Monday 20th October 2014

Post by **letsskiptotheleft** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 8:56 pm

refitman wrote:
Ukip Deputy Paul Nuttall Denies He Played Bungle The Bear In Kids TV Show Rainbow
Ukip deputy leader Paul Nuttall has denied being the actor who played Bungle the bear on 1970s and 1980s children's TV show Rainbow.

Nuttall was forced to deny rumours that he had worn a bear suit to play the clumsy, brown furry character after internet pranksters edited his Wikipedia page.

The page for the MEP was changed to say: “Nuttall was the original Bungle in children’s television show Rainbow.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/10 ... 12832.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Tee-hee

Funniest part is the Nuttall quote ''I do find it funny that people make these things up'' Kippers don't do irony do they, coming from the party known for dodgy stats and scare stories I find that hilarious.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 8:59 pm

The thing that concerns me is that if Labour lose in 2015, the Blairites will be back to push them further to the right to try to occupy the same ground as the Tories as Blair did - even more unfortunate is that they are trooping evermore to the right so that would be a disaster

You could say it will open up room for a truly radical left-wing party but that will take a long time to set up and get close to Government - we could see Tory/UKIP interspersed with Blairite NuLab and the LD squeaking from the sidelines with their hands in the air like the kid in class that no-one really liked very much (you know the one who uses their other hand to push their 'hand up' even higher....)

That is why, if I was in the UK, I would be voting Labour - it is the only chance we have.....

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 9:01 pm

Temulkar, the point is that it is rarely tthe Labour Party uses that argument, labour voters do, and with some justification, as there has been so much anti-Labour rhetoric and the distortion of events is massive. They are rightly fearful, because while Labour gets such treatment the Greens fare just as badly; they are roundly ignored. Yet there is so much the two parties care about in common. The bit that I will never understand is how Greens who hold firmly to their principles regardless of outcome can make the argument that it is a better stance than ensuring that at least the ground we stand on is still ours come next summer, a common ground from which a decent future could be built.

I'm as environmentally passionate as you, and probably have been for a lot longer, but I can also see that this country is in a grave state, half its people are suffering, half haven't a clue. Green issues won't even start to be resolved if the Tories are returned in May. They will frack the ground under our feet after selling it to the highest bidder, if they haven't already done so.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 9:03 pm

Tackling climate change will be a priority for a Labour Government
http://labourlist.org/2014/09/tackling- ... overnment/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

How's this one ?

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 9:07 pm

howsillyofme1 wrote:Temulkar

I think I get it - you don't like Labour and you will not vote for them. Fair enough - I understand why but if the Green vote means a Tory Government then that will be very sad - you may not see the difference but I do and, sad to say, so does my family. The same way that Ralph Nader voters, whether they like it or not, gave us a George Bush presidency

This is the problem with FPTP - I would like to have other options than Labour but we have, in effect, a two party state and nothing will change unless we have proper PR and the English people (in particular) do not seem to want that

Can I just ask why you use 'we' so much - do you have a mandate to speak for all Green voters? I know Green voters who are from the ecofascist right - yes really (it has always had a connection to the Green movement and is completely nonsensical but they do exist) and others who are voting Labour to get the Tories out

How you use your vote is up to you and I respect your position; what I would suggest though is you don't (added in edit) use 'we' so much

I understand that, actually when it comes to the godzilla approach to the Greens this is something that is a growing feeling amongst the party. So when I say we I know I am representing a large swathe of the party who are feeling the same way.

You know in 1910 the Labour party got 40 seats and the liberals were unable to get a majority. The Labour voters, espescially in Non-conformist areas like Wales were accused of betraying the working class by putting at risk the peoples budget and the Liberal reforms.

The same arguments are being used by the Tories against the Kippers. Labour should know enough of its own past as well as of the political present to understand its an approach which is counter productive.

I wonder if you had been there, would you have voted for Kier Hardie or Herbert Asquith? Honest question.

I am doing today what my great grandfather did when he was one of the first labour councillors in the Amman Valley, despite being non-conformist and from a Liberal family. I'm voting for my Kier Hardie.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 9:08 pm

HindleA wrote:Gosh ,fourty years ago yesterday that Keith Joseph made his "our human stock is threatened" speech.

Was that related to oxo?

Post by **letsskiptotheleft** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 9:14 pm

I suppose it's possible to make separate your private life and what you do for a living, still, I wonder what kind of conversations Amelia Gentlemen and Jo Johnson have?

