General politics discussion thread

[Glen Quagmire]

I could have told you in 2006 that something was not quite right about the economy in Ireland, whatever the Celtic Tiger brought with it at the time. Property prices were going up at insane rates that simply could not be sustained, backed by a gombeen bunch of corrupt politicans. At some point it was all going to blow up and left with a misery in future for most Irish people at the expense of a few politicans, bankers and property dealers that have been trying to slither their way out and cheat the country. Those responsible should be tried for treason, if the IMF and EU don't come down on them like a ton of bricks first. I don't think apart from those who have had to emigrate, it has hit home with many people yet.

 

As for the "Trillion Pound Horro Show", I looked to see who was behind it and gave it a pass, there was no way it was going to try and be impartial. And before anyone gets started, I wouldn't watch a similar propaganda piece if it was done by the Socialist Workers Party either.

[Van Dammer]

I cant tell if you are being serious or if you are just being a sarcastic cunt for the sake of it.

 

Why is it anyone in this thread that doesnt follow the mainstream idea that politicians are fucking us or are trying to run the poor into the ground are usually called a cunt or some other lame insult?

[The King Of Swing]

I cant tell if you are being serious or if you are just being a sarcastic cunt for the sake of it.

 

Why is it anyone in this thread that doesnt follow the mainstream idea that politicians are fucking us or are trying to run the poor into the ground are usually called a cunt or some other lame insult?

 

It's not my fault that Steveo2007's last two posts look like nothing more then snarky bollocks.

[Steveo2007]

I cant tell if you are being serious or if you are just being a sarcastic cunt for the sake of it.

 

Why is it anyone in this thread that doesnt follow the mainstream idea that politicians are fucking us or are trying to run the poor into the ground are usually called a cunt or some other lame insult?

 

It's not my fault that Steveo2007's last two posts look like nothing more then snarky bollocks.

Well I'd love to go along with this "Tories are cunts" idea that seems to dominate the thread, but they're quite obviously the best people to deal with the deficit problem.

[Glen Quagmire]

I cant tell if you are being serious or if you are just being a sarcastic cunt for the sake of it.

 

Why is it anyone in this thread that doesnt follow the mainstream idea that politicians are fucking us or are trying to run the poor into the ground are usually called a cunt or some other lame insult?

 

It's not my fault that Steveo2007's last two posts look like nothing more then snarky bollocks.

Well I'd love to go along with this "Tories are cunts" idea that seems to dominate the thread, but they're quite obviously the best people to deal with the deficit problem.

You do realise that it is a coalition government in Westminster? It's not just Tories in there...

[The King Of Swing]

I cant tell if you are being serious or if you are just being a sarcastic cunt for the sake of it.

 

Why is it anyone in this thread that doesnt follow the mainstream idea that politicians are fucking us or are trying to run the poor into the ground are usually called a cunt or some other lame insult?

 

It's not my fault that Steveo2007's last two posts look like nothing more then snarky bollocks.

Well I'd love to go along with this "Tories are cunts" idea that seems to dominate the thread, but they're quite obviously the best people to deal with the deficit problem.

 

I'm not telling or asking you to go along with anything.

 

They are all a bunch of cunts in my eyes and its going to take a lot more then pandering to Daily Hail reading knuckle draggers before I take the current cunts that are in power seriously and I can just about remember just how shit things were under the last Conservative Government when the only work most people I knew could get was on the fucking fiddle so excuse me if I don't think this current lot are going to be upto scratch especially when it comes to creating jobs.

 

When I start seeing "real" change for the better and not just some numbers being thrown about that says we are doing better then I may just change my tune.

[Steveo2007]

I'm not telling or asking you to go along with anything.

 

They are all a bunch of cunts in my eyes and its going to take a lot more then pandering to Daily Hail reading knuckle draggers before I take the current cunts that are in power seriously and I can just about remember just how shit things were under the last Conservative Government when the only work most people I knew could get was on the fucking fiddle so excuse me if I don't think this current lot are going to be upto scratch especially when it comes to creating jobs.

 

When I start seeing "real" change for the better and not just some numbers being thrown about that says we are doing better then I may just change my tune.

But what would you define as "real change for the better?"

 

I'd define it as creating the right conditions to establish and maintain a strong private sector through lower taxation, which can only credibly be done through reducing the massive public sector spending.

 

@Glen: sorry, it's just so easy to forget.

[Happ Hazzard]

If you're waiting for the Tories to "create jobs" you'll be waiting a long time.

[Steveo2007]

If you're waiting for the Tories to "create jobs" you'll be waiting a long time.

Of course it's not something that will happen overnight. But the general feeling I get from people is that they see job creation in the context of the public sector growing and giving everyone work. You can only increase the private sector by reducing the public and lowering taxes, which will inevitably have a period of high unemployment until the private sector becomes confident enough to fill the hole left by the public sector. This is something the present government have openly acknowledged.

 

Edited for cock-up

Edited November 21, 2010 by Steveo2007

[Happ Hazzard]

The point I am making is that the Tories aren't going to "create jobs" for the sake of giving people jobs, which is effectively what Labour did.

[The King Of Swing]

It doesn't matter either way because 10 years or so down the road people will just vote Labour back in.

 

Rinse, repeat and fuck all really changes.

[patiirc]

Interestingly, it appears though the 'nanny state' isnt going away. Im pretty certain that this was a Labour proposal (perhaps cross party seeing as its now being put forward by the government.)

 

I gave smoking a year ago through my own volition, but this proposal has a several fold problem with me.

