My point is that there are some labour supporting posters saying that tories dont deserve to get in as they only got 35% of 66% of the people eligible to vote
But in 2001/5 it was a similar story and I bet it wasnt an issue then.
I agree on the UKIP/SNP argument
The Conservatives have proposed Trade Union Laws where action needs the support of 40% of those entitled to vote. Not looking as if they would propose such a system for themselves though.
Apples and oranges, for pretty obvious reasons
I am glad you pluralised 'reason'. Two reasons could be that it takes away the option of workers to withdraw their labour without punitive sanctions, and that the notion that if something is supported with less than 40% of those entitled to vote it does not have validity, such as the current Conservative government. If the current government is valid with less than 40% of those entitled to vote, then why wouldn't strike action also be valid with less than 40% of those entitled to vote? The reasons are not obvious to me, especially the philosophical reasons regarding voting.
Because a strike ballot is a single ballot with two options.
A general election is made up of 650 ballots with upwards of 5 options on each ballot.
The government isn't even elected by people, it gains its support from elected MPs in Parliament, so as long as at least 40% of MPs support a Government, then it is legitimate as per the same conditions that 40% of eligible voters support a strike in a ballot.
I get your 40% of MP's within Westminster as a slice, but it is not the whole picture regarding validity. The options on a ballot paper for Parliament could be as little as two, and a strike ballot could easily have five options, maybe more e.g:
No action Strike action Further negotiation Go to arbitration Action short of strike action (work to rule) Compromise agreement.
Yeah but in reality they don't.
Well that is your assertion of reality regarding the options for a decision within Trade Unions but I think you'll find that votes for many alternatives exist within the TU's. firefighters for example did not make strike action their first port of call did they, certainly not teachers who have been supposedly working to rule for some time? If you want to introduce reality Conservative action is not designed to improve democracy within the Trade Union but a method to make it harder for action to happen disguised as a boost for Union 'democracy'.
I think you deserve a reply after this thread was derailed by the phallus troll squadron.
Generally speaking, I imagine that if a law was brought in requiring 40% of the eligible voters to support an action, trade unions would only offer ballots with two options on them. My original point stands though - comparing ballots for strike action to a general election is apples to oranges. That isn't really in dispute from the points you've made.
You won't let it go mate will you. Back off now for all our sakes.
You're telling me to back off, yet you decided to call me a twat for no reason when Seth and I were having a completely civil discourse and you weren't even involved?
And you have the nerve to call me a troll. How does it go ? Beyond parody
From Wikipedia:
In Internet slang, a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet...by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.
You called me a twat for no reason except to disrupt discussion with inflammatory intent. That is the very definition of being a troll.
Wherever you post on Charlton Life you sow discord and otherwise reasonable posters end up being annoyed or engaging in heated arguments. Your posts are deliberately designed to produce this result ( either that or you have no EQ whatsoever). When people respond with annoyance to your initial posts you go in for the kill and try and make them feel as if it was thier fault. You also coordinate other posters responses off thread.
Yesterday I and others were massively disappointed - You chose to deliberately wind people up and provoke a response and simply because you enjoyed it.
As for the calling us trolls and saying we are obsessed with you or that it's always everyone else's fault - That's all just projection of your own behaviour.
You are the epitome or troll and the definition you quote could have been based upon careful observation of your continued behaviour.
Please don't carry this on for another day.
I have no intention of doing so. AFKA has already told them to stop, just flag them and ignore them.
And that's exactly the kind of retort that gets so many people's backs up.
*this was a response to the original, unedited post*
Why do you and the rest of your lot still feel the need to carry this on, even after we and the mods have explicitly said 'drop it'? You realise none of you are any better since you make these retorts all the time.
I've not carried anything on. If you read back I didn't comment on this thread yesterday nor have I carried anything on. Re-post what I actually commented on before you edited it and we'll see if you've dropped the petty, arrogant crap that the mods have asked us all to cease. Hypocrisy at it's finest.
