, but I still think that it's contrary to the fundamental principles of the law. Budgetary allowances are based around need - old people get heating payments, children get free school dinners if their parents earn below a certain amount, etc.
It would be nice if this were the case... Budgetary allowances are nearly always about a bit of social engineering coupled with a bit of political maneouvering. Who do you want to vote for you next time? who can't you afford to offend? who have you made promises to (all kinds of people - supporters, businesses, other people in your party whose support you've needed)? Did you know there's a tax allowance for office parties? Tolley's Tax Guide has doubled in size in the last ten years (from two 400-page volumes of tax law to four) as Labour has tweaked and fiddled with the tax system to facilitate its social policies. Very, very few benefits or tax breaks are based on need, other than things like pensions and basic dole.
quote:But I don't know of any financial allowances which are granted to a group of people simply because they are members of a club.There is nothing whatsoever which distinguishes married couples from other couples or other people in general, other than that they have gone through the ceremony of marriage. Nothing that distinguishes their needs or financial situation or entitlement, I mean.
Those allowances are there, though. If people have children, they're members of a club too, yet we give them child benefit, tax credits, VAT off children's clothes etc etc etc. Plus it goes to my point about social engineering - if a particular thing has been demonstrated to be of benefit to society, then government will want to - indeed arguably should - encourage that.
Incidentally, has anyone changed the way they plan to vote because of what's happened in the last few weeks? I mean, because of the election campaign?
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
quote:Incidentally, has anyone changed the way they plan to vote because of what's happened in the last few weeks? I mean, because of the election campaign?
Not really, but I had a newfound respect for Gordon Brown. Knowing there was a human being rattling around in there. I'd probably voted for him if he'd had the guts to say what he thought to that stupid woman's face.
[ 04.05.2010, 09:42: Message edited by: New Way Of Decay ]
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by dang65: But I don't know of any financial allowances which are granted to a group of people simply because they are members of a club.There is nothing whatsoever which distinguishes married couples from other couples or other people in general, other than that they have gone through the ceremony of marriage. Nothing that distinguishes their needs or financial situation or entitlement, I mean.
quote:Originally posted by Octavia: Those allowances are there, though. If people have children, they're members of a club too, yet we give them child benefit, tax credits, VAT off children's clothes etc etc etc. Plus it goes to my point about social engineering - if a particular thing has been demonstrated to be of benefit to society, then government will want to - indeed arguably should - encourage that.
This point is still really bugging me. Why do you consider people who have children to be just part of a club in the same way as married people? People who have children have additional financial responsibility, and children have rights of protection and housing and education. And, let's not forget, they are our future.
There is a clear difference between people who have children and people who do not have children.
But how is there a difference between people who are married and people who are not married? There actually is no difference at all, any more than there is a difference between a baby who is christened and a baby who is not christened, or an adult who is a member of the local golf club and an adult who is not a member of the local golf club.
Both the christening of babies and membership of golf clubs may be indicators of traditionalism, conformity, respectability and unlikeliness to become a revolutionary terrorist bomber, but should that entitle people who are christened or are members of their local golf club to a tax discount?
To me, the whole thing remains absurd. I'd go so far as to say that social engineering of that sort is a hugely regressive policy, and damned un-English.
Posted by Octavia (Member # 398) on :
quote:Originally posted by dang65: I'd go so far as to say that social engineering of that sort is a hugely regressive policy, and damned un-English.
Good lord, if you don't like social engineering then socialism is the worst possible option! E4UBB
[ 05.05.2010, 09:32: Message edited by: Octavia ]
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
I liked Gordon Brown's speech about fairness. If life were like a movie, that would win him the election by a landslide and we'd all go on to be happy and caring and help each other out under the warm, familial wing of Gordon Brown. Why can't life be more like a movie? *kicks life.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by Octavia:
quote:Originally posted by dang65: I'd go so far as to say that social engineering of that sort is a hugely regressive policy, and damned un-English.
