|
How are you going to vote on May 7th? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Conservative |
|
72 | 6.22% |
| Labour |
|
410 | 35.41% |
| Liberal Democrat |
|
46 | 3.97% |
| UKIP |
|
69 | 5.96% |
| Green |
|
199 | 17.18% |
| SNP |
|
121 | 10.45% |
| DUP |
|
0 | 0% |
| Sinn Fein |
|
35 | 3.02% |
| Plaid Cymru |
|
20 | 1.73% |
| Respect |
|
3 | 0.26% |
| Monster Raving Loony |
|
56 | 4.84% |
| BNP |
|
23 | 1.99% |
| Some flavour of socialist party |
|
37 | 3.20% |
| Some flavour of communist party |
|
27 | 2.33% |
| Independent |
|
3 | 0.26% |
| Other |
|
37 | 3.20% |
| Total: | 1158 votes | ||
|
HorseLord posted:You care about the UK, so you voted for the party which has never during peace time shown any concern for it. The party which, last time they were in, so severely damaged the economic basis for the UK's existence as a state that they had no choice but to launch an internal coup to counter the threat of being overthrown by an honest to god burn-Westminster-down revolution. You know, that small incident where everyone just straight up went "gently caress the state" and quit paying taxes for the duration, and the money still hasn't been collected. That Party. You accuse me of being partisan in one breath, and then cherry-pick things out of Tory history to support your point. Tories also passed the act to emancipate women in 1928. All parties are poo poo, and every election I vote for the one that is least poo poo for me. This whole forum is obviously not representative of the British electorate (glance for a second at the poll results), so if any posters here can be accused of being partisan don't mind me if I think it's some of you.
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 02:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 08:12 |
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:Gaming the citizenship process so that you can not pay money is the Toriest/Republicanest/most conservative thing you can do. Do the honorable thing, or admit to being a jerk exploiting the system; don't tediously explain why you're justified in exploiting the system. If you're a citizen of the UK, you're English and should pay the fee. What makes you a special snowflake? If you're not a citizen of the UK, you should go through the process. You clearly think the rules don't apply to you and you should get to have it both ways. emm, as an eu citizen (well swiss citizen, they are apparently the same thing when it comes to this sort of thing for some reason, although i wouldn't be shocked if that changed soon) the "process" is that he'd get treated the same as a scot living in scotland, and thus would be eligible for free university education. this is pretty much EU rule 1; and the fact that you don't understand this concerns me its something that there probably isn't any obvious: the rules on fees are all about where you are resident prior to study (so a Scot that lived in England for a significant period prior to going to uni would have to pay fees, while an English person that moved to Scotland for the same period would have SAAS pay them for him) and since coohoolin was resident in Switzerland or loadsa random places before going to Scotland to study I think it'd be a free movement of people case - although I'm not a lawyer and I'm making a bunch of assumptions. e: Rakosi posted:Oh you mean the government that necessitated a tuition fee rise because of their spending. fake posting is illegal in d+d
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 02:38
|
|
|
lmaoboy1998 posted:they just charge the Americans and Indians money because uh... ?????