My point is that there are some labour supporting posters saying that tories dont deserve to get in as they only got 35% of 66% of the people eligible to vote
But in 2001/5 it was a similar story and I bet it wasnt an issue then.
I agree on the UKIP/SNP argument
The Conservatives have proposed Trade Union Laws where action needs the support of 40% of those entitled to vote. Not looking as if they would propose such a system for themselves though.
Apples and oranges, for pretty obvious reasons
I am glad you pluralised 'reason'. Two reasons could be that it takes away the option of workers to withdraw their labour without punitive sanctions, and that the notion that if something is supported with less than 40% of those entitled to vote it does not have validity, such as the current Conservative government. If the current government is valid with less than 40% of those entitled to vote, then why wouldn't strike action also be valid with less than 40% of those entitled to vote? The reasons are not obvious to me, especially the philosophical reasons regarding voting.
Because a strike ballot is a single ballot with two options.
A general election is made up of 650 ballots with upwards of 5 options on each ballot.
The government isn't even elected by people, it gains its support from elected MPs in Parliament, so as long as at least 40% of MPs support a Government, then it is legitimate as per the same conditions that 40% of eligible voters support a strike in a ballot.
I get your 40% of MP's within Westminster as a slice, but it is not the whole picture regarding validity. The options on a ballot paper for Parliament could be as little as two, and a strike ballot could easily have five options, maybe more e.g:
No action Strike action Further negotiation Go to arbitration Action short of strike action (work to rule) Compromise agreement.
Yeah but in reality they don't.
Well that is your assertion of reality regarding the options for a decision within Trade Unions but I think you'll find that votes for many alternatives exist within the TU's. firefighters for example did not make strike action their first port of call did they, certainly not teachers who have been supposedly working to rule for some time? If you want to introduce reality Conservative action is not designed to improve democracy within the Trade Union but a method to make it harder for action to happen disguised as a boost for Union 'democracy'.
I think you deserve a reply after this thread was derailed by the phallus troll squadron.
Generally speaking, I imagine that if a law was brought in requiring 40% of the eligible voters to support an action, trade unions would only offer ballots with two options on them. My original point stands though - comparing ballots for strike action to a general election is apples to oranges. That isn't really in dispute from the points you've made.
You won't let it go mate will you. Back off now for all our sakes.
You're telling me to back off, yet you decided to call me a twat for no reason when Seth and I were having a completely civil discourse and you weren't even involved?
And you have the nerve to call me a troll. How does it go ? Beyond parody
From Wikipedia:
In Internet slang, a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet...by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.
You called me a twat for no reason except to disrupt discussion with inflammatory intent. That is the very definition of being a troll.
Wherever you post on Charlton Life you sow discord and otherwise reasonable posters end up being annoyed or engaging in heated arguments. Your posts are deliberately designed to produce this result ( either that or you have no EQ whatsoever). When people respond with annoyance to your initial posts you go in for the kill and try and make them feel as if it was thier fault. You also coordinate other posters responses off thread.
Yesterday I and others were massively disappointed - You chose to deliberately wind people up and provoke a response and simply because you enjoyed it.
As for the calling us trolls and saying we are obsessed with you or that it's always everyone else's fault - That's all just projection of your own behaviour.
You are the epitome or troll and the definition you quote could have been based upon careful observation of your continued behaviour.
Please don't carry this on for another day.
I have no intention of doing so. AFKA has already told them to stop, just flag them and ignore them.
And that's exactly the kind of retort that gets so many people's backs up.
*this was a response to the original, unedited post*
Why do you and the rest of your lot still feel the need to carry this on, even after we and the mods have explicitly said 'drop it'? You realise none of you are any better since you make these retorts all the time.
I've not carried anything on. If you read back I didn't comment on this thread yesterday nor have I carried anything on. Re-post what I actually commented on before you edited it and we'll see if you've dropped the petty, arrogant crap that the mods have asked us all to cease. Hypocrisy at it's finest.