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014 ... loved-ones" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 9:18 pm

Temulkar wrote:
howsillyofme1 wrote:Temulkar

I think I get it - you don't like Labour and you will not vote for them. Fair enough - I understand why but if the Green vote means a Tory Government then that will be very sad - you may not see the difference but I do and, sad to say, so does my family. The same way that Ralph Nader voters, whether they like it or not, gave us a George Bush presidency

This is the problem with FPTP - I would like to have other options than Labour but we have, in effect, a two party state and nothing will change unless we have proper PR and the English people (in particular) do not seem to want that

Can I just ask why you use 'we' so much - do you have a mandate to speak for all Green voters? I know Green voters who are from the ecofascist right - yes really (it has always had a connection to the Green movement and is completely nonsensical but they do exist) and others who are voting Labour to get the Tories out

How you use your vote is up to you and I respect your position; what I would suggest though is you don't (added in edit) use 'we' so much
I understand that, actually when it comes to the godzilla approach to the Greens this is something that is a growing feeling amongst the party. So when I say we I know I am representing a large swathe of the party who are feeling the same way.

You know in 1910 the Labour party got 40 seats and the liberals were unable to get a majority. The Labour voters, espescially in Non-conformist areas like Wales were accused of betraying the working class by putting at risk the peoples budget and the Liberal reforms.

The same arguments are being used by the Tories against the Kippers. Labour should know enough of its own past as well as of the political present to understand its an approach which is counter productive.

I wonder if you had been there, would you have voted for Kier Hardie or Herbert Asquith? Honest question.

I am doing today what my great grandfather did when he was one of the first labour councillors in the Amman Valley, despite being non-conformist and from a Liberal family. I'm voting for my Kier Hardie.

It is a fair comment but we are not in 1910 and we are in a far different situation. Remember the working class had just received the vote so they were looking for someone to vote for, and neither the Libs or Tories were speaking to them. At the same time the people who gained the vote were politically engaged and wanted to see change....this was especially the case after the Great War

The same thing could happen now but the only party who seem to be picking up votes is a nationalistic party on the right (something we have never really seem to this extent in the UK before) and none of us on the left would subscribe to UKIP's policies or approach

There is room for a radical party of the left but I do not see the people wanting that anymore....it depresses me to say so but the last 30 years have led to the right wing being in the ascendant - how much I hate Blair for wasting his massive majorities in those 1st two Parliaments by being too craven to take on the vested interests and Establishment which protect the status quo

TheGrimSqueaker · Post by **TheGrimSqueaker** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 9:23 pm

Temulkar wrote:
TheGrimSqueaker wrote:
Temulkar wrote: So engage in some grown up debate then rather than passive aggressive flouncing.

Lets start on policies again. What policies have labour got that will entice green voters, because fear of the tories isnt working. So, if you want green voters How do you go about getting them. Is it,

A. Insult them for betraying us to another tory government
B. Dismiss their voters as wasting their vote.
C Engage with them and try and win them over.
Passive aggressive flouncing? Firstly one person has been aggressive here today, and was similarly aggressive last week, and that is yourself; secondly, flouncing implies leaving, and my statement was the very opposite of that; I have no intention of letting you attempt to control the debate with your mixture of condescension, naked aggression and unfounded accusations. You stop doing that and we can have a proper grown up debate, carry on posting these whining posts about how us nasty partisan Labourites are bullying you and dismissing you and we can't. Your call Tem, wind you neck in & stop dishing out the insults and we can talk; carry on belittling and I'll give you as good as you dish out.
Aha I see you chose D. Accuse the Green of being aggressive. in spite of the fact it hasnt been the green swearing or indeed threatening to be 'damned robust,' I guess multiple choice is too difficult for you.

As for unfounded accusation do you know the meaning of unfounded or even accuse? I would like to see where I have accused you or indeed anyone of anything.

Temulkar, you are being aggressive, and you were aggressive last week; I'm still waiting for you to show where I have previously sworn at you, or otherwise attacked you, in your own time. And, yes, I will be robust with you from now on; you chose to go on the attack today so don't start crying that the big boy is picking on you.

And, genuinely, you can't see where you have accused anybody of anything? You're accusing me, again, in this post of swearing at you & bullying you, despite being unable to back up the claim; you've accused a number of people here of being partisan to the point of stifling debate, despite the fact you appear to be far from stifled - indeed you are using the classic Kipper tactic, as I pointed out earlier, of banging on and on (and on and on ....) about how you are being silenced so, the instant anybody dares to suggest you might be wrong, you can say "look, I told you so".

You've accused people of insulting you, and belittling you and dismissing you out of hand (when, ironically, that is exactly what you are doing yourself) and then complaining that nobody wants to engage with you. Well, forgive me for being a little cynical, but from here it doesn't look like you want to engage; you don't want to be persuaded, because you've already decided that Labour=bad, but you do want to show us how clever all you Greens are (and, to be honest, I think you do a lot of people a disservice by claiming to speak for all) and shame all of us stupid Labour sheepie into converting to your cause. It may surprise you to know that I've voted Green a couple of times in the past, and I stopped doing so mainly because of the sanctimonious attitude displayed by the Anointed Believers ..... exactly the sort of attitude you've displayed last week and again today.