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 02:38
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:You accuse me of being partisan in one breath, and then cherry-pick things out of Tory history to support your point. Tories also passed the act to emancipate women in 1928. That you are partisan is not the objection, that you are short sighted in both the range and depth of your politics is.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 02:39
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:That you are partisan is not the objection, that you are short sighted in both the range and depth of your politics is. Yes but I can just say the same thing about you and your mum is fat to boot?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 02:41
|
|
|
lmaoboy1998 posted:They already have protectionist policies, as evidenced by the fact that they charge UK students reasonably high fees, and charge the rest of the world absolutely humungous fees. Yes I too have long believed perfection to be the enemy of progress, that is why I have never campaigned for or joined any political party ever, since they're not perfect all the time everywhere what's the point? Must be liars, the lot of them. Rakosi posted:Yes but I can just say the same thing about you and your mum is fat to boot? UKMT: Like the Shawshank Redemption, just with a lot more tunnelling through poo poo, and no redemption
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 02:43
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The key thing to remember is that the way we work, there doesn't need to be any sort of coalition for Labour to form a government with the SNP's support. All they have to do is win a vote of confidence, which the SNP will vote for of their own volition, most probably, which will leave Labour in number 10, and in government, but without a majority. Hey that's kinda nifty.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 02:44
|
|
|
lmaoboy1998 posted:The old Hitler gambit. You've got him on the run. What, towards an understanding that sometimes your own interests don't take absolute priority over everything else? Good Rakosi posted:Any SNP coalition with any Westminster party is against the interests of the UK, in my opinion. Oh yeah? Sturgeon has explicitly stated that 'independence' for her isn't purely about nationalism, it's about the material conditions for people in Scotland and whether Scotland can do anything about it. Which is why they're pretty much unconditionally backing Labour, because there's a belief that they'll start to move the country in the right direction, making the case for independence weaker. Given that Labour pretty much just need SNP backing to get a minority government formed, why do you think the SNP will have any particular influence beyond their MPs parliamentary votes, which they'll have under a tory government? And on the flip side, you really think a tory government - with all its crushing spending cuts, lack of investment, EU REDFEFMEGN, focus on EVEL etc. - is going to be less divisive and make Scotland less likely to push for another referendum in the future? I mean poo poo, for all your dislike of the SNP they're getting voted in on a landslide, and if that's not because of a thirst for independence then it's about their policies and demands and anti-austerity rhetoric. You think a tory government aligns with that? For real?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 02:45
|
|
|
Seaside Loafer posted:America and india arent in the eu Exactly. So the Scots aren't interested in free universal education, they've been forced by the EU into providing it to a small subset of foreign students and now this pseudo-scottish guy is pretending they made a conscious choice to give him free stuff and it's a virtuous reflection on Scottish education policy. There are countries that genuinely have a principle of universal free education - see Germany, where Americans, Colombians and Bangladeshis actually pay nothing to study. The Scottish policy is not that at all, and would on the evidence of its treatment of other foreign students (who it has no obligation to) close it's doors to him if it had the option.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 02:45
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:Hey that's kinda nifty. Yeah and once Ed's PM he'll have to deal with Nicola Sturgeon or Angus Robertson on an issue-by-issue basis, so in the end everybody wins- the SNP gets concessions for Scotland without being tarnished by association with a "meh" centrist government, Ed gets to be PM and seem strong enough to not have to beg the SNP for help, the Tories get to keep whipping up anti-Scottish sentiment, and Scotland moves ever closer to independence.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 02:47
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:You accuse me of being partisan in one breath, and then cherry-pick things out of Tory history to support your point. Tories also passed the act to emancipate women in 1928. I "cherrypicked" the last time they were in power, because that's the newest example of them being in power that existed before the present. It's real simple. If you like I could mention how prior to that, their last touch out power was when they played the world's shittest game of musical chairs with labour in the 70s. Does that make them look good? How 'bout when they "cared for Britain" so much they gerrymandered an election to get into power, then had a fit of forgetful memory and forgot empire isn't exactly in reach post WWII? That whole Suez crisis was great. At least the postwar consensus meant they could not break us domestically by merely suffering the shame of just carrying on what labour did in the 40s. It's no surprise that for the past five years all they've done is gently caress the UK over too. Turn the public sector into a place where private companies go to get sprayed with accountability free firehoses full of money, sure, why not? I'm sure within the next five years we can find a way to put advert spaces in the union flag. There's literally no excuse for voting Tory if you care about the UK, because they hurt it constantly.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 02:47