Good lord, if you don't like social engineering then socialism is the worst possible option!
Tell me more? Do you believe that socialism hands out allowances according to who has simply declared themselves to be in a different situation, even though they actually aren't? Of course there are loopholes which are exploited (and then reviewed and closed as was ever the case), but no policies which specifically state, "This person has declared himself to be the Grand Nog Of Frogs and this assumption of responsibility demonstrates his great value to society. Give him an extra 50 quid a week." That would be absurd. And doing the same for people who are married is equally absurd.
Also, you're not answering my genuine question: What makes married people different from not-married people? Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
married people are more passive aggressive.
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
quote:Originally posted by dang65: What makes married people different from not-married people?
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
i'm pretty sure I'm not going to get married.
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by MiscellaneousFiles:
quote:Originally posted by dang65: What makes married people different from not-married people?
5th day of May 2010 _______________________________________________
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kanye West: married people are more passive aggressive.
Marriage is an important part of getting ahead: lets people know you're not a homo. Married guy seems more stable. People see the ring, they think at least somebody can stand the son of a bitch. Ladies see the ring, they know immediately you must have some cash or your cock must work.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
being married is gay.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
it's only acceptable if you get married then your wife dies in a car crash because of some hit and run punk and you sit in bars drinking shots and a girl in a cut off t-shirt and tight jeans says "drinking like that, you gotta have a story" and you say "This isn't jacakanory. Beat it". and she cocks her head and says "Oooh, an angry drunk, my favourite, just like my daddy" and you kind of half grin, half snort, and she says "you married?" and you say "I was once" and she says "girl leave ya?" and you say "You could say that... now leave me alone...let me drink in peace..Bartender! Keep em coming.." and she says "huh, you don't make it easy for a girl, you know that?" and you say "I'll make it real simple then: Get lost" and she says "fuck you, jerk" and you just do another shot and some guy on the other side of the bar breaks a new game of pool. The dude cleaning the glasses behind the bar looks at the girl and slowly shakes his head. A cricket scuttles across a window sill. The girl sighs and goes to leave but just then a fucking armoured JCB comes right through the front of the bar, and you grab a desert eagle pistol from your jeans, scream "Get down!" to the girl, and start blazing.
[ 05.05.2010, 06:20: Message edited by: Kanye West ]
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
Pffft! Desert Eagle... fag.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
then like swat people bust in through the windows and shoot up the bartender like how ed-209 shoots up mr 'point it at ed-209', and whisky goes fucking everywhere and you grab her hand and go "come on, let's go!" and she screams over the noise of ricochetting bullets "are you fucking kidding me!" and you shout back "If you don't, you're dead!" and she shouts "Well I guess I don't have a - " but then all the whiskey sets on fire and you shout "IT's gonna blow! Come on!" and run into the back room with the bar exploding behind you and then it's really dark in the back room and you are both crouched behind a crate of jack daniels and she says "okay, just who are those guys and what the FUCK is going on" and you say "let's just say I'm behind on payments" and she says "Oh great, a real wise-ass...we're gonna die.. I shoulda just stayed at home and waited for Mr Right, my mother said that it would end like this but i didn't listen, oh no, i had to have it my way, i had to go out and - " and you grab and shake her and say "OK now listen to me! I've got too much business to take care of to think about dying today. After we make it through this, then you can start worrying about Mr Right. Until then, I'd advise you to stop babbling, and start concentrating on not getting shot." then you pop out your magazine from your pistol and start putting a new one in and you go "These guys are pros. I can assure you that if you run, you're dead. If you scream, you're dead. In fact, if you do any god damn thing that I haven't told you to do, you're dead. Got that?" and you pull the top of your pistol to load one in the chamber, and she sort of huffs and then you pull a little pistol from your cowboy boot at give it to her and she says "What am I, the fucking terminator? I'm not about to start killing people, no way" and you say "then it'll be both our funerals..." but just then you hear the noise of somebody turning on night vision and you go "SSshshsh! They've got goggles.... stay really still" and she whispers angrily "what are you, public enemy number one? You been caught banging the president's daughter? This is NOT my day" and you say "it's not theirs either", reach for a bottle of jack, and start making a molotov cocktail.
