Page 1 of 3 [ 33 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

Mootoo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Oct 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,969
Location: UK (Wiltshire)

26 Jul 2015, 4:29 am

I'm being obviously ironical, but this just can't continue on... so, they've already tried to cull all badgers unsuccessfully (the geniuses were just spreading TB to neighbouring areas, despite scientists' advice) - tried to do with foxes too (SNP kicked them in their vile balls about that, woohoo), just because that's their spare hobby when they're not culling disabled people. Oh, and now Hitler-in-disguise wants a 'discussion' on seagulls. After people take away all their food sources near the beaches.

This can't continue on, can it? I mean, concentration camps may not yet be used but they will at some point rationalize the culling of people as they're rationalizing the killing of animals. They're goddamn ruthless! I mean, I haven't looked into it, but I bet even Hitler didn't want every single animal to die horribly like they do... WTF.


_________________
http://ow.ly/QmYRh - my notebook.


0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,262
Location: London

26 Jul 2015, 4:37 am

You need strong alternatives first.

Also as the electorate overwhelming voted right of centre you have to persuade them. It is not point just telling them they are wrong.

I'm not a fan of the Tories, but I'm also not a fan of the reasoning of many of their opponents. There has to be a credible opposition message that is persuasive.

Labour, Lib Dems they have themselves to blame, for their lack of success.



Mootoo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Oct 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,969
Location: UK (Wiltshire)

26 Jul 2015, 5:23 am

The point is, regardless of what party is in government they just can't go killing whatever and whoever they want.


_________________
http://ow.ly/QmYRh - my notebook.


Grebels
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Mar 2012
Age: 79
Gender: Male
Posts: 545

26 Jul 2015, 5:29 am

Well yes, you have a point, but a lot of people find the alternative equally or even more frightening.



adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,891

26 Jul 2015, 11:25 am

0_equals_true wrote:
You need strong alternatives first.

Also as the electorate overwhelming voted right of centre you have to persuade them. It is not point just telling them they are wrong.


More significant is the overwhelming majority who stayed at home.

Quote:
I'm not a fan of the Tories, but I'm also not a fan of the reasoning of many of their opponents. There has to be a credible opposition message that is persuasive.

Labour, Lib Dems they have themselves to blame, for their lack of success.


Absolutely. The Tories were the lesser of the two potential evils this time around, with an unholy coalition of SNP + Labour being the only other credible outcome. Between them they handed the election to Cameron on a gilt platter.



0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,262
Location: London

26 Jul 2015, 1:46 pm

adifferentname wrote:
0_equals_true wrote:
You need strong alternatives first.

Also as the electorate overwhelming voted right of centre you have to persuade them. It is not point just telling them they are wrong.


More significant is the overwhelming majority who stayed at home.


The turn out was 66%, so it is not an majority that didn't turn out but a minority of 34%. Also they should have voted.

You can't possibly know what they would have voted for this time round.

It is important to face up to the failure, if you want a chance of being elected.



Mootoo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Oct 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,969
Location: UK (Wiltshire)

26 Jul 2015, 2:47 pm

I'm not sure if... in people's mind election = do anything, kill everything, destroy everything. They got a majority of twelve. Those twelve could easily end up drunk on the day of voting or just happen to be convinced to vote with another party. They didn't win anything and the one thing they certainly didn't get is a 'license to kill'. I mean, if I wanted to kill whatever irritated me I know who I'd begin with... but this is supposed to be a civilized society... supposedly...


_________________
http://ow.ly/QmYRh - my notebook.


0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,262
Location: London

26 Jul 2015, 3:03 pm

if you are talking about seats Labour was almost 100 seats less than the conservatives, and most other parties (other than SNP), their seat were reduced.



adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,891

26 Jul 2015, 4:17 pm

0_equals_true wrote:
The turn out was 66%, so it is not an majority that didn't turn out but a minority of 34%.


Apologies for the confusion, by majority I mean the majority of those who did not vote rather than a non-voting majority. The number of abstentions is higher than the number of votes accrued by the Tories.

Quote:
Also they should have voted.


Why?

Quote:
You can't possibly know what they would have voted for this time round.


I both can and do know who they would have voted for this time around. Nobody. That's rather the point.

Quote:
It is important to face up to the failure, if you want a chance of being elected.


Not sure what your intended message is here. Perhaps you could elaborate?



0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,262
Location: London

26 Jul 2015, 4:40 pm

adifferentname wrote:
Apologies for the confusion, by majority I mean the majority of those who did not vote rather than a non-voting majority. The number of abstentions is higher than the number of votes accrued by the Tories.


37% is higher than 34% so in both cases you are incorrect. Also that is not a great statistic because you can say it higher than the other other parties got except the Conservatives.

adifferentname wrote:
Why?

