Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

purplefood wrote:A member of the conservative party...
Usually hated by Labour supporters and most of Britian due to Margaret Thatcher...

Hated by most of Britain because of Thatcher eh?

Lets explore that...

Last local election results...



Looks like your flat out wrong doesn't it?

What you meant to say was

"Hated by people like me, due to an ill thought out political ideology which demands that I hate people just because they happen to be born into well off families, I mean, some of them could be generous and charitable and warm hearted individuals really, and I know that it is entirely illogical and probably steeped in bitterness and envy, but there you go"

You always say things in such a fun way

Probably works on the theory that if Hitler or Idi Amin had been a thoroughly nice chap then history would be a lot different.

Rule by a Monarchy tends to be varied at best. You get the Good kings, you get the bad ones.

Point of order: Nobody picked Cameron except the people in the party. We don't vote for the leader (though some people seem to think that is how we should pick), we vote for the party. Only recently have we acquired this habit of voting for "personality" like the Americans appear to do.

Blackskullandy wrote:

I think a return to something along the lines of dictatorship in England would make for great fun and giggles to observers.

Really? Why the would you wish a dictator on anyone?

Dictator? We are talking about enlightened, reasonable, and totally legitimate rule by someone who has been divinely blessed by God almighty himself to rule; the Monarch. With the leadership of someone who has the support of God how can you go wrong? I mean come on.. look at the shape of the Empire, its in rags man!

As I said before, the Queen should just round up the Royal Guards, some ornery Scottsman, and perhaps a few Aussies from the back country to seize the country and once again reestablish the Empire. I suggest that the first action of the Queen, after throwing Parliament in the Tower, should be to venture to India with her vicious pack of War-Corgis, perhaps aided by a support contingent of pure breed Hanoverian (I mean, the Royal house is, in reality, just a bunch of imported Germans. The name was only changed from the belligerent and "Hunish" sounding House of Sax-Coburg-Gotha to Windsor because the royal family didn't want to look German during WWI) dachshunds raised by Frazzled.

With India firmly under the control of the Empire, curry prices and the cost of tech support will drop dramatically. Prosperity will rain down upon the bright and cheerful moors of England to the tune of Tanuk Tanuk Tun.

Rule Brittania!

Are you taking the piss?

mattyrm wrote:

purplefood wrote:A member of the conservative party...
Usually hated by Labour supporters and most of Britian due to Margaret Thatcher...

Hated by most of Britain because of Thatcher eh?

Lets explore that...

Last local election results...



Looks like your flat out wrong doesn't it?

What you meant to say was

"Hated by people like me, due to an ill thought out political ideology which demands that I hate people just because they happen to be born into well off families, I mean, some of them could be generous and charitable and warm hearted individuals really, and I know that it is entirely illogical and probably steeped in bitterness and envy, but there you go"

That's a local election chart not a national one.
I don't personally hate the Tories but i disagree with their political views.
I do know a lot of people that do hate them however.
And, thanks for judging me entirely on 2 lines i wrote, which don't really reflect my personal beliefs.

Albatross wrote:Are you taking the piss?

You brits take such funny things.

But at least we couldn't care less

I hope that is the right url - I can't go on youtube at work so I can't check

It is the right link...
I love that episode.

I'll say this about Cameron and the apparent "love" for him based on election results: It rather depends on which section of society you are in as to how you feel about Cameron. Tories, the ConDems and the like. (Not by class, but other groupings.) For example, some sections of society feel that they are being unnecessarily scapegoated by the government and the media for a financial crisis that by definition could not be their fault. A lot of those people feel that Cameron is a liar, a two-faced crapsack, and an overblown spin-doctor who is massively out of touch with their situation, who has the interests of bankers and other high-earners at his heart, and not the concerns of everyone else.

Also, the local election/AV map is a bit disingenuous, given that people are voting for local government, not central. The true indicator of feelings about Cameron is surely the fact that they could not form a majority government at the last General Election? Thus a great number of people didn't vote for him or them.