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:Oh yeah? Sturgeon has explicitly stated that 'independence' for her isn't purely about nationalism, it's about the material conditions for people in Scotland and whether Scotland can do anything about it. Which is why they're pretty much unconditionally backing Labour, because there's a belief that they'll start to move the country in the right direction, making the case for independence weaker. Given that Labour pretty much just need SNP backing to get a minority government formed, why do you think the SNP will have any particular influence beyond their MPs parliamentary votes, which they'll have under a tory government? If you think this last coalition was bad then imagine another but with a coalition partner with almost twice the seats the Lib Dems had in this government. You get a government even weaker than our last because, contrary to your assumption, the SNP will not back Labor once the government is formed and will push for their own agendas at every chance, but with now far more power than Clegg could use against Cameron. This hamstringed government is more attractive to you? I'd take a Tory majority over a Labor/SNP coalition any day.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 02:49
|
|
|
lmaoboy1998 posted:Exactly. So the Scots aren't interested in free universal education, they've been forced by the EU into providing it to a small subset of foreign students and now this pseudo-scottish guy is pretending they made a conscious choice to give him free stuff and it's a virtuous reflection on Scottish education policy. Hm yes I wonder what key difference there might be between Germany and Scotland that allows one of them to fund free education for everyone and forces the other into gradualism. Rakosi posted:If you think this last coalition was bad then imagine another but with a coalition partner with almost twice the seats the Lib Dems had in this government. You get a government even weaker than our last because, contrary to your assumption, the SNP will not back Labor once the government is formed and will push for their own agendas at every chance, but with now far more power than Clegg could use against Cameron. This hamstringed government is more attractive to you? I'd take a Tory majority over a Labor/SNP coalition any day. My bafflement at your ability to miss the point is only matched by my bafflement at your remaining un-murdered. Coohoolin fucked around with this message at 02:52 on May 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 02:49
|
|
|
quote is not edit
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 02:52
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:I "cherrypicked" the last time they were in power, because that's the newest example of them being in power that existed before the present. It's real simple. So Labor get to be rebranded and have their histories swept under the rhetorical rug but Tories don't.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 02:52
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:If you think this last coalition was bad then imagine another but with a coalition partner with almost twice the seats the Lib Dems had in this government. You get a government even weaker than our last because, contrary to your assumption, the SNP will not back Labor once the government is formed and will push for their own agendas at every chance, but with now far more power than Clegg could use against Cameron. This hamstringed government is more attractive to you? I'd take a Tory majority over a Labor/SNP coalition any day. What SNP Policies scare you so much that you would say such a thing? Also, Coohoolin posted:My bafflement at your ability to miss the point is only matched by my bafflement at your remaining un-murdered. Will you two just gently caress already and get it over with.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 02:53
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:So Labor get to be rebranded and have their histories swept under the rhetorical rug but Tories don't. this is beautiful Labour actually try to use their historical achievements to overshadow their New Labour neoliberal shittiness.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 02:54
|
|
|
Coohoolin posted:Yeah and once Ed's PM he'll have to deal with Nicola Sturgeon or Angus Robertson on an issue-by-issue basis, so in the end everybody wins- the SNP gets concessions for Scotland without being tarnished by association with a "meh" centrist government, Ed gets to be PM and seem strong enough to not have to beg the SNP for help, the Tories get to keep whipping up anti-Scottish sentiment, and Scotland moves ever closer to independence. Agreed except for the last bit, I'm rather hoping that having to actually negotiate with other parties to get anything passed will force westminster's hand to improving the devolved powers and/or generally not pursuing retardedly anglo/london/rich fucker centric policies. Depends how nationalist the SNP are, I guess, whether it's a product of their desire for better conditions or whether it's tubthumping jingoism.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 02:55
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:So Labor get to be rebranded and have their histories swept under the rhetorical rug but Tories don't. If it'd be a continuation of government with the same exact people in the same exact offices, and you are explicitly campaigning on more of the same, it's going to be a little more difficult to claim you've changed than if you have had five years as the opposition party which has come out and said "We made mistakes on issues X, Y, and Z". Not that I think Labour are some brand spanking new form of old-school bright red party or anything, but the reason they're currently being given different degrees of credit is kind of obvious.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 02:56
|
|
|
Coohoolin posted:this is beautiful Okay so I can list some objectively good and bad things that Tories have done and you can list some objectively good and bad things that Labor have done; wow, I guess maybe we should vote for each government on it's own merits in this election rather than historical precedent. Also, you're Swiss and not British anyway.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 02:56
