Your approach to voting.

[Mr Mystery]

Sorry TDA, it's another apolitical politics thread.

On with the subject. As per the title, I find myself wondering how others decide how to cast their vote.

Being a white, working/middle class 30 something, single with no dependants, I struggle to find any policy promises that would impact my life. Most tax cuts or benefit related stuff has no impact on my life. As such, I tend to find myself not so much voting for a party, but against one. Sometimes this is on long held prejudice (I doubt I will ever vote Tory) and at other times it's to avoid what I perceive to be a bad policy.

Now, without dragging the whys and wherefores of your political leaning, let's hear your thought process!

[Psychosplodge]

Well it's generally irrelevant what I want as a piece of 2"x4" would get a 10K majority where I live if you put a red rosette on it. But I do go and make the effort to put a cross or spoil my ballot depending on rival policies, and my mood at the time.
Regarding the governments, only this one is the one I haven't been worse off in take home pay come April. The 10p tax rate fiasco wiped out my annual pay rise that year and still left me out of pocket ¬_¬.
These police commisionors they're on about electing, I'll vote for an independent or failing that destroy my ballot as I don't believe they should be bringing party politics into this supposedly independent position.

[alshrive]

I walk into the booth, count to ten and then run out shouting DEMOCRACY!!! is that not how you are meant to do it?

[Mr Mystery]

It's as good a way as any!

[Cap'nSmurfs]

I don't vote. In a situation where you are presented with a variety of equally hideous options - or, substantially, no option at all - then I choose to walk away and find other ways of making a difference.

[alshrive]

Just thought i would share this with you as it just came on in the office while working (i sometimes force co-workers to listen to depeche mode :) ) and it seems quite fitting with the topic;

"You can't change the world
But you can change the facts
And when you change the facts
You change points of view
If you change points of view
You may change a vote
And when you change a vote
You may change the world"

[Denzark]

I remember my first vote. 1997 when the great nightmare happened. Myself and some of my newly enfranchised sixth form pals went to the nearest polling station. One of the girls came out afterwards and said rather sheepishly 'I couldn't see either John Major or Tony Blair on there. Did they give me the wrong paper?'

Awesome.

[Wildeybeast]

I voted Conservative in the past because a) no one else gets a look in my area b) I hold with conservative values and was sick of the last lot of muppets. Sadly I've come to the realisation that this lot of muppets are just as bad and the Conservative party does not represent the conservative values I believe in. So, in short have no clue whatsoever who to vote for next time round. As for this Police Commissioners nonsense, I'm tempted not to vote at all since I've had absolutely no info about any of the candidates in my area and very few of them have any experience of law enforcement. It's just a gimmick to make it look like they are giving more power and accountability to the unwashed masses.

[Denzark]

EVERYBODY STOP!!!

Just think for a second. Imagine you are a dog owner - lets say its a Staffordshire Bull Terrier. You don't believe the hype, you know there is no such thing as a bad dog, only bad owners. Yours is a friendly, loyal beast, protective, loving, good company, gentle with children, loves to play with them. One day, for reasons best known to itself, it savages a baby.

Now, ask yourself, what do you do? Could you trust it again? Was it a one off, aberration? Is it completely faultless as external circumstances were to blame?

Now transpose this to the economy. Labour didn't just savage the baby, they ate an entire orphanage.

Never EVER trust them in government again, one labour **** up of boom and bust with Ole' One Eyed Broon, is enough to never elect them

[Wildeybeast]

EVERYBODY STOP!!!

Just think for a second. Imagine you are a dog owner - lets say its a Staffordshire Bull Terrier. You don't believe the hype, you know there is no such thing as a bad dog, only bad owners. Yours is a friendly, loyal beast, protective, loving, good company, gentle with children, loves to play with them. One day, for reasons best known to itself, it savages a baby.

Now, ask yourself, what do you do? Could you trust it again? Was it a one off, aberration? Is it completely faultless as external circumstances were to blame?

Now transpose this to the economy. Labour didn't just savage the baby, they ate an entire orphanage.