I have no problem with people abstaining, but they can't complain about not influencing the result.

adifferentname wrote:
I both can and do know who they would have voted for this time around. Nobody. That's rather the point.

You can't make assumptions about the political leanings of those that didn't vote or even the reason. Parties love to do this, but it is presumptuous.

adifferentname wrote:
Not sure what your intended message is here. Perhaps you could elaborate?


Labour it is currently going through an identity crisis ad need to figure out what it is about. David Cameron is not a strong leader. He would be Prime Minister if the opposition (Brown, Miliband) hadn't made for a weak opposition.



0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,262
Location: London

26 Jul 2015, 4:50 pm

I'm not a Conservative supporter, and there are much better arguments than the ones you cited.

For one the concerns that the voters had this election or were convinced to be concerned about might not play out as overall party support otherwise. In other words the voted for what they thought was the best worst option.

Address that and you could beat them.

I'm just pointing out that in no uncertain terms that people just didn't vote for the kinds of policies the opposition were offering. Those parties failed to convince. It is that simple.

Conservatives weren't even expected to get a majority, and they did. So the opposition hasn't been this weak in years.



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 24
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,533
Location: Reading, England

26 Jul 2015, 5:08 pm

Mootoo wrote:
tried to do with foxes too (SNP kicked them in their vile balls about that, woohoo),

Worth remembering that was simple opportunism from the SNP, who were both scoring points with their supporters and annoying the rest of Britain by shooting down a law which doesn't affect them (iirc the amendment was going to bring E+W law in line with the Scottish laws the SNP have implemented, so they don't actually dislike the principle), and thus making it likely that English MPs will retaliate against them and independence will become a reality.

I think you fundamentally misunderstand the Conservatives' political philosophy. They're the party of rich landowners, true, and rich landowners hate foxes and badgers so the Tories do too. Yes, some of their actions in government have harmed disabled people, but that isn't due to a direct hatred of the disabled, rather a consequence of their small-government philosophy (large governments are generally a good thing for disabled people). Unless disabled people start harming farming yields, I don't think there's any reason to fear a Conservative government led by David Cameron setting up death camps.



adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,891

26 Jul 2015, 5:59 pm

0_equals_true wrote:
37% is higher than 34% so in both cases you are incorrect. Also that is not a great statistic because you can say it higher than the other other parties got except the Conservatives.


They got around 11 million votes compared to some 22 million abstentions. Your statistics are derived from a faulty interpretation of data.

Quote:
I have no problem with people abstaining, but they can't complain about not influencing the result.


They can complain about anything they like. Abstention in no way impacts their right to free expression. They can also rightly express - as many have - their opinion that their votes are largely worthless.

adifferentname wrote:
You can't make assumptions about the political leanings of those that didn't vote or even the reason. Parties love to do this, but it is presumptuous.


I don't have to make any assumptions. They did not vote ergo we can know for certain who they "would have voted for".

adifferentname wrote:
Labour it is currently going through an identity crisis ad need to figure out what it is about. David Cameron is not a strong leader. He would be Prime Minister if the opposition (Brown, Miliband) hadn't made for a weak opposition.


You've just described one of the main reasons 'voter apathy' is so high here.



0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,262
Location: London

26 Jul 2015, 6:02 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
I think you fundamentally misunderstand the Conservatives' political philosophy. They're the party of rich landowners, true, and rich landowners hate foxes and badgers so the Tories do too. Yes, some of their actions in government have harmed disabled people, but that isn't due to a direct hatred of the disabled, rather a consequence of their small-government philosophy (large governments are generally a good thing for disabled people). Unless disabled people start harming farming yields, I don't think there's any reason to fear a Conservative government led by David Cameron setting up death camps.


Whilst it is true what you said about the SNP and foxhunting, there reason why it was a problem for the Conservative would have had a problem is many of their own members were set to vote against it. They are a Majority, so if it was really popular in the party the SNP meddling wouldn't have mattered.

It was dumb as hell. Also clearly telling he waited till after the election. Probably a quiet election promise to the country side alliance.

SNP acted childishly, but Cameron also acted very recklessly, gambling the integrity of the Union to win an election. Even my ow mother fell for this fear mongering.

Ironic as it more likely not less like to break up the Union.



0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,262
Location: London

26 Jul 2015, 6:08 pm

adifferentname wrote:
They can complain about anything they like. Abstention in no way impacts their right to free expression. They can also rightly express - as many have - their opinion that their votes are largely worthless


Well if they had voted for labour they wouldn't be worthless would they? So yes they can express that opinon, but to complain about the result is rather stupid on their part, if they had truly cared.