So I'm sitting here having a pony and thought I would have a look on CL to find the same poster still at war with people. The battle is over for 4-5 years. The blue side of the country won. It's VE weekend how about some CL peace. Or we can all keep making snidey comments and calling each other twats. Although amusing it's getting tiresome. Don't we say 'move on' at CL? Anyway must go I've got 'paperwork' to do. Carry on!
So I'm sitting here having a pony and thought I would have a look on CL to find the same poster still at war with people. The battle is over for 4-5 years. The blue side of the country won. It's VE weekend how about some CL peace. Or we can all keep making snidey comments and calling each other twats. Although amusing it's getting tiresome. Don't we say 'move on' at CL? Anyway must go I've got 'paperwork' to do. Carry on!
Are you using pages from the {#insert one's own choice of hated political party} manifesto?
The EU referendum isn't to get us to leave the EU, it's to put the issue to bed to declaw UKIP. I imagine the referendum will be drawn up in such a way as to either guarantee a Stay vote or that a Leave vote will have caveats.
I also know not all Tories want out the EU. This is an interesting issue amongst Tories because Cameron now has the balancing act of managing conflicting interests in his own party.
I just couldn't believe my boss yesterday. He is in now bang on Britain leaving the EU, citing some flimsy fishing rights we might get back and the opportunity for us to be world leaders in electric car manufacturing. I found it even more amazing that his mantra throughout the general election has been 'oh the economy'. Watch the economy struggle take a hit if we leave. I just found it amazing that as a business owner, who buys into the Tory strategy of wealth creation and admires other (bigger and better) businesses, is disregarding all this when wanting out the EU.
I have no issue with Britain negotiating/renegotiating terms, I just hope that all the people who have elected the Conservative government (presumably because of the economy), remember this when the vote takes place.
@Fiiish I'm not just singling out the Tories here, it is just that it's part of their manifesto so presumably their supporters are those that want out?
Outside of the Tory vote, I'm dreading which newspapers drum up outdated nationalistic rhetoric about Vikings invading us in King Alfred's time to demand an exit.
Don't get me wrong I'm incredibly cynical about the Tories' motives on this, it is purely to out-kip UKIP. However there is a justification for it - the EU is a substantially different entity than it was the last time we voted to stay in it (when I think it was still under its previous name) and it is past time the British people were asked for their opinion other whether we want to carry on being part of this experiment.
I do not know how I would vote in such a referendum. My heart says Out, my head says In. There's good arguments on both sides and as it is now likely a referendum is going to happen, it is time for people to put forward proper arguments. Currently there is a lot of misinformation being spread by both sides regarding both the sovereignty issues and the economic impact of leaving and I fear this is going to negatively impact the outcome of the referendum. Stay or go, people will be likely making a decision based on false informations or deep-lying prejudices, so we're likely to make a decision for the wrong reasons, whatever that decision is.
The divide amongst the Tory party will be interesting though. I feel this has made part of Cameron's decision to resign as leader before 2020 - he will fall on his sword as a pro-EU Tory so the next leader won't face the wrath of anti-EU Tories as I feel this will be very divisive amongst both Tory MPs and Tory voters.
My point is that there are some labour supporting posters saying that tories dont deserve to get in as they only got 35% of 66% of the people eligible to vote
But in 2001/5 it was a similar story and I bet it wasnt an issue then.
I agree on the UKIP/SNP argument
The Conservatives have proposed Trade Union Laws where action needs the support of 40% of those entitled to vote. Not looking as if they would propose such a system for themselves though.
Apples and oranges, for pretty obvious reasons
I am glad you pluralised 'reason'. Two reasons could be that it takes away the option of workers to withdraw their labour without punitive sanctions, and that the notion that if something is supported with less than 40% of those entitled to vote it does not have validity, such as the current Conservative government. If the current government is valid with less than 40% of those entitled to vote, then why wouldn't strike action also be valid with less than 40% of those entitled to vote? The reasons are not obvious to me, especially the philosophical reasons regarding voting.
Because a strike ballot is a single ballot with two options.
A general election is made up of 650 ballots with upwards of 5 options on each ballot.