Never EVER trust them in government again, one labour **** up of boom and bust with Ole' One Eyed Broon, is enough to never elect them

Agreed entirely. But now the Tories are systematically buggering the education and healthcare sectors, so they are just as bad. They are self serving, useless t£$ts.

[Psychosplodge]

I love that analogy!

What annoys me though is when the bank prints more money it's Quantitative easing, when I do it it's counterfeiting ¬_¬

[Wildeybeast]

Because you're not the bank. Fairly straightforward really.

[Psychosplodge]

:p

[Mr Mystery]

EVERYBODY STOP!!!

Just think for a second. Imagine you are a dog owner - lets say its a Staffordshire Bull Terrier. You don't believe the hype, you know there is no such thing as a bad dog, only bad owners. Yours is a friendly, loyal beast, protective, loving, good company, gentle with children, loves to play with them. One day, for reasons best known to itself, it savages a baby.

Now, ask yourself, what do you do? Could you trust it again? Was it a one off, aberration? Is it completely faultless as external circumstances were to blame?

Now transpose this to the economy. Labour didn't just savage the baby, they ate an entire orphanage.

Never EVER trust them in government again, one labour **** up of boom and bust with Ole' One Eyed Broon, is enough to never elect them

Yet Labour left the economy in a better state than the previous recession.... Seriously, look into it. And do remember, the banks shafted the global economy, not the British Government.

[Wolfshade]

Sounds like my little staffy cross, though he never savaged anyone, though his previous owners did break his leg so bad it needed to be amputated.
I pick whichever one the Daily Mail recommends, though it is getting far too left wing for my tastes...

[Psychosplodge]

Yet Labour left the economy in a better state than the previous recession.... Seriously, look into it. And do remember, the banks shafted the global economy, not the British Government.

Yes because the banks sold our gold reserve, and borrowed **** loads of money with no realistic method of paying it back, beyond raiding pensions and privatising what little infrastructure we had left.

The banking downfall was a separate issue that just coincided with and magnified the governments mismanagement.

[Wolfshade]

This is the singular problem with popularist government. We want more services and less tax, both of which are not achievable, but the party that offers this is the one that gets in, and it doesn't matter if it is just a single stint because the next people will have to hike taxes and reduce services making them terribly unpopular so that the frivolous spending can be voted in next time.

Let's face it, if I promised free uni places, free prescriptions, slashing fuel duty by 50% and reducing tax rates by 5% I would get the vote, most people don't consider whether or not the books will balance...

[Psychosplodge]

So you represent the SNP?

[Wolfshade]

no I don't do fish

[Mr Mystery]

And if we could now jump back to the original topic, and away from the partisan stuff. We've discussed our political leanings enough :)

[Psychosplodge]

Well it's generally irrelevant what I want as a piece of 2"x4" would get a 10K majority where I live if you put a red rosette on it.
:p

[MaltonNecromancer]

Never EVER trust them in government again, one labour **** up of boom and bust with Ole' One Eyed Broon, is enough to never elect them

Thatcher.

NOTHING Labour has done comes close to matching the horrors she inflicted. NOTHING. Not Tony Blair, not Gordon Brown, none of them come close to how much damage that creature caused. There are towns in the North that have never recovered. So yeah, Labour were pretty damn bad. Tony Blair will never be tried for war crimes (and he should be); Gordon Brown was at least punished by having his dream of being PM taken from him. The Tories were infinitely worse than New Labour ever was.

My problem just comes down to a lack of choice. I can vote for Labour, a centre-right political party, made up of a political class who know nothing about the real world. I can vote Tory, a right wing political party dedicated to utterly destroying a welfare state I believe in with all my heart, made up of a political class who who nothing about the real world and remain utterly unaware of the grotesque disparity in their levels of personal privilge compared to the 99% of people in the rest of the UK. Finally, there are the Lib Dems, who sold their soul for a chance to be king for a day... and who but a fool would do that?

So, it's incompetent Labour, idiotic Lib Dem, or genuinely evil Tory.