One last time. You show me where I've done the things you accused me of, before today; if you do that I will apologise, mollify my tone and leave you alone. If you don't/can't I would hope you are big enough to do the same ..... but I'm guessing that won't happen.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 9:27 pm

To our Welsh friends -is this good or bad ?
Welsh Government bonds plan agreement signalled at historic first meeting
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales ... nt-7968016" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 9:39 pm

I'd add the minimum wage policy as positive too. £8 could be brought forward at least a year, but it's still worthwhile. Would put the UK pretty close to the top of the G7.

It's easy to say £10 now, but it would be the highest in Europe by some way, and would surely be too high for some of the poorer parts of the UK.

Post by **letsskiptotheleft** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 9:41 pm

AngryAsWell wrote:To our Welsh friends -is this good or bad ?
Welsh Government bonds plan agreement signalled at historic first meeting
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales ... nt-7968016" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Dubious myself, but willing to be corrected on my pessimism..

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 9:41 pm

TheGrimSqueaker wrote:
Temulkar wrote:
TheGrimSqueaker wrote: Passive aggressive flouncing? Firstly one person has been aggressive here today, and was similarly aggressive last week, and that is yourself; secondly, flouncing implies leaving, and my statement was the very opposite of that; I have no intention of letting you attempt to control the debate with your mixture of condescension, naked aggression and unfounded accusations. You stop doing that and we can have a proper grown up debate, carry on posting these whining posts about how us nasty partisan Labourites are bullying you and dismissing you and we can't. Your call Tem, wind you neck in & stop dishing out the insults and we can talk; carry on belittling and I'll give you as good as you dish out.
Aha I see you chose D. Accuse the Green of being aggressive. in spite of the fact it hasnt been the green swearing or indeed threatening to be 'damned robust,' I guess multiple choice is too difficult for you.

As for unfounded accusation do you know the meaning of unfounded or even accuse? I would like to see where I have accused you or indeed anyone of anything.
Temulkar, you are being aggressive, and you were aggressive last week; I'm still waiting for you to show where I have previously sworn at you, or otherwise attacked you, in your own time. And, yes, I will be robust with you from now on; you chose to go on the attack today so don't start crying that the big boy is picking on you.

And, genuinely, you can't see where you have accused anybody of anything? You're accusing me, again, in this post of swearing at you & bullying you, despite being unable to back up the claim; you've accused a number of people here of being partisan to the point of stifling debate, despite the fact you appear to be far from stifled - indeed you are using the classic Kipper tactic, as I pointed out earlier, of banging on and on (and on and on ....) about how you are being silenced so, the instant anybody dares to suggest you might be wrong, you can say "look, I told you so".

You've accused people of insulting you, and belittling you and dismissing you out of hand (when, ironically, that is exactly what you are doing yourself) and then complaining that nobody wants to engage with you. Well, forgive me for being a little cynical, but from here it doesn't look like you want to engage; you don't want to be persuaded, because you've already decided that Labour=bad, but you do want to show us how clever all you Greens are (and, to be honest, I think you do a lot of people a disservice by claiming to speak for all) and shame all of us stupid Labour sheepie into converting to your cause. It may surprise you to know that I've voted Green a couple of times in the past, and I stopped doing so mainly because of the sanctimonious attitude displayed by the Anointed Believers ..... exactly the sort of attitude you've displayed last week and again today.

One last time. You show me where I've done the things you accused me of, before today; if you do that I will apologise, mollify my tone and leave you alone. If you don't/can't I would hope you are big enough to do the same ..... but I'm guessing that won't happen.

I really shouldnt respond to such a meaningless rant of effluent, but I guess I am a masochist.

I'm not trying to convert anyone, I don't need to. I'm not angry at people voting labour, it doesnt bother me in the slightest. Why would it? I don't think labour supporters are stupid I think they are wrong, there is a difference (although I understand comprehension isn't your strongest virtue) I haven't been aggressive, I havent been insulting about labour supporters in general although I have most certainly ridiculed you.

As for today your whole tone has been in my face aggressive and thus far I have been remarkably restrained in merely mocking you. If you dont like my opinions don't engage with me, if you want to engage, be civil or accept you are going to be mocked and ridiculed by me.

I'm not resorting to anger or aggression you really arent worth the energy; it's much easier to laugh at you.

ErnstRemarx · Post by **ErnstRemarx** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 9:42 pm

Rebecca wrote:Morning all.
Off topic,but sort of a general warning for people who,like me,are not very technically minded;
Had a call this morning from somebody saying that my computers are all infected with some virus and that he was calling from windows support.
Sounded quite genuine,in a difficult to understand Indian ish accent as per usual from tech support.
So I started up my chromebook,but,he didn't really know what a chromebook was.So he asked me to start up the desk top,and when he began to ask me to type in a file name I asked for a number to call to verify that he was from microsoft.
Didn't call the number he gave me,but contacted microsoft.They NEVER call people in this way,it is a scam.
I'm sure most of you would have been too smart to even switch on,but when it comes to difficult to understand tech talk I sort of freeze up mentally.