ArbeitsSchu wrote:Also, the local election/AV map is a bit disingenuous, given that people are voting for local government, not central. The true indicator of feelings about Cameron is surely the fact that they could not form a majority government at the last General Election? Thus a great number of people didn't vote for him or them.

A lot of people voted for "change". The fact that the Lib Dems (the biggest winners in the last GE) were the biggest loosers in the LE suggests that a lot of their "support" has become disenchanted with them completely renaging on all but the most meaningless and self serving of their election promises (changing the voting system - which got soundly beaten thankfully).

This leaves a large amount of voters floating - people who do not really feel that there is anyone who they can really vote for who will represent them and still has a chance of actually getting into power. Some of those will go back to the Tories and Labour, some will probably not vote, and the others will go on other smaller parties.

Funny that, it's ignoring the fact that 'hold-down' is a verb in and of itself, 'hold-down' means 'to fulfill one's duties satifactorily.

So I could care less about what he says.

halonachos wrote:So I could care less about what he says.

... so you do care about what he says?

SilverMK2 wrote:

halonachos wrote:So I could care less about what he says.

... so you do care about what he says?

Gah! My pet peeve!

dmitrybrant.com wrote:Not "could care less." When you think about it, to say "I could care less" really means that you actually do care about something, and it's possible for you to care less about it. It is more appropriate to say "I couldn't care less" to indicate that you have reached the rock bottom of carelessness about something.

http://dmitrybrant.com/things-americans-say-wrong

That guy's going to turn up missing one day if he keeps on going like that.

I think the blokes pretty funny generally, I dont think you need to take it personally Halo

mattyrm wrote: I think the blokes pretty funny generally, I dont think you need to take it personally Halo

No, I'm fixing to do something about this.

halonachos wrote:

mattyrm wrote: I think the blokes pretty funny generally, I dont think you need to take it personally Halo

No, I'm fixing to do something about this.

Well, i mightn't agree with the end result, but I admire a man with a straight forward plan.

mattyrm wrote:Well, i mightn't agree with the end result, but I admire a man with a straight forward plan.

Plus now at least we know he does care about what he was saying

ArbeitsSchu wrote:I'll say this about Cameron and the apparent "love" for him based on election results: It rather depends on which section of society you are in as to how you feel about Cameron. Tories, the ConDems and the like. (Not by class, but other groupings.)

Eh? Which groupings? I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

For example, some sections of society feel that they are being unnecessarily scapegoated by the government and the media for a financial crisis that by definition could not be their fault.

What caused the financial crisis? And which crisis? The subprime mortgage crisis, the credit crunch or the sovereign debt crisis?

It's not just as simple as 'evil bankers stole our money' The problems in OUR economy were triggered by a crisis outside of our economy, OUR responsibility begins and ends with how well we insulate ourselves against that level of exposure. One of those 'insulations' is public spending which is within our means, something which Labour spectacularly failed to do.

A lot of those people feel that Cameron is a liar, a two-faced crapsack, and an overblown spin-doctor who is massively out of touch with their situation, who has the interests of bankers and other high-earners at his heart, and not the concerns of everyone else.

This is just cheap, childish rhetoric - the Tories weren't in power when the banks were bailed out. Yes, they approved of the bailout, but what? Should we have let the banks go to the wall? Where does that leave the public? We can't just turn our backs on the banking sector - they make up the lion's share of our economy.

Also, what do you think would happen if we DIDN'T make cuts? We'd end up with an austerity package imposed on us by the IMF, larger debts and even DEEPER cuts.

Some people can be so short-sighted when it comes to their own petty self-interest. It's not like public money is 'free money', after all. Someone always pays.

Now, you understand, I could care less about what the guy is saying. However I have a mind to put him in a marble orchard.

Albatross wrote:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:I'll say this about Cameron and the apparent "love" for him based on election results: It rather depends on which section of society you are in as to how you feel about Cameron. Tories, the ConDems and the like. (Not by class, but other groupings.)