Now, if I subscribed to the Perfect Solution fallacy, I would argue that this means I cannot vote, as none of them are any good. However, that would be to ignore the simple truth of the world, which is that life isn't perfect, so it's not usually a choice between right and wrong, good and bad. 99% of the time it's a choice between bad and worse.

Labour did some dreadful things to the economy, no doubt. But they aren't actively trying to destroy the UK like the Tories are.

So until Nick Clegg grows a spine and the Lib Dems start actively opposing the nightmare the Tories are inflicting on the UK, I shall vote Labour.

Because there is no ideal candidate. All politicians are evil, shiftless, self-serving scum, but the Tories are the ones who actively hate us.

[scadugenga]

My approach to voting? Don't believe the media.

Do your own research.

Vote accordingly.

[DarkLink]

And only approve stuff you have a good reason to. Getting saddled with poorly thought out laws because voters didn't care if the law was actually well written just hurts everyone.

[Psychosplodge]

Thatcher.



Labour did some dreadful things to the economy, no doubt. But they aren't actively trying to destroy the UK like the Tories are.




That is precisely what labour set out to do. Combined with policies that actively bought votes to help them retain power.
Regardless of the wrongs of Thatcher, how do you think we'd have been doing had we continued at the mercy of the unions like the 3 day week 70's?

[Wolfshade]

Thatcher.

NOTHING Labour has done comes close to matching the horrors she inflicted. NOTHING. Not Tony Blair, not Gordon Brown, none of them come close to how much damage that creature caused. There are towns in the North that have never recovered. So yeah, Labour were pretty damn bad. Tony Blair will never be tried for war crimes (and he should be); Gordon Brown was at least punished by having his dream of being PM taken from him. The Tories were infinitely worse than New Labour ever was.

Well lets see, Thatcher is so great she is the only person to have a miniature made after them by GW, Ghazghkull Mag Uruk Thraka.

She introduced city technology colleges, which while not widely spectacular have been reinvented by labour as academies.
She managed through recession and because of her fiscal policies inflation never ran away.
She curbed the powers of the trade unions which had held the country to ransom, the only job she left unfinished was smashing the teacher's union who still now hold parent's to ransom by striking and forcing them to take leave to look after their child which then has knock on impacts on the wider economy. With a decreasing number of days lost because of industrial action throughout her leadership.
The closure of the coal mines was devastating on some communities, and those issues have yet to resolved, which neither conservative nor labour governments have addressed adequately. I certainly believe that those mines which were loss making should have been closed and not propped up by central government, though I disagree that those mines which were profitable being shut.
Privatisation again is a policy that you can't really fault as it shifts initial capital expenditure on projects and those inherent risks to private industry, and again the Labour PFI contracts are privatisation.

Also, lets not forget her very successful reclaiming of the Falklands, possibly the most successful modern war that the UK has been involved with.

[Mr Mystery]

Falklands was show boating, a convenient vote winner when she was horribly unpopular.

But finger pointing and naming aside, Malton raises a fair point. I remain a Labour voter because I cannot bring myself to vote Tory. Sure I'm technically better off due to tax changes and I am thankful for that, but I've also seen the harm other policies are doing. For instance, adult education for mothers of young children. That's been taken away. So those who had kids young now have less chance of improving their lot. When the kids are of school age, Mum will be in the same situation, and limited to dead end jobs. This is of use to nobody.

In the next election, I'm again voting Labour. I don't believe in spoiling my ballot. To me it achieves nothing. Better to vote against the people threatening to wreck Britain. I believe in social mobility. I believe transport, water and power SHOULD be nationalised. They are essentials of modern life, and I for one object to them being subject to the whims of a profit margin, especially when the companies receive government subsidies.

[Psychosplodge]

I agree power and water should be nationalised, but it's not going to happen.
The biggest contributor to social mobility were grammar schools that had an entry exam. Why didn't labour open more of those? I would have loved to have had that opportunity not been held at the pace of the class retard.