[ 05.05.2010, 06:45: Message edited by: Kanye West ]
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
in that totally non-faggy situation, it's acceptable to have been married.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
That sounded pretty faggy to me
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
you sound pretty faggy to me.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
What about if, like, you're getting a hard time at work and your boss is chewing you out and there's this new kid on board who's got fewer scruples than you and gets his clients drunk and hooks them up with call girls and his targets are trouncing yours and then when you go home your wife is all like "Oh my God, I haven't even got the best hairdryer anymore, WTF? Why don't you earn more money? Our kid is the only one in school without a new Camero, it's embarrassing. Why are you such a fuck up?" and then the next day at work this client asks you if you want to earn an extra few thousand going and dropping this package off for him? What then? What's the status on being married in that situation?
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
Then you'd be a fag and a sap.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Right, right. But what if you're responding to the fact that you're a fag and a sap by gradually slipping into the role of a one man killing machine, symbolised by - say - your glasses getting broken, and you taking your tie off and using it to strangle someone who was going to kill you in your sleep? You know - you would only have been prompted to make the transition through the added pressure of your nagging bitch-whore wife.
[ 05.05.2010, 06:51: Message edited by: Thorn Davis ]
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
in this scenario, how many chicks do you bang once you've manned up?
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
What kind of tie are we talking about? Describe it.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
his phone rings while you are strangling him and you answer it and say "hello?" and you hear a man going "Jim...Jim is that you...Jim?!" and you say "Jim's a little...tied up right now" and then throw the phone in the air and shoot it and then put your foot on jim's back and yank the tie so fucking hard that his head pops off in slow motion.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
lol
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
then a puerto rican cleaner comes into the room and there's a tarantino moment where you have a conversation with her about some old shit, I don't know, maybe about which album by "Roxy Johnson and the Blowhards" was the best, or if the tv show "happy days" really did jump the shark.
[ 05.05.2010, 07:11: Message edited by: Kanye West ]
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kanye West: in this scenario, how many chicks do you bang once you've manned up?
Er, none. But! It looks like you're going to get it on with this chick with a short black bob and enormous jugs and she kisses you and you're like goddamn as she grabs your wanger, but then she yanks your gun (your actual gun, not your 'gun') out of your waistband and presses the barrel into your gut and you're like 'goddamn it, bitch', and you slap her across the tits and she falls backwards and impales herself on an upturned stiletto and you say "That's what you get for diving in feet first".
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Or "shoe's on the other foot now".
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Or! "Heel, bitch."
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
It's difficult. You'd have to make sure you weren't paralysed by choice anxiety, with someone shooting you in the back while you worked out which pay-off to use.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
Use them all. Or why don't you ask your wife..?
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
Do you watch Archer?
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
I told you to take your foot out of your ass! HA! HA! HA!
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
Posted by Tilde (Member # 1215) on :
lol
Posted by Tilde (Member # 1215) on :
I think she got the point Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
NO Posted by Tilde (Member # 1215) on :
"ooh, looks like the shoes on the other foot now, and when I say foot, I actually mean up your ass BEYATCH" Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
tilde is awful at this
anyway, politics eh? one day to go hmm. anyone made their mind up yet?
Posted by Tilde (Member # 1215) on :
I've surprised myself with how good I am at writing dialogue, and when I say surprised, I mean disappointed BEYATCH!
Posted by Tilde (Member # 1215) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ringo: tilde is awful at this
anyway, politics eh? one day to go hmm. anyone made their mind up yet?
Come on Ringo, what do you think the favourite breakfast cereal thread is all about eh? Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
Sorry tilde, your dialogue was totally shit hot really. And you're awesome at computer games, and a hit with the ladies.
On a completely unrelated note, have you seen my new thread?