Correct. Microsoft never call you like that. Do what I do (two variations). The first one is to tell them that you can't follow their instructions because a PC running Linux doesn't have the same layout as Windows, and so you're confused now. The second, and more fun, way is to wait until they've finished their opening spiel and then gently ask: "have you ever considered letting our lord jesus christ into your life?". Works a treat for me; 100% call termination.

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 9:44 pm

AngryAsWell wrote:To our Welsh friends -is this good or bad ?
Welsh Government bonds plan agreement signalled at historic first meeting
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales ... nt-7968016" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It worries me, tbh.

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 9:45 pm

ErnstRemarx wrote:
Rebecca wrote:Morning all.
Off topic,but sort of a general warning for people who,like me,are not very technically minded;
Had a call this morning from somebody saying that my computers are all infected with some virus and that he was calling from windows support.
Sounded quite genuine,in a difficult to understand Indian ish accent as per usual from tech support.
So I started up my chromebook,but,he didn't really know what a chromebook was.So he asked me to start up the desk top,and when he began to ask me to type in a file name I asked for a number to call to verify that he was from microsoft.
Didn't call the number he gave me,but contacted microsoft.They NEVER call people in this way,it is a scam.
I'm sure most of you would have been too smart to even switch on,but when it comes to difficult to understand tech talk I sort of freeze up mentally.
Correct. Microsoft never call you like that. Do what I do (two variations). The first one is to tell them that you can't follow their instructions because a PC running Linux doesn't have the same layout as Windows, and so you're confused now. The second, and more fun, way is to wait until they've finished their opening spiel and then gently ask: "have you ever considered letting our lord jesus christ into your life?". Works a treat for me; 100% call termination.

So Ernst,

Kier Hardie or Herbert Asquith?

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 9:50 pm

Another Mail lead on the Welsh NHS tmrw!

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 9:50 pm

Temulkar wrote:
ErnstRemarx wrote:
Rebecca wrote:Morning all.
Off topic,but sort of a general warning for people who,like me,are not very technically minded;
Had a call this morning from somebody saying that my computers are all infected with some virus and that he was calling from windows support.
Sounded quite genuine,in a difficult to understand Indian ish accent as per usual from tech support.
So I started up my chromebook,but,he didn't really know what a chromebook was.So he asked me to start up the desk top,and when he began to ask me to type in a file name I asked for a number to call to verify that he was from microsoft.
Didn't call the number he gave me,but contacted microsoft.They NEVER call people in this way,it is a scam.
I'm sure most of you would have been too smart to even switch on,but when it comes to difficult to understand tech talk I sort of freeze up mentally.
Correct. Microsoft never call you like that. Do what I do (two variations). The first one is to tell them that you can't follow their instructions because a PC running Linux doesn't have the same layout as Windows, and so you're confused now. The second, and more fun, way is to wait until they've finished their opening spiel and then gently ask: "have you ever considered letting our lord jesus christ into your life?". Works a treat for me; 100% call termination.
So Ernst,

Kier Hardie or Herbert Asquith?

Actually damn its Arthur Henderson or Herbert Asquith; I should have looked it up.

Tizme1 · Post by **Tizme1** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 9:50 pm

AngryAsWell wrote:
Tizme1 wrote:
AngryAsWell wrote:I'm sitting here feeling very guilty as it was me who replied to OneButton this morning with the "well don't blame me" quote that seems to have exploded into a bit of a row.
People will vote how they see fit, its up to them, and I think the problems we all have at the moment is "our" country is being destroyed along with all the "standard issue" civilities we have all taken for granted over previous years. No matter what anyone thinks of the last Labour government we were a lot more kind, understanding and civilised during their 13 years.
Anyway........
This is a quick note to say sorry for inadvertently kicking it off (and can we all be a bit more understanding of each others views ? I vote Labour, as green voters do the greens, because of the policies not because I don't understand them)

Fracking - Labour are not in agreement on this - yet.
HS2 there is no consensus on this in any party (and even a real life green friend supports it!) personally I hope it's ditched. (Queue Tuby to tell me off -grins)
Trident - don't like it but if this gork takes us out of EU, will USA let us keep it, that is renew it ? (there's a thought)

I don't think you should be feeling guilty AngryAsWell. My initial comment was more likely the 'kick off' though it wasn't my intention to cause an argument. I wanted to try and get across how it feels when Labour supporters seem almost to demand my vote and the dilemma I feel I'm in.

Also, there has been an element of ridicule and dismissing of Green views. It's that kind of reaction to UKIP which has helped fuel their growth. If Labour want Green supporters to lend their votes, they should at least engage with our concerns.