[Wolfshade]

I am in two minds with nationalisation, on the one hand I think that these should be run for the publics benefit rather than shareholders as you say these are essential for modern life, however, I work along side government bodies and the waste and excess is incredible. For instance I have just discovered that one agency has spent over £1 million on developing a system over the past 6 months that is directly opposed to a policy that was passed 10 months ago and are already paying another agency to do this as part of project nationally, and sadly this is not the first time I have come across these things.

Similiarly the number of times I get approached with identical data requests from different civil servants all wanting to do the same analysis and each time providing them with that data and pointing out that the analysis has already been performed and circulated in reports which they should have access to.

If capitalism were to work correctly the markets would force the prices to be cheap, and work places to be as efficient as possible, unfortunately what seems to occur is large corporations working together to artificially inflate the cost of things, we have seen recently how easy it is to effect Libor to a direction that favours you/your company

[Mr Mystery]

I moved from Scotland aged 11. Kent County Council refused to let me sit the 11+. That is why Grammar schools aren't great. Awesome if you get in, but certainly in Tunbridge Wells there is a horribly elitist approach. Thick as two short planks, but Daddy went there? In you come son. Been studying GCSE maths aged 10, but only just moved here? Well you can sod off.

Education does need a shake up. I say bring back technical schools. Some people have a natural talent for building things, and would make excellent carpenters, mechanics, electricians, plumbers, builders and what have you. Yet they have no special consideration given. Why? Why is it only the academically inclined who are encouraged to excel at a young age?

[Wolfshade]

I moved from Scotland aged 11. Kent County Council refused to let me sit the 11+. That is why Grammar schools aren't great.
Surely that is an issue with the local council rather than grammar schools.
My sister's didn't sit the 11+ because the local council would only allow you to attend schools in your LEA. Those schools in my LEA were inpracticable to attend from where I lived, then when it was my turn, the rules changed and you could cross LEA juristicions.

I do agree education needs a shake up, after all wasn't it the Labour policy that wanted to get the majority of people through university? The thing is that not everyone is academic and not all schools are good for that, that is where technology schools and polytechnics and apprenticships were useful.

[Psychosplodge]

Sport was king when I was at school. Surely the point of the entrance exam was to stop the nepotism you describe?
Of course technical skills should be equally pushed as academic skills.

@Wolfie, that's the other problem isn't it? You've only got to look at the average ability of the muppets staffing job centres now they're actually required to do something beyond attend a "job".

[Mr Mystery]

You'd think. But then the 11+ to my knowledge is restricted. You're put forward for it, rather than it being an option for all. That I disagree with.

[Wolfshade]

Sport was pushed at my school, fortunately I was in the 1st XV so it wasn't a problem for me :D

It is all training. I still can't believe on Job Centre had to give advice to applicants not to turn up to interviews in their pyjamas...

[Psychosplodge]

The local councils had essentially dismantled them near me.

I looked at PE as an extra couple of free hours, even better once I'd discovered I could A)pass for a sixth former to staff that didn't know me, and b) the sixth form had a list of empty rooms/times in it.

[Denzark]

And if we could now jump back to the original topic, and away from the partisan stuff. We've discussed our political leanings enough :)

Right, OK, here's what I genuinely do. A small analysis of factors:

1. Who is the incumbent MP - are they a muppet, do they have a good record, do they always follow the whip or do they vote in the interests of their consituents first?

2. What do the challengers represent, offer, come from; do they say anything fatuous, do they give a good alternative if the incumbent is unsuccessful?

3. Being in the military, I look to see if the candidates have any thoughts on defence matters and if so, do they make sense? I suppose anyone could substitute their own profession or personal interest at this stage.

4. I will then look at individual parties, their records, motivations, alleged intentions. Genuinely, I would vote labour if they would reverse defence cuts, even though they are morally and professionally bankrupt when it comes to running a country.

5. I then look at the leaders of the parties - are they statesman like, are they witty at PMQs, are they quick at thinking on their feet, are they good leaders (in the military sense of the word), do I think they will be credible on the world stage, have they annoyed the foreigners particularly our US allies?