Posted by Cherry In Hove (Member # 49) on :
You will all be excited to hear that I have already voted and come home and made a cup of coffee (which will count as breakfast). In fact I will count the voting as breakfast as well.
Today's breakfast was coffee and some politics
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
I haven't voted yet, so my day isn't as exciting as Cherry's is yet.
I have however enjoyed a cup of tea, two Choco Liebniz biscuits, a cup of coffee, a cigarette and a few bites from a stale roti from last night.
Today is also my first day off in 44 days.
Posted by Octavia (Member # 398) on :
I also have voted, coached, showered and breakfasted. I look forward to what the day brings.
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
coached?
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
From Yahoo news:
quote:While more than 44 million people are registered to vote, the main motivation is a sense of duty - with 48% of participants voting for this reason, the YouGov survey found.
But despite concerted efforts over the years to counter voter apathy, only 37% of those questioned said "nothing at all" would stop them from marking a ballot paper.
To be fair, I think the only conclusion you can draw from this is that the 37% of people who said "nothing at all would stop them from going to the polls" clearly hadn't thought the question through. For example, if your child was hit by a car while you were on the way to the polling booth, would you say "OK, let me just get this done, and then I'll call for an ambulance". Or if someone mugged you and stabbed you on the way to the booth, would you refuse medical aid until you'd smeared a bloody X in the appropriate box? Or if you got to the polling station nand Dr Benway was staggering around outside, drunk, having not slept for three days and flinging his faeces at the walls and windows and ranting about CSS loops would you stop and think "no government is worth this" or would your brave the rancid bombs of wormy excrement to go and do your duty?
[ 06.05.2010, 04:45: Message edited by: Thorn Davis ]
Posted by Octavia (Member # 398) on :
quote:Originally posted by mart: coached?
Rowers. Get up at 6.15, feed the baby, then go out and shout at 20 year-olds. Starts the day off with a bang.
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
oh right ok. do you do it while sitting in the boat with them, or do you cycle along a bumpy towpath with one of those old-school loudhailers?
Posted by Octavia (Member # 398) on :
I cycle, though sans loudhailer, as I can make myself heard without one. Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
Politics in action.
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
I wonder who's winning in the elections.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
I'm a bit torn because on the one hand if some dude off the street spat in my face I'd be liable to react just the same, but if a bnp candidate were in my area flapping his ballbag face around spreading lies and hate, I'd probably be first in the queue to use this human spitoon
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Presumably, if someone spits in your face and then you punch them, and then beat them to the ground and keep punching them while they're on the ground, and the whole incident is captured on camera, you can wind up in court.
Anyway. The depressing thing is that the BNP are taking the position of victims, being threatened and attacked just because they dared to stand up for democracy and common sense. I was talking to Dr Benway about this on XBox live, and he said that basically this proves that the Indians are a bunch of phlegm-lobbing animals "no better than the camels that they fuck". I said I didn't know whether they had camels in India and he told me to "fuck off and read the Guardian" and disconnected from the party.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
It's the camels I feel sorry for...
Posted by Octavia (Member # 398) on :
They do have camels in India.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
Toodlepip Malcolm.
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
My girlfriend reckons our local LibDem candidate dude looks a bit like me:
Whaddayareckon.
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
Dreamy!
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
That's exactly what I imagine Black Mask looks like. Easy to imagine him striding across Waitrose car park, blipping the locks open on his Audi, as soon as he gets in range.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
I look ever so slightly more like Jeremy Irons.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
I can't quite get me head round the election result so far: it seems like all the parties did worse than they hoped, with the sole exception of the Green party who seem over the moon with their one (1) MP. The Tories keep chirruping that "Britain has voted for change", but really they should have been looking for the kind of landslide that Labour had in 1997.
Still. Some positive things have come out of this: immense voter turn out is inspiring, as is the fact that the BNP had a fucking disastrous time all the way through the campaign right up to the result. I'm sure all of us - Labour, Tory, LibDem, whatever - can gather together and share a point and LOL at that one.