Can I ask if you can direct me to anything saying Labour oppose fracking because everything I've read says they support it though much more cautiously than the Tories? If you can I'd be grateful. I'm off to a meeting now so if you do post anything I won't be able to reply until later.
Labour at odds over fracking
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/poli ... 241354.ece" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
There is much internal campaigning against it, we will have to see what goes in the manifesto.

not very well supported but..
https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/ ... d-fracking" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hi,

Thank you for that. I do genuinely appreciate it and will have a good read later this evening.

Rebecca · Post by **Rebecca** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 9:51 pm

Temulkar wrote:
TheGrimSqueaker wrote:
Temulkar wrote: Aha I see you chose D. Accuse the Green of being aggressive. in spite of the fact it hasnt been the green swearing or indeed threatening to be 'damned robust,' I guess multiple choice is too difficult for you.

As for unfounded accusation do you know the meaning of unfounded or even accuse? I would like to see where I have accused you or indeed anyone of anything.
Temulkar, you are being aggressive, and you were aggressive last week; I'm still waiting for you to show where I have previously sworn at you, or otherwise attacked you, in your own time. And, yes, I will be robust with you from now on; you chose to go on the attack today so don't start crying that the big boy is picking on you.

And, genuinely, you can't see where you have accused anybody of anything? You're accusing me, again, in this post of swearing at you & bullying you, despite being unable to back up the claim; you've accused a number of people here of being partisan to the point of stifling debate, despite the fact you appear to be far from stifled - indeed you are using the classic Kipper tactic, as I pointed out earlier, of banging on and on (and on and on ....) about how you are being silenced so, the instant anybody dares to suggest you might be wrong, you can say "look, I told you so".

You've accused people of insulting you, and belittling you and dismissing you out of hand (when, ironically, that is exactly what you are doing yourself) and then complaining that nobody wants to engage with you. Well, forgive me for being a little cynical, but from here it doesn't look like you want to engage; you don't want to be persuaded, because you've already decided that Labour=bad, but you do want to show us how clever all you Greens are (and, to be honest, I think you do a lot of people a disservice by claiming to speak for all) and shame all of us stupid Labour sheepie into converting to your cause. It may surprise you to know that I've voted Green a couple of times in the past, and I stopped doing so mainly because of the sanctimonious attitude displayed by the Anointed Believers ..... exactly the sort of attitude you've displayed last week and again today.

One last time. You show me where I've done the things you accused me of, before today; if you do that I will apologise, mollify my tone and leave you alone. If you don't/can't I would hope you are big enough to do the same ..... but I'm guessing that won't happen.
I really shouldnt respond to such a meaningless rant of effluent, but I guess I am a masochist.

I'm not trying to convert anyone, I don't need to. I'm not angry at people voting labour, it doesnt bother me in the slightest. Why would it? I don't think labour supporters are stupid I think they are wrong, there is a difference (although I understand comprehension isn't your strongest virtue) I haven't been aggressive, I havent been insulting about labour supporters in general although I have most certainly ridiculed you.

As for today your whole tone has been in my face aggressive and thus far I have been remarkably restrained in merely mocking you. If you dont like my opinions don't engage with me, if you want to engage, be civil or accept you are going to be mocked and ridiculed by me.

I'm not resorting to anger or aggression you really arent worth the energy; it's much easier to laugh at you.

Temulkar,why don't you stop being such a shit?'remarkably restrained in merely mocking you',seriously,who do you think you are?

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 9:52 pm

Temulkar wrote:
AngryAsWell wrote:To our Welsh friends -is this good or bad ?
Welsh Government bonds plan agreement signalled at historic first meeting
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales ... nt-7968016" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
It worries me, tbh.

Looks too much like the restructuring stuff I mentioned earlier, and ahead of open discussion on the detail of devolution. I hope it isn't, it seems very early in the process to be doing this.

Post by **letsskiptotheleft** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 9:53 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:Another Mail lead on the Welsh NHS tmrw!

More rehashed bollocks then.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 9:54 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:Another Mail lead on the Welsh NHS tmrw!

They're doing a 5 day "spread" on it

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 9:55 pm

letsskiptotheleft wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:Another Mail lead on the Welsh NHS tmrw!
More rehashed bollocks then.

I don't know if it will be rehashed - they are quite capable at coming up with new and inventive ways to write complete and utter bollocks - you do wonder if they are testing the gullibility and stupidity of their readership

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 9:56 pm

Rebecca wrote:
Temulkar wrote:
TheGrimSqueaker wrote: Temulkar, you are being aggressive, and you were aggressive last week; I'm still waiting for you to show where I have previously sworn at you, or otherwise attacked you, in your own time. And, yes, I will be robust with you from now on; you chose to go on the attack today so don't start crying that the big boy is picking on you.