The government isn't even elected by people, it gains its support from elected MPs in Parliament, so as long as at least 40% of MPs support a Government, then it is legitimate as per the same conditions that 40% of eligible voters support a strike in a ballot.
I get your 40% of MP's within Westminster as a slice, but it is not the whole picture regarding validity. The options on a ballot paper for Parliament could be as little as two, and a strike ballot could easily have five options, maybe more e.g:
No action Strike action Further negotiation Go to arbitration Action short of strike action (work to rule) Compromise agreement.
Yeah but in reality they don't.
Well that is your assertion of reality regarding the options for a decision within Trade Unions but I think you'll find that votes for many alternatives exist within the TU's. firefighters for example did not make strike action their first port of call did they, certainly not teachers who have been supposedly working to rule for some time? If you want to introduce reality Conservative action is not designed to improve democracy within the Trade Union but a method to make it harder for action to happen disguised as a boost for Union 'democracy'.
I think you deserve a reply after this thread was derailed by the phallus troll squadron.
Generally speaking, I imagine that if a law was brought in requiring 40% of the eligible voters to support an action, trade unions would only offer ballots with two options on them. My original point stands though - comparing ballots for strike action to a general election is apples to oranges. That isn't really in dispute from the points you've made.
You won't let it go mate will you. Back off now for all our sakes.
You're telling me to back off, yet you decided to call me a twat for no reason when Seth and I were having a completely civil discourse and you weren't even involved?
And you have the nerve to call me a troll. How does it go ? Beyond parody
From Wikipedia:
In Internet slang, a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet...by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.
You called me a twat for no reason except to disrupt discussion with inflammatory intent. That is the very definition of being a troll.
Wherever you post on Charlton Life you sow discord and otherwise reasonable posters end up being annoyed or engaging in heated arguments. Your posts are deliberately designed to produce this result ( either that or you have no EQ whatsoever). When people respond with annoyance to your initial posts you go in for the kill and try and make them feel as if it was thier fault. You also coordinate other posters responses off thread.
Yesterday I and others were massively disappointed - You chose to deliberately wind people up and provoke a response and simply because you enjoyed it.
As for the calling us trolls and saying we are obsessed with you or that it's always everyone else's fault - That's all just projection of your own behaviour.
You are the epitome or troll and the definition you quote could have been based upon careful observation of your continued behaviour.
Please don't carry this on for another day.
I have no intention of doing so. AFKA has already told them to stop, just flag them and ignore them.
And that's exactly the kind of retort that gets so many people's backs up.
*this was a response to the original, unedited post*
Why do you and the rest of your lot still feel the need to carry this on, even after we and the mods have explicitly said 'drop it'? You realise none of you are any better since you make these retorts all the time.
You have appointed yourself as a quasi/guest moderator now? Your pomposity and self delusion is truly amazing.
The Tories aren't exactly helping the view that they are "mean" with priorities seemingly being fox hunting, the snoopers charter and adjusting boundaries making it easier for themselves to be re elected
But it’s far from clear that Cameron will relish his victory. He has won it at a dreadfully high cost. He was forced to concede an EU referendum that risks taking Britain out of the EU. The volcanic eruption of nationalism in Scotland will be turbo-charged by another Conservative government they didn’t elect. Cameron’s wretched place in the history books looks set to be the man who broke the union, and left a diminished little England as his legacy. This may be the last election of a United Kingdom ever, both Labour and Tories sharing some blame.
As I write, it’s not clear Cameron has won a majority. If not, the Fixed Term Parliament Act – passed in haste to be deeply regretted by all – means he can’t threaten an election to bully minor parties into supporting him. But if he has pulled it off, the country can expect an even more radically rightwing government. Austerity of double the ferocity lies ahead, benefits cut to the marrow, public services shredded. The NHS can expect accelerated privatisation while the BBC should prepare itself for savage treatment in next year’s charter renewal. Labour’s failure to stave off this future will lead to great soul-searching and self-blame.