Posted by Cherry In Hove (Member # 49) on :
I think it's absolutely ridiculous that Labour have got 29.2% of the votes and 245 seats whilst Lib Dems have got 22.9% of the votes and only 51 seat.
This means that Lib dems got 78.4% of the votes that Labour have got but they get 20.8% of the seats they get. We need proportional representation.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
The sensible way forward is for two parties to form a temporary coalition to allow for electoral reform brinign in proportional representation. Then do the whole thing again in a few months' time.
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cherry In Hove: I think it's absolutely ridiculous that Labour have got 29.2% of the votes and 245 seats whilst Lib Dems have got 22.9% of the votes and only 51 seat.
This means that Lib dems got 78.4% of the votes that Labour have got but they get 20.8% of the seats they get. We need proportional representation.
Yeah, I was a bit like WTF over that. The Lib Dems have done tremendously well to prove that they're not 'that other party'
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
i'm ill, didn't vote, woke up and thought 'whatevs' at the news.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kanye West: being married is gay.
Tell that to Ringo.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Because he's getting married.
Posted by Cherry In Hove (Member # 49) on :
Got pets, Bought a house, getting married. Our Ringo is all grown up. :emotionaltear:
Shall we take bets on how long before the pregnancy announcement comes?
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Hard to say. Give it a year maybe. At least they're getting married, rather than procreating out of wedlock, like a pair of neanderthals.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kanye West: i'm ill, woke up and thought 'whatevs' at the news.
Can't believe you're not the least bit happy for Ringo.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
Can't afford a kid. Can't really afford a wedding, but I'm relying on the father of the bride paying for it. That's how it works, right? Even if the bride's father is a Muslim?
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
I think if he's a muslim he has to stone her to death for living with you before marriage.
Also - kids are free.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
I think the father of the bride gets to fuck you first, Ringo.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
This deal's getting worse all the time
Posted by Cherry In Hove (Member # 49) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: Also - kids are free.
Yeah, It's actually cheaper to have a baby than it is to not have a baby as you stop going out.
Even Uni is relatively easy to save for as assuming it will cost £6k a year for three years, you only need to be saving like £20 a week or something from when they're born. And with compound interested etc, you probably only need to be putting half that amount away. Maybe.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
I think I also read in the Daily Mail that because I'm working class I get hundreds of pounds a week as some kind of prize for having procreated. Can anyone confirm this please?
Posted by Cherry In Hove (Member # 49) on :
You get like £20 a week unless you earn over 44k.
Posted by Cherry In Hove (Member # 49) on :
That might be a month actually. I'm not sure.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
is that combined income or just the income of the highest earner in the household?
Still, £20 a week hardly seems worth it.
Posted by Cherry In Hove (Member # 49) on :
That is going to be the income of the main earner. So, if the main earner earns £44,001 and the other parent doesn't work then you get nothing, but if both parents work and both earn £43,999 so a joint income of £87,998, then you get the full amount.
You also get the joy of having a child which is almost as good as the joy of when you have an amazing gaming session and play out of your skin. For example, if you're normally on like a 0.7:1 Kill:death ratio in Halo, then one day you've had just the right amount of coffee or something and your sniping is amazing and you finish the day on like a 2.8:1 kill death ratio, having a child is nearly as good as that.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
CiH is correct. I got 100% on Expert drums on Ghostbusters the other day, and it felt exactly like the day Alice was born.
Of course, no-one gives me £20 a week to play Rock Band, so on balance the baby is better.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
Presumably Alice being born is something which can only happen once, whereas with a game you're free to go back and do it again and again
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cherry In Hove: That is going to be the income of the main earner. So, if the main earner earns £44,001 and the other parent doesn't work then you get nothing, but if both parents work and both earn £43,999 so a joint income of £87,998, then you get the full amount.
Well, that sounds like a good incentive for the mother to go out and get a facking job rather than lounging around the house wearing her dildos down to a nub.