And, genuinely, you can't see where you have accused anybody of anything? You're accusing me, again, in this post of swearing at you & bullying you, despite being unable to back up the claim; you've accused a number of people here of being partisan to the point of stifling debate, despite the fact you appear to be far from stifled - indeed you are using the classic Kipper tactic, as I pointed out earlier, of banging on and on (and on and on ....) about how you are being silenced so, the instant anybody dares to suggest you might be wrong, you can say "look, I told you so".

You've accused people of insulting you, and belittling you and dismissing you out of hand (when, ironically, that is exactly what you are doing yourself) and then complaining that nobody wants to engage with you. Well, forgive me for being a little cynical, but from here it doesn't look like you want to engage; you don't want to be persuaded, because you've already decided that Labour=bad, but you do want to show us how clever all you Greens are (and, to be honest, I think you do a lot of people a disservice by claiming to speak for all) and shame all of us stupid Labour sheepie into converting to your cause. It may surprise you to know that I've voted Green a couple of times in the past, and I stopped doing so mainly because of the sanctimonious attitude displayed by the Anointed Believers ..... exactly the sort of attitude you've displayed last week and again today.

One last time. You show me where I've done the things you accused me of, before today; if you do that I will apologise, mollify my tone and leave you alone. If you don't/can't I would hope you are big enough to do the same ..... but I'm guessing that won't happen.
I really shouldnt respond to such a meaningless rant of effluent, but I guess I am a masochist.

I'm not trying to convert anyone, I don't need to. I'm not angry at people voting labour, it doesnt bother me in the slightest. Why would it? I don't think labour supporters are stupid I think they are wrong, there is a difference (although I understand comprehension isn't your strongest virtue) I haven't been aggressive, I havent been insulting about labour supporters in general although I have most certainly ridiculed you.

As for today your whole tone has been in my face aggressive and thus far I have been remarkably restrained in merely mocking you. If you dont like my opinions don't engage with me, if you want to engage, be civil or accept you are going to be mocked and ridiculed by me.

I'm not resorting to anger or aggression you really arent worth the energy; it's much easier to laugh at you.

Temulkar,why don't you stop being such a shit?'remarkably restrained in merely mocking you',seriously,who do you think you are?

Someone who cant be bothered arguing with people angry that the Greens might cost Labour a general election and finds it much easier laughing at them than getting angry.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 9:57 pm

Temulkar wrote:
howsillyofme1 wrote:Temulkar

I think I get it - you don't like Labour and you will not vote for them. Fair enough - I understand why but if the Green vote means a Tory Government then that will be very sad - you may not see the difference but I do and, sad to say, so does my family. The same way that Ralph Nader voters, whether they like it or not, gave us a George Bush presidency

This is the problem with FPTP - I would like to have other options than Labour but we have, in effect, a two party state and nothing will change unless we have proper PR and the English people (in particular) do not seem to want that

Can I just ask why you use 'we' so much - do you have a mandate to speak for all Green voters? I know Green voters who are from the ecofascist right - yes really (it has always had a connection to the Green movement and is completely nonsensical but they do exist) and others who are voting Labour to get the Tories out

How you use your vote is up to you and I respect your position; what I would suggest though is you don't (added in edit) use 'we' so much
I understand that, actually when it comes to the godzilla approach to the Greens this is something that is a growing feeling amongst the party. So when I say we I know I am representing a large swathe of the party who are feeling the same way.

You know in 1910 the Labour party got 40 seats and the liberals were unable to get a majority. The Labour voters, espescially in Non-conformist areas like Wales were accused of betraying the working class by putting at risk the peoples budget and the Liberal reforms.

The same arguments are being used by the Tories against the Kippers. Labour should know enough of its own past as well as of the political present to understand its an approach which is counter productive.

I wonder if you had been there, would you have voted for Kier Hardie or Herbert Asquith? Honest question.

I am doing today what my great grandfather did when he was one of the first labour councillors in the Amman Valley, despite being non-conformist and from a Liberal family. I'm voting for my Kier Hardie.

The Liberal Party in those days were competing for working class votes and went on to bring in the 1911 Budget.
So not an entirely stupid point. Don't know how Labour looked in 1910. It didn't look ready for government in 1924, getting done over by the Bank.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 9:58 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:Another Mail lead on the Welsh NHS tmrw!

Talking of which...have a look here.

http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-paper ... statistics

Coincidence that a library note on NHS stats in Wales is produced on the 15th October...or not?

So...Tory MP asks HoC library to produce notes...hands over results to Welsh Conservative who then feeds the Mail with the best bits for their story.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 10:00 pm

If things carry on the way they are will someone set up a fly the nest from fly the nest forum.Today with little exception has just been very uncomfortable reading,and nothing else.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 10:01 pm

Can we please put the heckling to bed?
Lets just agree to differ - please?
I love coming here and reading so much info we pass to each other, but rows sets my IBS off big time, so can I just give every one a group hug?