 

1. It treats the entire populous as thick cunts, removing their own ability to make a decision about whether they should buy a legal product or not ( at this point not so bothered if it kills them, its still legal). by making the packaging identikit and then doing their parenting for them by hiding the displays to protect the children (who cant buy it anyway as is now over 18 onlys.. or 25 if your stores follow the completely insane rules they have implemented of recent times)

 

With no discernable (sp?) brand markings you are going to end up with a consumer outcry especially if people are spending up wards of 6-7 quid for a pack of fags only to walk out of the shop to find they have the wrong brand. ( im not entering the whole smoking is bad for you here thing) This has the potential to further create monopolies with ' leading brands becoming sneaky and under hand' with tactics they use as the whole thing will look identical until people read the labels close up. Not exactly a 'free' market is it. Look at the way Coca Cola branded fridges work and the sheaningans of things occcuring there in times gone by

 

2.By hiding the cigarettes out of the way of children, isnt it instantly making the whole thing more interesting to them? Right now they are just behind shop assistants or what ever. Making the assistants having to pull them out of a draw under the counter or whatever is instantly going to ask the question 'what are they?' and make kids wonder what their parents/guardians are buying. Surely then this would completely defeat the object of hiding them in the first place.

 

3. Who is going to pay for all of the kiosk changes, rebranding and additional security stuff. Changing the way these things are stored and sold will require new kiosks, new display units, new branding, repositioning of security cameras etc, additional training and so forth and so on. Some shops are already struggling, spunking out thousands to change things ( I doubt the tobacco industry will be force to pay for these things ) So bye bye whats left of the local shops, news agents (I'm not talking about loss of sales here intrinsically)

 

and so on and so on. Not that different to the last lot then?

 

 

PS. Victoria Coren and the anti smoking lobby

Edited November 21, 2010 by patdfb

[Ronnie]

There's a White Paper about to come out which will reform our school systems.

 

On the agenda is a proposal to deduct marks from GCSE results for poor spelling, punctuation, and grammar.

 

My inner snob is highly relieved, because I abhor the piss-poor writing that I noticed in some of my own (undergraduate) students.

 

But my reflective side isn't so sure. I see appalling English all around me in the office. Even when the English is largely OK the punctuation isn't good. Words aren't used correctly ("the solution is comprised of ... "), the writing doesn't flow.

 

I was at an awards ceremony the other night where one host (an academic) used the expression "in terms of" at least nine times when introducing the winner and four runners-up. (I counted seven in the final two minutes, after I'd disdainfully registered that she'd thrown it around nonsensically on several prior occasions, including monstrosities such as "She was the first female president in history in terms of the Royal Society of Engineering.")

 

And I wouldn't trust most markers to be able to determine what's correct in all cases. I recall one professor correcting my use of the past subjunctive in a hypothetical construction ("If it were ...") to the preterite ("If it was ..."). I was fortunate enough to have an opportunity to put him straight, but a kid who has submitted an exam paper wouldn't.

 

So though I would wish to welcome the proposals, I can't help but think that it's hypocritical to dump on the kids, as though they're the ones bringing down previously high standards. Especially when the headline in the article that I read about the proposals is this:

 

[gary v1]

It's always amusing when people spell grammar wrong but in a piece about english standards it's even better. Unless it has something to do with the frankly awesome man below of course.

 

?

[Chris B]

Interestingly, it appears though the 'nanny state' isnt going away. Im pretty certain that this was a Labour proposal (perhaps cross party seeing as its now being put forward by the government.)

 

I gave smoking a year ago through my own volition, but this proposal has a several fold problem with me.

 

1. It treats the entire populous as thick cunts, removing their own ability to make a decision about whether they should buy a legal product or not ( at this point not so bothered if it kills them, its still legal). by making the packaging identikit and then doing their parenting for them by hiding the displays to protect the children (who cant buy it anyway as is now over 18 onlys.. or 25 if your stores follow the completely insane rules they have implemented of recent times)

 

With no discernable (sp?) brand markings you are going to end up with a consumer outcry especially if people are spending up wards of 6-7 quid for a pack of fags only to walk out of the shop to find they have the wrong brand. ( im not entering the whole smoking is bad for you here thing) This has the potential to further create monopolies with ' leading brands becoming sneaky and under hand' with tactics they use as the whole thing will look identical until people read the labels close up. Not exactly a 'free' market is it. Look at the way Coca Cola branded fridges work and the sheaningans of things occcuring there in times gone by

 

Good thing they're not thick cunts then, isn't it?

 

 

2.By hiding the cigarettes out of the way of children, isnt it instantly making the whole thing more interesting to them? Right now they are just behind shop assistants or what ever. Making the assistants having to pull them out of a draw under the counter or whatever is instantly going to ask the question 'what are they?' and make kids wonder what their parents/guardians are buying. Surely then this would completely defeat the object of hiding them in the first place.

 

The bottom of the article you linked to suggests that it doesn't.

 

3. Who is going to pay for all of the kiosk changes, rebranding and additional security stuff. Changing the way these things are stored and sold will require new kiosks, new display units, new branding, repositioning of security cameras etc, additional training and so forth and so on. Some shops are already struggling, spunking out thousands to change things ( I doubt the tobacco industry will be force to pay for these things ) So bye bye whats left of the local shops, news agents (I'm not talking about loss of sales here intrinsically)

 

A relatively good point. I wouldn't be surprised if the tobacco industry does end up paying for quite a bit of it. Which is no bad thing.