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Agreed except for the last bit, I'm rather hoping that having to actually negotiate with other parties to get anything passed will force westminster's hand to improving the devolved powers and/or generally not pursuing retardedly anglo/london/rich fucker centric policies. Aye maybe, on the other hand the SNP are really good at being/appearing (your pick) competent and successful management of Scottish interests might fuel trust in a Scottish political infrastructure to manage independence quite happily.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 02:58
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:If you think this last coalition was bad then imagine another but with a coalition partner with almost twice the seats the Lib Dems had in this government. You get a government even weaker than our last because, contrary to your assumption, the SNP will not back Labor once the government is formed and will push for their own agendas at every chance, but with now far more power than Clegg could use against Cameron. Aside from the fact a coalition has been ruled out (and various changes to the system mean that having a formal agreement is now even less necessary), what 'agendas' are you thinking of exactly? Give me some examples of things the SNP want that Labour don't, which the rest of parliament wouldn't vote down anyway And I don't know where you're getting the idea this government is weak from - the tories have been able to do pretty much exactly what they wanted, and that's with a formal coalition with lib dems in ministerial positions. Not a party with a near-identical manifesto pledging unconditional support in advance on live TV
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 02:58
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:So Labor get to be rebranded and have their histories swept under the rhetorical rug but Tories don't. Excuse me? I've pointed out the actual lovely thing Labour did regarding your tuition fees, because you passed over it to blame them for a mythical thing that didn't actually happen instead. I haven't talked about labour beyond that except to point out that the Tories had to continue labour policies for years because they actually worked and theirs didn't. I was not going to go off into a lecture about the history of the labour party and it's ideological decline because that would be an inappropriate tangent.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 02:59
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:Aside from the fact a coalition has been ruled out (and various changes to the system mean that having a formal agreement is now even less necessary), what 'agendas' are you thinking of exactly? Give me some examples of things the SNP want that Labour don't, which the rest of parliament wouldn't vote down anyway A Labor/SNP coalition hasn't been ruled out because Ed is full of poo poo and will bargain at the earliest chance he gets to take No. 10, in spite of everything he has said so far. SNP in government legitimizes a second referendum. I disagree on these things so I vote against these things. It's really very simple.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 03:01
|
|
|
Coohoolin posted:Hm yes I wonder what key difference there might be between Germany and Scotland that allows one of them to fund free education for everyone and forces the other into gradualism. Lol there is not a single country that Scotland has extended free education to beyond those that the EU has forced it to. .
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 03:02
|
|
|
Coohoolin posted:Aye maybe, on the other hand the SNP are really good at being/appearing (your pick) competent and successful management of Scottish interests might fuel trust in a Scottish political infrastructure to manage independence quite happily. I'm sure Scotland could run itself competently, frankly the idea that the Scottish government wouldn't be capable of handling the administrative aspect of running an independent Scotland is a really weird argument because god knows the last government has shown it's not very difficult. I'm just less sure of whether economic conditions outside its control would necessarily result in better conditions if it did, as well as generally not liking nations in general, and especially not a means of addressing economic inequality because that isn't tied to our historic borders. I'd sooner have the rest of the UK to rely on in rough times than not. Better we all share what we can than cut ties. A truly unified UK would be a nice thing if we could have it.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 03:03
|
|
|
lmaoboy1998 posted:Lol there is not a single country that Scotland has extended free education to beyond those that the EU has forced it to. yeah not the point at all. I'll give you a hint. one of these two countries can decide upon and increase its own budget, and borrow if it wants to fund principled progressive things like free education. the other relies on a block grant from another country, and funding cuts to education in said other country affect funding cuts to education in this country. OwlFancier posted:I'm sure Scotland could run itself competently, frankly the idea that the Scottish government wouldn't be capable of handling the administrative aspect of running an independent Scotland is a really weird argument because god knows the last government has shown it's not very difficult. I'm just less sure of whether economic conditions outside its control would necessarily result in better conditions if it did, as well as generally not liking nations in general, and especially not a means of addressing economic inequality because that isn't tied to our historic borders. I'd sooner have the rest of the UK to rely on in rough times than not. I don't disagree with you in principle (have we had this discussion before or was that with someone else? seems familiar) but I sincerely believe the UK is not fit for purpose and all of its respective countries would be better off with the dissolution of the UK. At the risk of channelling Donald Dewar, I might go out on a limb and say that however, a fully federalised and decentralised UK would severely hamper the Scottish independence movement. Coohoolin fucked around with this message at 03:07 on May 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 03:04