Eh? Which groupings? I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

For example, some sections of society feel that they are being unnecessarily scapegoated by the government and the media for a financial crisis that by definition could not be their fault.

What caused the financial crisis? And which crisis? The subprime mortgage crisis, the credit crunch or the sovereign debt crisis?

It's not just as simple as 'evil bankers stole our money' The problems in OUR economy were triggered by a crisis outside of our economy, OUR responsibility begins and ends with how well we insulate ourselves against that level of exposure. One of those 'insulations' is public spending which is within our means, something which Labour spectacularly failed to do.

A lot of those people feel that Cameron is a liar, a two-faced crapsack, and an overblown spin-doctor who is massively out of touch with their situation, who has the interests of bankers and other high-earners at his heart, and not the concerns of everyone else.

This is just cheap, childish rhetoric - the Tories weren't in power when the banks were bailed out. Yes, they approved of the bailout, but what? Should we have let the banks go to the wall? Where does that leave the public? We can't just turn our backs on the banking sector - they make up the lion's share of our economy.

Also, what do you think would happen if we DIDN'T make cuts? We'd end up with an austerity package imposed on us by the IMF, larger debts and even DEEPER cuts.

Some people can be so short-sighted when it comes to their own petty self-interest. It's not like public money is 'free money', after all. Someone always pays.

I hate nested quoting so bear with me: The "groups" I'm referring to are not ones defined by "class" alone. To pick one: the disabled. This is a group that covers any and every "class" or traditional distinction..poor/rich/moderately wealthy...and political inclination. The elderly would be another. No one distinction covers all of the people who like/dislike Cameron or CondDem policy. Its no doubt very inconvenient as it makes traditional classification difficult. Its also difficult to be wholly for or against the current administration for much the same reason.

Doesn't really matter what or whom caused the current economic situation if you are in a group that is facing massive cuts, who couldn't possibly have had any influence on that situation.

And as tiresome as it gets to repeat myself: I never said that cuts were unnecessary or even bad in many cases. I already pointed out that Labour were clown-shoes and wasters. Do I have to spell it out? I'm not a Labour voter or supporter, or a subscriber to Socialist Worker. I don't think they are better, or a safer option, or that they wouldn't make an even worse mess if they were in power. Nor do I think that public money is "free" or anything of the sort. But we live in a society that has a welfare system, and an NHS, and where taxes are collected and redistributed for the public good, to pay for the safe and perpetual continuance of the nation. Thus "cuts" are not necessarily the best way to decrease the deficit or solve the problems. Here is an example I heard earlier today: Working mothers pay out more for childcare than stay at home mothers on benefits. Many women cannot afford to seek work because the work they can get will not cover the cost of that childcare, thus they remain stuck on benefits. The cost of paying for that childcare is LESS than the cost of all the other beneftits put together. Thus economically it makes more sense for the government to support free or subsidised childcare for working mothers. They are then "economically active" and costing the state LESS, not MORE. Cutting the childcare subsidies means MORE mothers are forced away from work and on to benefits. There are plenty more examples, that one is just fresh in my mind.

It the nature OF those cuts that causes the problems, and the inequality in them. And that is why Cameron isn't always the most popular person..because the cuts that are being made are hurting some of the most vulnerable people in our society. A lot of people turned to the Conservatives to "sort the mess out". What they then see is everything that affects them directly being cut down and re-organised, whilst the big money concerns just carry on as was, or in some cases get even more public money for less service. To compare to the case above: A mother who is forced out of work by cuts to childcare sees the top executives of a company receiving an increased tax payment. ON one level it seems "fair", but on another more realistic level, it means that one person is trapped in the bottom bracket of society through no fault of their own, and the other just carries on as was. That mother then feels that the government does not have her interests at heart, but the interests of Barclays chief exec.

Not to mention many people feel betrayed by a government that is carrying out policies that were never in their pre-election manifestos, whilst failing to carry out the ones that were. (Which holds true for either Cameron or Clegg.) Most governments do that, true..but with this government it is markedly more obvious.