6. I then see what are they like on Europe, the more pro-Europe the less support I will give.

7. I then look at the polls and whether or not my vote would be wasted. Yes I would consider voting tactically to keep out someone else I thought were muppets, if my top choice simply didn't have a chance of getting in.

Now, I think the majority of MPs are rubbish - possibly because they have no formal training. I don't like the fact that democratically, in Referendum, I am convinced that the populace would a.) Vote for the Death Penalty b.) Vote to get out of EU and c.) Vote to cut international aid - and MPs don't take that forward. I would nationalise rail, phones, water etc. I am naturally Tory becuase I genuinely believe they encourage aspiration, as opposed to a culture of entitlement. I believe in one doing one's Duty (yes capital d) rather that claiming one's rights.

However, if the Tory candidate was a nobber, who didn't go with his constituents, had a poor record, was Europhilic - and the Labour was Eurosceptic, good chap, knows his stuff about the military, strong on law and order, hates dole queue slackers - I would happily vote for him. I note Dan Jarvis, Lab, ex-Army, was the first MP to reply to a letter I wrote to a raft of MPs with prior military service, on the subject of our pensions.

As to Margaret Thatcher's record against New Liebore, I would take that Pepsi Challenge any time - but that would swing us off topic so far I will not bother.

[Deadlift]

Walk into voting booth, look at ballot. Find Tory candidate. Job done.

[MaltonNecromancer]

not been held at the pace of the class retard.

Wow. Just... wow. There's some real entitlement issues there, huh?

So you had no responsibility at all for your education, huh? No say at all? No way to say, take some responsibility for yourself? You couldn't have looked through the exam mark schemes from previous years, checked their websites/written them letters/asked your teachers for assistance? No way you could have done more work at home to improve. Nope? Too much to expect? Your education needs to be handed to you too?

Yup. It's all down to the teachers not stretching you academically. Yup. There's no way you could have done a thing.

And using the R-word too, huh? Wow. Just like Ann Coulter.


Dear Ann Coulter,

Come on Ms. Coulter, you aren’t dumb and you aren’t shallow. So why are you continually using a word like the R-word as an insult?

I’m a 30 year old man with Down syndrome who has struggled with the public’s perception that an intellectual disability means that I am dumb and shallow. I am not either of those things, but I do process information more slowly than the rest of you. In fact it has taken me all day to figure out how to respond to your use of the R-word last night.

I thought first of asking whether you meant to describe the President as someone who was bullied as a child by people like you, but rose above it to find a way to succeed in life as many of my fellow Special Olympians have.

Then I wondered if you meant to describe him as someone who has to struggle to be thoughtful about everything he says, as everyone else races from one snarkey sound bite to the next.

Finally, I wondered if you meant to degrade him as someone who is likely to receive bad health care, live in low grade housing with very little income and still manages to see life as a wonderful gift.

Because, Ms. Coulter, that is who we are – and much, much more.

After I saw your tweet, I realized you just wanted to belittle the President by linking him to people like me. You assumed that people would understand and accept that being linked to someone like me is an insult and you assumed you could get away with it and still appear on TV.

I have to wonder if you considered other hateful words but recoiled from the backlash.

Well, Ms. Coulter, you, and society, need to learn that being compared to people like me should be considered a badge of honor.

No one overcomes more than we do and still loves life so much.

Come join us someday at Special Olympics. See if you can walk away with your heart unchanged.

A friend you haven’t made yet,
John Franklin Stephens
Global Messenger
Special Olympics Virginia

http://specialolympicsblog.wordpress.com/2012/10/23/an-open-letter-to-ann-coulter/


Yet they have no special consideration given. Why? Why is it only the academically inclined who are encouraged to excel at a young age?

Because the current Tory regime is not interested in a modern educational system - they want to take us back to the 50's, and only pursue a limited "academic" educational curriculum for no reason other than it's what they know, and if it was good enough for them, it's good enough for all.