ETA: Also I'm sure if you asked your employer to put your salary down by two quid, they would oblige.
[ 20.10.2010, 04:29: Message edited by: Thorn Davis ]
Posted by Cherry In Hove (Member # 49) on :
I reckon to get my employer to take my salary down £2 would be pretty damn hard. It's taken 4 months of my manager regularly badgering them, and they still haven't managed to take back the extra months salary they paid me back in June. I was hoping she'd forget about it, but apparently it is going to come off my November pay now. Lovely to not get paid just before Christmas.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
But... you have already been paid this money, haven't you?
Posted by Cherry In Hove (Member # 49) on :
Well yeah, but I sort of used it to move house. I know I can't really complain, but when you've had the money for a while, you just sort of hope they'll figure that it's not all that big a deal to them.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
I might buy a new stereo, actually, and just sort of hope that my employer gives me the £3k. After all, it means a lot more to me than it does to them.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
In fact, according to their religion they should be doing everything they can to divest themselves of their wealth.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cherry In Hove: Lovely to not get paid just before Christmas.
I'll be joining you, it looks like, as I've just received an email saying that due to the "current climate" they'll be combining the Publicity Manager role and the Marketing Manager role into one, and making both roles redundant.
Great.
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
Do you do one of those jobs?
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Yes. I'm the marketing manager.
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
Sorry to hear that. Posted by Darryn.R (Member # 1) on :
That's rough, sorry to hear it Thorn
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
Bugger. Does that mean they'll be interviewing for a new Everything Manager post? You can go for that, right?
Posted by H1ppychick (Member # 529) on :
So do you and the other person both have to reapply for the combined job? If so, I'd suggest a pre-emptive kneecapping. I might know a guy in the Oxford area, if you know what I mean.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by Black Mask: Bugger. Does that mean they'll be interviewing for a new Everything Manager post? You can go for that, right?
I'm not sure. I've got a consultation on the 29th, as - presumably - has the publicity manager. There's no way she would be able to take on my job, and the owner of the company despises her, so it has crossed my mind that these are the legal hoops they would have to jump through in order to make her redundant. Conversely, I get on well with the owners, and they keep saying stuff like "You're far and away the best copywriter we've ever had". So that's a positive. On the other hand, there's been rumours for a while that the company is going to move to London, and I strongly suspect that they're just going to recruit for the position externally and get someone from That London.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
That's insane. Where would they find a copywriter in London?
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
Anyway, they won't move to London. They'll get rid of that bitch, give you the new prestige job and a massive raise. Probably.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
I don't think there would be a massive raise involved. In fact I imagine my 'reward' would simply be being able to keep my job.
That's a big 'if' of course. While I'm certain that they want to get rid of the Publicity Manager, I do think they see it as an opportunity to get someone else altogether in.
[ 25.10.2010, 08:26: Message edited by: Thorn Davis ]
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
God, I hate that BITCH!
Someone should start a Facebook campaign to get her fired.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
I should mention at this point, mind, that I spent about 20 minutes extolling to the company owners the virtues of integrating the PR and marketing departments, when they asked me about "ideas for the future". So I may have fucked myself in the arse if they went away saying "That is a good idea. Let's get someone in who can do that."
[ 25.10.2010, 11:40: Message edited by: Thorn Davis ]
Posted by London (Member # 29) on :
So... what happened?
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
No idea yet. Been asked to apply for the new position; that's about it so far. Unofficial word (from the sales manager via the company owner) is that I "don't have anything to worry about", but I'm not planning any big purchases just yet.
Posted by Cherry In Hove (Member # 49) on :
Probably a good idea to put any life changing events on hold for a bit as well.
Posted by Cherry In Hove (Member # 49) on :
I'm pretty sure that if she really tries, Octavia can hold that baby in for 11-12 months or something until you're sure what is going on.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
As far as I can tell, that seems to be her plan. Two days late now.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cherry In Hove: I'm pretty sure that if she really tries, Octavia can hold that baby in for 11-12 months or something until you're sure what is going on.