As for letting banks go to the wall: I can't help but wonder on the possibility that a system that rewards failure might not be the correct way to actually run an economy.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

SilverMK2 wrote:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:Also, the local election/AV map is a bit disingenuous, given that people are voting for local government, not central. The true indicator of feelings about Cameron is surely the fact that they could not form a majority government at the last General Election? Thus a great number of people didn't vote for him or them.

A lot of people voted for "change". The fact that the Lib Dems (the biggest winners in the last GE) were the biggest loosers in the LE suggests that a lot of their "support" has become disenchanted with them completely renaging on all but the most meaningless and self serving of their election promises (changing the voting system - which got soundly beaten thankfully).

This leaves a large amount of voters floating - people who do not really feel that there is anyone who they can really vote for who will represent them and still has a chance of actually getting into power. Some of those will go back to the Tories and Labour, some will probably not vote, and the others will go on other smaller parties.

If I'm perfectly honest, I reckon I fit in to the "floaty votey" bracket to a certain degree. That is to say that none of the political parties appear to represent my interests or the interests of my family/dependents/group, either major parties or minor ones.

This is getting massively off-topic...

ArbeitsSchu wrote:
The "groups" I'm referring to are not ones defined by "class" alone. To pick one: the disabled. This is a group that covers any and every "class" or traditional distinction..poor/rich/moderately wealthy...and political inclination. The elderly would be another. No one distinction covers all of the people who like/dislike Cameron or CondDem policy. Its no doubt very inconvenient as it makes traditional classification difficult. Its also difficult to be wholly for or against the current administration for much the same reason.

But what you seemed to be trying to say was that liking or disliking the current PM is based upon being a member of certain groups, no? For example, students.

I'm a mature student. I support current Tory policy. So do many of my colleagues. Many don't. Again, I think it comes down to how much a sense of petty self-interest a person possesses.

Doesn't really matter what or whom caused the current economic situation if you are in a group that is facing massive cuts, who couldn't possibly have had any influence on that situation.

Really? So the man in the street isn't culpable for the recent consumer boom powered by cheap credit to those who couldn't afford to pay it back? It might seem churlish but it's a fact that subprime lending is where the wider financial crisis started.

...we live in a society that has a welfare system, and an NHS, and where taxes are collected and redistributed for the public good, to pay for the safe and perpetual continuance of the nation. Thus "cuts" are not necessarily the best way to decrease the deficit or solve the problems.

Our creditors seem to think so, and that, in the end, is far more important than what you or I think. If we had failed to make cuts we'd be staring down the barrel of a much worse situation right now. Everything else is just appeal to emotion, and I'm not playing those games.

Don't deal with our massive debts, our credit-rating gets downgraded, our interest payments go up, rinse, repeat, default, bankruptcy. What happens to the welfare state then?






Automatically Appended Next Post:
If you wish to continue via PM, fine by me. This thread isn't really about the current UK domestic political situation...

ArbeitsSchu wrote:
Point of order: Nobody picked Cameron except the people in the party. We don't vote for the leader (though some people seem to think that is how we should pick), we vote for the party. Only recently have we acquired this habit of voting for "personality" like the Americans appear to do.

Most people in America vote for the party as well, very few people are actively engaged with politics, and sufficiently distant from it to look at the person; except where the person is particularly divisive. Obama is one of these people, I know quite a few Republican voters who call themselves "anti-Obama" instead of Republican now.

SilverMK2 wrote:

rubiksnoob wrote:Funny accents.

And association football.

Fixed that for you

Double Fixed that for you

Thanatos_elNyx wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:

rubiksnoob wrote:Funny accents.

And association football.

Fixed that for you

Double Fixed that for you

association football

association

soc

soccer

Aye, but:

hand + egg= football?

I would take the UK out for a nice seafood dinner and then never call it again.

Ahtman wrote:I would take the UK out for a nice seafood dinner and then never call it again.

Joke's on you - I don't even like seafood!

Albatross wrote:Aye, but:

hand + egg= football?

Rugby started it, we just ran with the mistake.