Still irked about being lumped in with the trolls when all I did was flag a post for calling me an idiot for voting Green
Anyway, I don't think foxhunting should be illegal per se, but I also don't think hunt sabotage should be illegal. I also don't think that people should want to go foxhunting, and that if they do it should be encouraged for anyone who sees them to call them bloodthirsty ****s. And then I think they should be prosecuted for animal cruelty if their dogs actually catch the fox.
My point is that there are some labour supporting posters saying that tories dont deserve to get in as they only got 35% of 66% of the people eligible to vote
But in 2001/5 it was a similar story and I bet it wasnt an issue then.
I agree on the UKIP/SNP argument
The Conservatives have proposed Trade Union Laws where action needs the support of 40% of those entitled to vote. Not looking as if they would propose such a system for themselves though.
Apples and oranges, for pretty obvious reasons
I am glad you pluralised 'reason'. Two reasons could be that it takes away the option of workers to withdraw their labour without punitive sanctions, and that the notion that if something is supported with less than 40% of those entitled to vote it does not have validity, such as the current Conservative government. If the current government is valid with less than 40% of those entitled to vote, then why wouldn't strike action also be valid with less than 40% of those entitled to vote? The reasons are not obvious to me, especially the philosophical reasons regarding voting.
Because a strike ballot is a single ballot with two options.
A general election is made up of 650 ballots with upwards of 5 options on each ballot.
The government isn't even elected by people, it gains its support from elected MPs in Parliament, so as long as at least 40% of MPs support a Government, then it is legitimate as per the same conditions that 40% of eligible voters support a strike in a ballot.
I get your 40% of MP's within Westminster as a slice, but it is not the whole picture regarding validity. The options on a ballot paper for Parliament could be as little as two, and a strike ballot could easily have five options, maybe more e.g:
No action Strike action Further negotiation Go to arbitration Action short of strike action (work to rule) Compromise agreement.
Yeah but in reality they don't.
Well that is your assertion of reality regarding the options for a decision within Trade Unions but I think you'll find that votes for many alternatives exist within the TU's. firefighters for example did not make strike action their first port of call did they, certainly not teachers who have been supposedly working to rule for some time? If you want to introduce reality Conservative action is not designed to improve democracy within the Trade Union but a method to make it harder for action to happen disguised as a boost for Union 'democracy'.
I think you deserve a reply after this thread was derailed by the phallus troll squadron.
Generally speaking, I imagine that if a law was brought in requiring 40% of the eligible voters to support an action, trade unions would only offer ballots with two options on them. My original point stands though - comparing ballots for strike action to a general election is apples to oranges. That isn't really in dispute from the points you've made.
You won't let it go mate will you. Back off now for all our sakes.
You're telling me to back off, yet you decided to call me a twat for no reason when Seth and I were having a completely civil discourse and you weren't even involved?
And you have the nerve to call me a troll. How does it go ? Beyond parody
From Wikipedia:
In Internet slang, a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet...by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.
You called me a twat for no reason except to disrupt discussion with inflammatory intent. That is the very definition of being a troll.
Wherever you post on Charlton Life you sow discord and otherwise reasonable posters end up being annoyed or engaging in heated arguments. Your posts are deliberately designed to produce this result ( either that or you have no EQ whatsoever). When people respond with annoyance to your initial posts you go in for the kill and try and make them feel as if it was thier fault. You also coordinate other posters responses off thread.
Yesterday I and others were massively disappointed - You chose to deliberately wind people up and provoke a response and simply because you enjoyed it.
As for the calling us trolls and saying we are obsessed with you or that it's always everyone else's fault - That's all just projection of your own behaviour.
You are the epitome or troll and the definition you quote could have been based upon careful observation of your continued behaviour.
Please don't carry this on for another day.
I have no intention of doing so. AFKA has already told them to stop, just flag them and ignore them.
And that's exactly the kind of retort that gets so many people's backs up.
*this was a response to the original, unedited post*
Why do you and the rest of your lot still feel the need to carry this on, even after we and the mods have explicitly said 'drop it'? You realise none of you are any better since you make these retorts all the time.