I was speaking the other day to someone who's just been made redundant. Works for the NHS. Apparently they're going to be booted from their job in 2012. I was just amazed. Basically, she's guaranteed to still be in her job for the whole of the next twelve months. Who else can boast that kind of security?
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Not me, obv.
Posted by Cherry In Hove (Member # 49) on :
I can guarantee 30 days unless I do something grossly negligent.
Posted by Cherry In Hove (Member # 49) on :
Actually - Although I can't guarantee being in a job for 12 months, if I do get made redundant, I will get the equivalent of about 11 months salary so including the pay for the 30 days redundancy period, I can guarantee a years pay which is alright. And I wouldn't even have to work for most of that period to get that amount which would make me the winner.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cherry In Hove: Actually - Although I can't guarantee being in a job for 12 months, if I do get made redundant, I will get the equivalent of about 11 months salary
Seriously??? How on earth did you swing that?
Posted by Cherry In Hove (Member # 49) on :
Well. I get a month's salary for every year I've been at Amex. I've been here for 7 years which is about 7 months. However redundancy money isn't taxed so 7 months untaxed salary is probably about equivalent to 11 months taxed salary. Possibly.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
But... how come you get a month's salary for every year you've been at AMEX? That's more than four times the statutory rate (one week's pay for each year, and even that is capped at about £350 per week). Is that written into your contract?
Posted by Cherry In Hove (Member # 49) on :
That is indeed written into my contract. Amex is very nice to its staff. (I also get 15% of my pre tax salary paid into my pension by just paying in 6% of my pre tax salary myself)
[ 16.11.2010, 08:42: Message edited by: Cherry In Hove ]
Posted by Cherry In Hove (Member # 49) on :
Oh balls. Just looked into it and you've got to be over 41 to get a month's salary per year. I'd get 3/4 monthly salary per year so I'd get about 7 months pay.
Although, it does mean that if I get made redundant in 8 years then I will get 15 months pay.
Posted by Cherry In Hove (Member # 49) on :
No wait. I've got that wrong. I'm only 32. It would have to be 9 years.
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
In Spain it was a month's salary for every year -- it cost me a bloody fortune to lay someone off. It nearly finished me off.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
I can't believe Cherry and Benway complained about having to work for big corporations. What a fucking shower.
Posted by Cherry In Hove (Member # 49) on :
Did I complain about it? In a serious manner? That doesn't sound like me.
Posted by Cherry In Hove (Member # 49) on :
It's a shame about Benway dying Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
He'd have been so happy for Kate and Wills.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cherry In Hove: Did I complain about it? In a serious manner? That doesn't sound like me.
I don't know how serious you were. I was thinking of comments like this:
quote:Originally posted by Cherry In Hove: This has been the highlight of my working week. I never wanted this.
in response to a Benway post about how working for a corporation drives one to despair.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by mart: He'd have been so happy for Kate and Wills.
Is there some way we can smuggle Benway into that wedding? Maybe get him a job in the catering crew, and give him a bottle of Jim Beam beforehand.
Posted by Cherry In Hove (Member # 49) on :
Yeah, I probably did write that. I like it now though. Security. Peace of mind. That sort of thing. And I actually enjoy the job i've got now which is always nice.
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
A more interesting project would be to see if we can get him legitimately invited.
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
Which in the the racier days of TMO would have prompted a load of posts dreaming up ways to make it happen.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
His dad was like, Mayor of Kent or something, so there's got to be some connections somewhere along the line.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Or Vikram could probably introduce Benway to Kate Middleton, and Benway could turn on his legendary Benway charm, ie asking if she wanted to join him smoking a crack pipe in a portaloo.
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
Lol, of course.
Posted by Octavia (Member # 398) on :
There's something weirdly sinister about Kate's dress + the pose + the ring in all the engagement photos. William is attempting to marry his mother.
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
Most men do, don't they.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Like Michael Douglas, whose mother was thirty years younger than him, Welsh, and a beautiful hollywood actress.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Or Tiger Woods, whose mother was white.