Seriously, I don't know a single teacher (including teachers who are long-term Tory voters) who doesn't despise Michael Gove. He's done the impossible: he's gotten the teaching unions united! That's how big a threat he is to education, and I am literally staggered no-one seems to notice. This government is destroying the educational system of this country out of ideological madness, and it's the current generation of children who will pay for it. If you're not academically minded, good luck getting anything out of your education at all in the next ten years.

It sickens me.

[Denzark]

This government is destroying the educational system of this country out of ideological madness, and it's the current generation of children who will pay for it. If you're not academically minded, good luck getting anything out of your education at all in the next ten years.

It sickens me.

Hey Malty hope you are enjoying half term fella.

Now my personal opinion on what is wrong in education is as follows:

1. A reduction in competitive sport - my school lost 2 double lessons per week over the course of my 7 years there. Don't know if this was curriculum or school policy. Sport gets rid of aggression and fights obesity. Yes you don't have unlimited time in the week. Denzark solution: Merge some social health sex ed pish into science. Merge RE into history. Job's jobbed.

2. Inclusion. If you allow scrotes to stay in school, turning them into Bear Pits, because the LEA makes it nigh on impossible to expel somebody, eveyone else around suffers for it. Make it easier to get rid, if necessary with some borstal affair for the most hard core scrotes (oh yes Corporal punishment might not be a bad idea either).

3. Inclusion (2). I'm sorry but trying to include persons with learning difficulties or disabilities in mainstream classes is social engineering. No matter how much extra Teaching support they get, the best place would be special classes/schools.

4. Hoop jumping. League tables, specialist status and training purely for exams, which don't have any relevance to real life employment. Even if one was to state exams haven't actually got easier, the ever increasing results are not down to kids getting better - its teachers getting better at pushing them through the exams.



I'm sure people could add others. Now, I know Gove is hated (you may recall the Memsahib is head of science at her school) however, he is trying to shake up at least point 4 - which is a view point held by the CBI etc. Whether you think he is doing it correctly is your opnion - but at least he trying and not because of ideology but to try to bring back relevance. He may goof and wind you all up with his incessant soundbiting but I think he is trying.

Most of the 4 things above have been foisted on education by social engineers - blue or red I'll let you tell me but i don't think the tories can be blamed for all the ills.

[Wolfshade]

1. A reduction in competitive sport - my school lost 2 double lessons per week over the course of my 7 years there. Don't know if this was curriculum or school policy. Sport gets rid of aggression and fights obesity. Yes you don't have unlimited time in the week. Denzark solution: Merge some social health sex ed pish into science. Merge RE into history. Job's jobbed.

I agree with sports, though there would need to be a wide variety, my school offered a huge variety from Rugby to Swimming, Squash to Fencing, Orienterring to Track and Field, though there would need to be something for those who aren't sproty at all. I disagree with the second part though RE while it contains historic elements is more of a social thing so instead put your RE, Social health lump that together and we could call that Personal Social Education or Citizenship

2. Inclusion. If you allow scrotes to stay in school, turning them into Bear Pits, because the LEA makes it nigh on impossible to expel somebody, eveyone else around suffers for it. Make it easier to get rid, if necessary with some borstal affair for the most hard core scrotes (oh yes Corporal punishment might not be a bad idea either).I agree the LEA needs to in the first place make it easier to remove disruptive elements, and that for those with chronic behavioural issues there does need to be an education environment specialised to their needs, possibly with "enforcers" to maintain discipline if necessary.


3. Inclusion (2). I'm sorry but trying to include persons with learning difficulties or disabilities in mainstream classes is social engineering. No matter how much extra Teaching support they get, the best place would be special classes/schools.
I agree with this also, unfortunately the current state of affairs is such that these special units do have those for whom it is beneificial, but it can also contain those which do not have the need for it and people with behavioural issues which isn't quite the same as having learning difficulties.