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 10:05 pm

I think there was some kind of Labour statement on fracking last year, several points that iirc would considerably slow down any planning process leading to fracking as well as conditions that might be impossible for it to take place. Conditionality about effluent and chemicals. At the time I thought it would stall things to the point of making fracking uneconomic.

Been racking my brains trying to remember who made it, but I'm only getting a name I know is wrong.

TheGrimSqueaker · Post by **TheGrimSqueaker** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 10:08 pm

Temulkar wrote:
TheGrimSqueaker wrote:
Temulkar wrote: Aha I see you chose D. Accuse the Green of being aggressive. in spite of the fact it hasnt been the green swearing or indeed threatening to be 'damned robust,' I guess multiple choice is too difficult for you.

As for unfounded accusation do you know the meaning of unfounded or even accuse? I would like to see where I have accused you or indeed anyone of anything.
Temulkar, you are being aggressive, and you were aggressive last week; I'm still waiting for you to show where I have previously sworn at you, or otherwise attacked you, in your own time. And, yes, I will be robust with you from now on; you chose to go on the attack today so don't start crying that the big boy is picking on you.

And, genuinely, you can't see where you have accused anybody of anything? You're accusing me, again, in this post of swearing at you & bullying you, despite being unable to back up the claim; you've accused a number of people here of being partisan to the point of stifling debate, despite the fact you appear to be far from stifled - indeed you are using the classic Kipper tactic, as I pointed out earlier, of banging on and on (and on and on ....) about how you are being silenced so, the instant anybody dares to suggest you might be wrong, you can say "look, I told you so".

You've accused people of insulting you, and belittling you and dismissing you out of hand (when, ironically, that is exactly what you are doing yourself) and then complaining that nobody wants to engage with you. Well, forgive me for being a little cynical, but from here it doesn't look like you want to engage; you don't want to be persuaded, because you've already decided that Labour=bad, but you do want to show us how clever all you Greens are (and, to be honest, I think you do a lot of people a disservice by claiming to speak for all) and shame all of us stupid Labour sheepie into converting to your cause. It may surprise you to know that I've voted Green a couple of times in the past, and I stopped doing so mainly because of the sanctimonious attitude displayed by the Anointed Believers ..... exactly the sort of attitude you've displayed last week and again today.

One last time. You show me where I've done the things you accused me of, before today; if you do that I will apologise, mollify my tone and leave you alone. If you don't/can't I would hope you are big enough to do the same ..... but I'm guessing that won't happen.
I really shouldnt respond to such a meaningless rant of effluent, but I guess I am a masochist.

I'm not trying to convert anyone, I don't need to. I'm not angry at people voting labour, it doesnt bother me in the slightest. Why would it? I don't think labour supporters are stupid I think they are wrong, there is a difference (although I understand comprehension isn't your strongest virtue) I haven't been aggressive, I havent been insulting about labour supporters in general although I have most certainly ridiculed you.

As for today your whole tone has been in my face aggressive and thus far I have been remarkably restrained in merely mocking you. If you dont like my opinions don't engage with me, if you want to engage, be civil or accept you are going to be mocked and ridiculed by me.

I'm not resorting to anger or aggression you really arent worth the energy; it's much easier to laugh at you.

Says it all really. Temulkar, you were wrong and you know it; I thought you'd be man enough to admit it, seems I misjudged you. Oh, btw, you don't get to set the ground rules after your performance over the past week; if I think you are talking garbage I'll let you know, if you don't like it .....tough. But you don't get to whine about people being partisan, or being aggressive, not any more.

My apologies to everybody else here. I've been biting my tongue for a while now, but a line was crossed today; I'm sorry if it has made for uncomfortable reading and I'm sure you'll be happy to hear that work commitments will keep me away from a PC for the next couple of days, so hopefully things will calm down.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 10:09 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
Temulkar wrote:
howsillyofme1 wrote:Temulkar

I think I get it - you don't like Labour and you will not vote for them. Fair enough - I understand why but if the Green vote means a Tory Government then that will be very sad - you may not see the difference but I do and, sad to say, so does my family. The same way that Ralph Nader voters, whether they like it or not, gave us a George Bush presidency

This is the problem with FPTP - I would like to have other options than Labour but we have, in effect, a two party state and nothing will change unless we have proper PR and the English people (in particular) do not seem to want that

Can I just ask why you use 'we' so much - do you have a mandate to speak for all Green voters? I know Green voters who are from the ecofascist right - yes really (it has always had a connection to the Green movement and is completely nonsensical but they do exist) and others who are voting Labour to get the Tories out

How you use your vote is up to you and I respect your position; what I would suggest though is you don't (added in edit) use 'we' so much
I understand that, actually when it comes to the godzilla approach to the Greens this is something that is a growing feeling amongst the party. So when I say we I know I am representing a large swathe of the party who are feeling the same way.