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
Exactly.
Actually, look at Michael Douglas's mum:
Rocking that matching blouse and parasol look.
[ 18.11.2010, 05:43: Message edited by: mart ]
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
It took the spider three weeks to eat her. Something of a scandal at the time, if I recall correctly. Mind you, pretty much anything was something of a scandal in those days.
Posted by H1ppychick (Member # 529) on :
Lol. Hello, everyone. Nice to see you all.
Posted by Cherry In Hove (Member # 49) on :
Alrigh H1ppychick? I saw you over on TMT.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
quote:Originally posted by mart: Can anyone tell me why UKIP is a bad idea?
Yeah, couple of reasons actually...
Posted by MKandy (Member # 790) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ringo:
quote:Originally posted by mart: Can anyone tell me why UKIP is a bad idea?
Yeah, couple of reasons actually...
What about The Brexit Party?
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
The only Brexit party I'm interested in is the one we'll be having when the whole thing is shitcanned.
Posted by Octavia (Member # 398) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ringo: The only Brexit party I'm interested in is the one we'll be having when the whole thing is shitcanned.
This post did not age well.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
Posted by froopyscot (Member # 178) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ringo: The only Brexit party I'm interested in is the one we'll be having when the whole thing is shitcanned.
Just a flash in the pan, surely. More reasonable minds will prevail. Just like they did in the US in 2016. Surely not a symptom of a broader trend toward nationalism and fascism that would lay a path to a new war in Europe.
Just checking the scorecard here, Informed optimism nil, Schopenhauer one.
Posted by Waynster (Member # 56) on :
quote: Just a flash in the pan, surely. More reasonable minds will prevail. Just like they did in the US in 2016. Surely not a symptom of a broader trend toward nationalism and fascism that would lay a path to a new war in Europe.
The problem is, this isn't something that gets voted for every few years. It will need another referendum and the CONservatives will continue to pander to their Brexit-voting buffoons who got them into government
So, unless another party takes power (which I can't see any time soon due to lack of faith/interest in the opposition, old people still believing the bullshit and voter apathy), sadly this won't be anything I foresee happening any time soon
Two things I miss: My EU passport and this place
Posted by Darryn.R (Member # 1) on :
quote:Originally posted by Waynster:
Two things I miss: My EU passport and this place
Three things I miss: My EU passport, this place and my late 30's
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
I'm hanging on to the hope that partygate, Sunakwifegate, and holyshiteverythingisexpensivegste will "cut through" enough that we'll see a change of government at some point in the not too distant future.
Starmer may not be the most exciting politician to have led a party in recent times, but isn't the country sick of "exciting" yet?
YOU IDIOTS!
AET: I wrote this post on a "smartphone" because I am from the future. Wooooo...
[ 07.04.2022, 16:52: Message edited by: MiscellaneousFiles ]
Posted by Waynster (Member # 56) on :
quote:Originally posted by MiscellaneousFiles: I'm hanging on to the hope that partygate, Sunakwifegate, and holyshiteverythingisexpensivegste will "cut through" enough that we'll see a change of government at some point in the not too distant future.
It's so lovely to see that some of us retain the optimism of our wonder years on here. Sadly, I'm starting to believe that the masses are becoming the sheeple the Eton overlords have dreamed of since they fornicated with the heads of pigs, like some perverted homage to Animal Farm.
When I did speak to my parents, they seemed to think such shenanigans were easily forgivable, whilst the idea of a Marxist Labour government was beyond comprehension, even though when questioned about what a Marxist was, my mother couldn't answer that. It's the same as in Russia - people want to be told what is what. No one wants to think for themselves - they simply don't want that responsibility. And it's for that very reason, not matter how my dear UK friends who are fighting for their kids futures, alas I think it is a futile attempt.
The world is fucked kiddies, utterly, utterly fucked.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
At least we know that Elon Musk will never buy out this place.
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)