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I'm sure Scotland could run itself competently, I'm just less sure of whether economic conditions outside its control would necessarily result in better conditions if it did, as well as generally not liking nations in general, and especially not a means of addressing economic inequality because that isn't tied to our historic borders. I'd sooner have the rest of the UK to rely on in rough times than not. Whilst in principle I do agree with what you say here, I said at the time and I still say that I can't blame Scotland one bit for wanting to get out from under.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 03:05
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:A Labor/SNP coalition hasn't been ruled out because Ed is full of poo poo and will bargain at the earliest chance he gets to take No. 10, in spite of everything he has said so far. A second referendum can only go ahead if a majority in parliament vote to allow it. It's what happened for the last one, too. The SNP in government doesn't legitimise a second referendum beyond having their MPs in a position to vote for it.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 03:10
|
|
|
Coohoolin posted:I don't disagree with you in principle (have we had this discussion before or was that with someone else? seems familiar) but I sincerely believe the UK is not fit for purpose and all of its respective countries would be better off with the dissolution of the UK. Ascertained from your 5 years of living here, at your grand old age of 24.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 03:11
|
|
|
Coohoolin posted:yeah not the point at all. I'll give you a hint. You claim Scotland is gradually extending free education worldwide then when I show you that that's bollocks and that's not happening you blame the English for not letting them. Alright. The Scots have the legal right to give Welsh and Northern Irish students, who are typically neither well off nor supportive of the dreaded Tory yoke, free education. This would be a really nice starting step if the Scots wanted to spread free education worldwide. This hasn't happened, weirdly. It's almost like the Scottish parliament is really parochial and is not interested in helping anyone outside of their country study for free at all.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 03:11
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:Ascertained from your 5 years of living here, at your grand old age of 24. Out of curiosity, how long must Coohoolin live in the UK before he's permitted an opinion?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 03:17
|
|
|
Mister Adequate posted:Out of curiosity, how long must Coohoolin live in the UK before he's permitted an opinion? Of an opinion on whether the UK is fit for purpose, as he stated? More than 5 years, most of which were spent at Uni and not working.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 03:19
|
|
|
Coohoolin posted:I don't disagree with you in principle (have we had this discussion before or was that with someone else? seems familiar) but I sincerely believe the UK is not fit for purpose and all of its respective countries would be better off with the dissolution of the UK. Not sure if you and I have before, but it's certainly been hashed out a lot in general. The UK itself is an old idea founded in imperialism and subjugation, so yes, it's a load of shite. Still, it has taken Federalism might work, I dunno, but I can't see separation alone as doing much for us. Mister Adequate posted:Whilst in principle I do agree with what you say here, I said at the time and I still say that I can't blame Scotland one bit for wanting to get out from under. Well yes it is the natural impulse of any sane person to seek to be as far removed from the Tories as possible so it's an entirely understandable position.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 03:19
|
|
|
Mister Adequate posted:Out of curiosity, how long must Coohoolin live in the UK before he's permitted an opinion? When he can no longer state with an honest heart that he knows the sun isn't a fictional character from Neighbours, we'll know the transformation is complete.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 03:20
|
|
|
Mister Adequate posted:Out of curiosity, how long must Coohoolin live in the UK before he's permitted an opinion? If I spent four years of college in Texas and started calling myself a Texan afterward and saying Texas and all the other states should cecede because the United States doesn't work a lot of Americans would probably tell me I should gently caress off, and rightly so.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 03:24
|
|
|
Nuh uh, Texas loves immigrants and always welcome them with open arms.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 03:27
|
|
|
Texan secession and Scottish independence, two equally valid and completely comparable issues.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 03:30
|
|
|
Coohoolin posted:Texan secession and Scottish independence, two equally valid and completely comparable issues. You're right, they're the same. You know gently caress all about either of them.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 03:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 08:12 |
|
|
Rakosi posted:A Labor/SNP coalition hasn't been ruled out because Ed is full of poo poo and will bargain at the earliest chance he gets to take No. 10, in spite of everything he has said so far. So your belief is that everyone is planning to do the exact opposite of what they've been saying, even though it will hurt them to do so and won't provide any actual benefit, because...? And how would the SNP being an active partner in the UK government legitimise a referendum to break away from the UK and its government? Or make them any more likely to win such a referendum? Help me out here, because this only makes sense if you look at it backwards
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 03:32
|
|