You have appointed yourself as a quasi/guest moderator now? Your pomposity and self delusion is truly amazing.
Still irked about being lumped in with the trolls when all I did was flag a post for calling me an idiot for voting Green
Anyway, I don't think foxhunting should be illegal per se, but I also don't think hunt sabotage should be illegal. I also don't think that people should want to go foxhunting, and that if they do it should be encouraged for anyone who sees them to call them bloodthirsty ****s. And then I think they should be prosecuted for animal cruelty if their dogs actually catch the fox.
Missed the point of my post entirely. I said there were idiots who voted Green purely because it's trendy, just like there's people who vote UKIP because they're xenophobic. Not saying all Greens are idiots or all UKIP are xenophobes. Apologies for not making this clear, there's actually a lot about the Greens I like and well done for supporting them.
Abusing and lashing out at our fishy interlocutor doesn't work. He's very smart, knows his stuff and won't overstep the mark often. He's also a troll, but in a fairly subtle way. He wants us to lose the plot while he retains his composure. He has the agenda of discrediting the Left by exposing its idiocies. It is our job to demonstrate its virtues. I don't actually think our principles are so far from his own. I even voted the same way as him at the previous election. I say we form an uneasy coalition and work with Fiiish for the next five years. It may help to put our own convictions into deeper perspective. Until they sell off the hospitals, then we can pile in
The EU referendum isn't to get us to leave the EU, it's to put the issue to bed to declaw UKIP. I imagine the referendum will be drawn up in such a way as to either guarantee a Stay vote or that a Leave vote will have caveats.
I also know not all Tories want out the EU. This is an interesting issue amongst Tories because Cameron now has the balancing act of managing conflicting interests in his own party.
I just couldn't believe my boss yesterday. He is in now bang on Britain leaving the EU, citing some flimsy fishing rights we might get back and the opportunity for us to be world leaders in electric car manufacturing. I found it even more amazing that his mantra throughout the general election has been 'oh the economy'. Watch the economy struggle take a hit if we leave. I just found it amazing that as a business owner, who buys into the Tory strategy of wealth creation and admires other (bigger and better) businesses, is disregarding all this when wanting out the EU.
I have no issue with Britain negotiating/renegotiating terms, I just hope that all the people who have elected the Conservative government (presumably because of the economy), remember this when the vote takes place.
@Fiiish I'm not just singling out the Tories here, it is just that it's part of their manifesto so presumably their supporters are those that want out?
Outside of the Tory vote, I'm dreading which newspapers drum up outdated nationalistic rhetoric about Vikings invading us in King Alfred's time to demand an exit.
I do not know how I would vote in such a referendum. My heart says Out, my head says In. There's good arguments on both sides and as it is now likely a referendum is going to happen, it is time for people to put forward proper arguments. Currently there is a lot of misinformation being spread by both sides regarding both the sovereignty issues and the economic impact of leaving and I fear this is going to negatively impact the outcome of the referendum. Stay or go, people will be likely making a decision based on false informations or deep-lying prejudices, so we're likely to make a decision for the wrong reasons, whatever that decision is.
Because something like that never happens in a General Election does it ay lads & lasses!!!!
The EU referendum isn't to get us to leave the EU, it's to put the issue to bed to declaw UKIP. I imagine the referendum will be drawn up in such a way as to either guarantee a Stay vote or that a Leave vote will have caveats.
I also know not all Tories want out the EU. This is an interesting issue amongst Tories because Cameron now has the balancing act of managing conflicting interests in his own party.
I just couldn't believe my boss yesterday. He is in now bang on Britain leaving the EU, citing some flimsy fishing rights we might get back and the opportunity for us to be world leaders in electric car manufacturing. I found it even more amazing that his mantra throughout the general election has been 'oh the economy'. Watch the economy struggle take a hit if we leave. I just found it amazing that as a business owner, who buys into the Tory strategy of wealth creation and admires other (bigger and better) businesses, is disregarding all this when wanting out the EU.
I have no issue with Britain negotiating/renegotiating terms, I just hope that all the people who have elected the Conservative government (presumably because of the economy), remember this when the vote takes place.