4. Hoop jumping. League tables, specialist status and training purely for exams, which don't have any relevance to real life employment. Even if one was to state exams haven't actually got easier, the ever increasing results are not down to kids getting better - its teachers getting better at pushing them through the exams.
I hate with a passion training for exams, I went to a selective school and you could tell the difference between those who were trained to pass and those who had the natural ability to pass. It was the disruptive elements who were trained to pass.
A classic example, while I was in VIth form my form tutor was also head of maths and he and I were talking about things and he brought up a situation whereby on lad entered the school in year 7 with a C grade GCSE in maths and his parents had been complaining that he was set in the bottom class for maths, he patiently explained to the parents that while the child could answer exam style questions, questions posed in different forms he could not do and he lacked the "surrounding knowledge" as he put it.
I think specialist status can be useful, as it provides the school with aditional money to expand and encourage excellence in a specific field, however, given most children will be entering secondary school at 11/12 that is far too early for them to decide what path the child should be directed towards.

[Wildeybeast]

Walk into voting booth, look at ballot. Find Tory candidate. Job done.

This used to be me. I wish it still could be and hope it will be one day again in the future. But not under this version of the Tory party.

[DrLove42]

Walk into voting booth, look at ballot. Find Tory candidate. Job done.

And to think i used to respect you :P

[Wolfshade]

Where I used to live I was only aware there were non-Conservatives when I arrived in the booth. That area was and is and will be blue through and through.

[DrLove42]

Let me put it this way

Grandad on one side - Ex Ship Worker, Ex RAF Reserve, Labour Part Member, Former labour Councillor
Grandad on other side - Gardener, working man. Served in WW2. Parents were Mine workers
Grandma on that side - Worked in mill as young un
Parents - Both in NHS Employ

I'm as Red (and by that i mean labour, not communist :p) as they come. Doesn't mean I always vote for them though. But usually does

[Wolfshade]

It is a simple question for me, how much do I earn and which party will allow me to keep the most of it.
Other considerations like what services are provided and do I use and what is the probability of me being able to afford to do things privately.

[Deadlift]

And to think i used to respect you :P

To think that somebody on here used to respect me is good enough for me :)

[Uncle Nutsy]

Usually I draw a penis on the ballot. It says a lot and I find it's a good reflection of the candidates already listed.

[Psychosplodge]

Wow. Just... wow. There's some real entitlement issues there, huh?

So you had no responsibility at all for your education, huh? No say at all? No way to say, take some responsibility for yourself? You couldn't have looked through the exam mark schemes from previous years, checked their websites/written them letters/asked your teachers for assistance? No way you could have done more work at home to improve. Nope? Too much to expect? Your education needs to be handed to you too?

Yup. It's all down to the teachers not stretching you academically. Yup. There's no way you could have done a thing.

And using the R-word too, huh? Wow. Just like Ann Coulter.


Entitlement issues really? I'm talking pre-gcse streaming, at the start of comprehensive, where the entire class were being held back by too dickheads that still couldn't multiply by ten, 30 pupils of all abilities had to basiclly tread water waiting for the teacher to attempt the impossible, before he realised you can't educate pork.
And all that **** you listed? You're a teacher right? So you really believe that's a realistic solution? Or maybe it is in Malton, but not in a comprehensive with 15-1800 students in which the teachers can't name a third of the class despite seeing them three times a week.

And since when have we had an "R" word? wtf?


Noun 1. retard - a person of subnormal intelligence


Quite accurate from the context. What's the problem?

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

You should all vote for me.

/thread


EDIT: In other news.... DRLOVE42 IS A DIRTY COMMIE!

2ND EDIT: Thanks for the apology Mystery, but there is rather a lot of butthurt here.

[eldargal]

I only vote when I think a guvmint has outlived its usefullness and needs to be removed. Beyond that I take an interest in politics and a familiarity with the various parties and their beliefs but try and remain neutral. I don't like seeing politics treated like football, where you have a side and support it no matter what. Reality isn't that simple and government is too important to be treated like that.

[Psychosplodge]

. I don't like seeing politics treated like football, where you have a side and support it no matter what. Reality isn't that simple and government is too important to be treated like that.

Which is why democracy doesn't work.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

They get paid roughly the same...