@Fiiish I'm not just singling out the Tories here, it is just that it's part of their manifesto so presumably their supporters are those that want out?
Outside of the Tory vote, I'm dreading which newspapers drum up outdated nationalistic rhetoric about Vikings invading us in King Alfred's time to demand an exit.
I do not know how I would vote in such a referendum. My heart says Out, my head says In. There's good arguments on both sides and as it is now likely a referendum is going to happen, it is time for people to put forward proper arguments. Currently there is a lot of misinformation being spread by both sides regarding both the sovereignty issues and the economic impact of leaving and I fear this is going to negatively impact the outcome of the referendum. Stay or go, people will be likely making a decision based on false informations or deep-lying prejudices, so we're likely to make a decision for the wrong reasons, whatever that decision is.
Because something like that never happens in a General Election does it ay lads & lasses!!!!
Comments
Yeah, must be.
; )
Perhaps not.
It's VE weekend how about some CL peace.
Or we can all keep making snidey comments and calling each other twats. Although amusing it's getting tiresome.
Don't we say 'move on' at CL?
Anyway must go I've got 'paperwork' to do.
Carry on!
I will phone dave, frees up space in jail and keeps the tree huggers happy
Good idea but don't free up too much space, I've got to earn a living to feed my family.
I do not know how I would vote in such a referendum. My heart says Out, my head says In. There's good arguments on both sides and as it is now likely a referendum is going to happen, it is time for people to put forward proper arguments. Currently there is a lot of misinformation being spread by both sides regarding both the sovereignty issues and the economic impact of leaving and I fear this is going to negatively impact the outcome of the referendum. Stay or go, people will be likely making a decision based on false informations or deep-lying prejudices, so we're likely to make a decision for the wrong reasons, whatever that decision is.
The divide amongst the Tory party will be interesting though. I feel this has made part of Cameron's decision to resign as leader before 2020 - he will fall on his sword as a pro-EU Tory so the next leader won't face the wrath of anti-EU Tories as I feel this will be very divisive amongst both Tory MPs and Tory voters.
But it’s far from clear that Cameron will relish his victory. He has won it at a dreadfully high cost. He was forced to concede an EU referendum that risks taking Britain out of the EU. The volcanic eruption of nationalism in Scotland will be turbo-charged by another Conservative government they didn’t elect. Cameron’s wretched place in the history books looks set to be the man who broke the union, and left a diminished little England as his legacy. This may be the last election of a United Kingdom ever, both Labour and Tories sharing some blame.
As I write, it’s not clear Cameron has won a majority. If not, the Fixed Term Parliament Act – passed in haste to be deeply regretted by all – means he can’t threaten an election to bully minor parties into supporting him. But if he has pulled it off, the country can expect an even more radically rightwing government. Austerity of double the ferocity lies ahead, benefits cut to the marrow, public services shredded. The NHS can expect accelerated privatisation while the BBC should prepare itself for savage treatment in next year’s charter renewal. Labour’s failure to stave off this future will lead to great soul-searching and self-blame.
-----
Anyway, I don't think foxhunting should be illegal per se, but I also don't think hunt sabotage should be illegal. I also don't think that people should want to go foxhunting, and that if they do it should be encouraged for anyone who sees them to call them bloodthirsty ****s. And then I think they should be prosecuted for animal cruelty if their dogs actually catch the fox.
Abusing and lashing out at our fishy interlocutor doesn't work. He's very smart, knows his stuff and won't overstep the mark often. He's also a troll, but in a fairly subtle way. He wants us to lose the plot while he retains his composure. He has the agenda of discrediting the Left by exposing its idiocies. It is our job to demonstrate its virtues. I don't actually think our principles are so far from his own. I even voted the same way as him at the previous election. I say we form an uneasy coalition and work with Fiiish for the next five years. It may help to put our own convictions into deeper perspective. Until they sell off the hospitals, then we can pile in
At least growth in some areas over the course of the next five years guaranteed.
; )