[eldargal]

Which is why democracy doesn't work.

It works better than any other system, apart from Rule by Eldargal.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

Well, we'll have to unrule current government for that hun. :p

[Psychosplodge]

It works better than any other system, apart from Rule by Psychosplodge.

lol, which is why I didn't suggest an alternative, though I think I fixed that for you :p

[eldargal]

Pfft, my rule is better because I can flash some skin and everyone will forget about things like 'grinding poverty' and 'state sponsored anti chav death squads'.

[Psychosplodge]

Yeah, but I could employ people to do that, taking them out of the grinding poverty, and no-one would really complain about state sponsored anti chav death squads as antisocial behaviour would decrease.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

Oooooh! I vote EldarGal.

[Gotthammer]

'state sponsored anti chav death squads'.

Why would that be something people would want to forget?

[Wolfshade]

It works better than any other system, apart from Rule by Eldargal.

Not really sure I agree with you on this point. If we look at the chinesse for example, the government is chosen by the few and yet the popularity of the governement is astonishingly high.
You also cannot complain about their economic policies economy growing by about 10% for decades while the rest of the world sufferes recessions are slow downs. Quite simply they have the will to rule and do what is best for the civilisation rather than the individual, and through such policies the public reap benefits.
Civic projects, we are struggleing to build a high speed rail network to connect the 2nd city to europe (HS2) and yet China has the worlds largest high speed rail network, why because they can? because the recognise the importance of an interconnected country more probably.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20178655

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

Democracy is non-negotiable.

[eldargal]

It's called propaganda, nationalism and ignorance Wolfshade.:p The ability to get things done is a hallmark of authoritarian regimes but it doesn't make them good, especially not in the long run and when things turn bad.

[Wolfshade]

That is the assumption in the long run things turn bad.
I believe that Socrates will agree with me that statesmen should work the benefit of the society rather than for the individual. This is not always a good thing, and I think perhaps the problem with our politics is that the terms are too short. Imagine if you will that the current coalition manages to reduce government debt and steer us to a path of a growing economy and higher employment then labour say get voted in, they ride high on the beneifits of the previous government and remind people of the hard taxes and benefit cuts that people suffered.
If you want to try and push real reform or a long term plan you don't have enough time to do so and see the benefits in four years.
I'm not saying all authoritarian regimes are a good thing, I mean look at I Robot, the solution to humanity's problems was to cull a substantial proportion.
But at least things can get done. Take for instance the Anglican Union, they are all bound together by choice and have a general synod one a year to discuss matters affecting the church, it then takes years for decisions to be made and effected and passed down as they are all equals in governance, the Roman Catholic church can be much more rapid either things being forced through by Papal decree or Vatican II.

As for ignorance, I think that that is universal...

[Psychosplodge]

Stupidity is the second most abundant element in the universe after hydrogen

Wasn't that what the House of Lords used to do? What was best for the country in a non-partisan manner as they saw fit? Then the "democratic process" eroded that protection and filled it with cronyism...

[eldargal]

Yep, we had a house of Lords that actually looked at legislation and made sure bad things were weeded out. This was deemed 'anachronistic' by New Labour who introduced the current system of stocking it mostly with political lapdogs and wealthy donors to make sure they could get whatever they wanted pushed through. Obviously a much better system...

[Wolfshade]

Yeah that is what they were supposed to do, until it got rather political.
Though I do find it concerning when there are more lords sitting and debating an issue than parlimentarians.

[Wildeybeast]

Yep, we had a house of Lords that actually looked at legislation and made sure bad things were weeded out. This was deemed 'anachronistic' by New Labour who introduced the current system of stocking it mostly with political lapdogs and wealthy donors to make sure they could get whatever they wanted pushed through. Obviously a much better system...

No doubt in an effort to get the Parliament Act through which means they don't even have to bother with the HoL any more.

[Psychosplodge]

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_maajikp7mU1rbyr12o1_500.jpg

[Cap'nSmurfs]

On China: Don't ever listen to Martin Jacques. He doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.