You know in 1910 the Labour party got 40 seats and the liberals were unable to get a majority. The Labour voters, espescially in Non-conformist areas like Wales were accused of betraying the working class by putting at risk the peoples budget and the Liberal reforms.

The same arguments are being used by the Tories against the Kippers. Labour should know enough of its own past as well as of the political present to understand its an approach which is counter productive.

I wonder if you had been there, would you have voted for Kier Hardie or Herbert Asquith? Honest question.

I am doing today what my great grandfather did when he was one of the first labour councillors in the Amman Valley, despite being non-conformist and from a Liberal family. I'm voting for my Kier Hardie.
The Liberal Party in those days were competing for working class votes and went on to bring in the 1911 Budget.
So not an entirely stupid point. Don't know how Labour looked in 1910. It didn't look ready for government in 1924, getting done over by the Bank.

They were indeed competing for it, just as UKIP could say they were competing for it now. The problem was that the Liberals came from the same class as the Tories and when Labour came they, unfortunately as their heart was mainly in the right place, were squeezed between the true working class party and the party of the landed classes

I agree though Labour were possibly not ready for Government prior to Atlee - and he did a fine job of it though

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 10:10 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
Temulkar wrote:
howsillyofme1 wrote:Temulkar

I think I get it - you don't like Labour and you will not vote for them. Fair enough - I understand why but if the Green vote means a Tory Government then that will be very sad - you may not see the difference but I do and, sad to say, so does my family. The same way that Ralph Nader voters, whether they like it or not, gave us a George Bush presidency

This is the problem with FPTP - I would like to have other options than Labour but we have, in effect, a two party state and nothing will change unless we have proper PR and the English people (in particular) do not seem to want that

Can I just ask why you use 'we' so much - do you have a mandate to speak for all Green voters? I know Green voters who are from the ecofascist right - yes really (it has always had a connection to the Green movement and is completely nonsensical but they do exist) and others who are voting Labour to get the Tories out

How you use your vote is up to you and I respect your position; what I would suggest though is you don't (added in edit) use 'we' so much
I understand that, actually when it comes to the godzilla approach to the Greens this is something that is a growing feeling amongst the party. So when I say we I know I am representing a large swathe of the party who are feeling the same way.

You know in 1910 the Labour party got 40 seats and the liberals were unable to get a majority. The Labour voters, espescially in Non-conformist areas like Wales were accused of betraying the working class by putting at risk the peoples budget and the Liberal reforms.

The same arguments are being used by the Tories against the Kippers. Labour should know enough of its own past as well as of the political present to understand its an approach which is counter productive.

I wonder if you had been there, would you have voted for Kier Hardie or Herbert Asquith? Honest question.

I am doing today what my great grandfather did when he was one of the first labour councillors in the Amman Valley, despite being non-conformist and from a Liberal family. I'm voting for my Kier Hardie.
The Liberal Party in those days were competing for working class votes and went on to bring in the 1911 Budget.
So not an entirely stupid point. Don't know how Labour looked in 1910. It didn't look ready for government in 1924, getting done over by the Bank.

It's a good comparison though, a rising labour party splitting the working class/left vote and costing the liberals the election. Certainly the feeling of betrayal was big in what had been liberal strongolds in south wales.

History doesn't repeat, but it does rhyme. Ive learned a lot about late weimar, watching the rise of UKIP.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 10:11 pm

seeingclearly wrote:I think there was some kind of Labour statement on fracking last year, several points that iirc would considerably slow down any planning process leading to fracking as well as conditions that might be impossible for it to take place. Conditionality about effluent and chemicals. At the time I thought it would stall things to the point of making fracking uneconomic.

Been racking my brains trying to remember who made it, but I'm only getting a name I know is wrong.

The bane of all chemical processes - and the one most often ignored - effluent! Becoming more and more critical though.......

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 10:12 pm

Hilary Benn or Caroline Flint?

I'm basically OK with that you say. It's like Tristram Hunt requiring teachers to have teaching qualifications. Stops a lot of bad shit happening without banning it expressly.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 10:16 pm

seeingclearly wrote:I think there was some kind of Labour statement on fracking last year, several points that iirc would considerably slow down any planning process leading to fracking as well as conditions that might be impossible for it to take place. Conditionality about effluent and chemicals. At the time I thought it would stall things to the point of making fracking uneconomic.

Been racking my brains trying to remember who made it, but I'm only getting a name I know is wrong.

This ?
Labour attempts to strengthen regulation of UK fracking industry
Opposition party to table amendments to Lords infrastructure bill that would tighten rules for companies drilling for shale gas

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... g-industry" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 10:16 pm

TheGrimSqueaker wrote:
Temulkar wrote:
TheGrimSqueaker wrote: Temulkar, you are being aggressive, and you were aggressive last week; I'm still waiting for you to show where I have previously sworn at you, or otherwise attacked you, in your own time. And, yes, I will be robust with you from now on; you chose to go on the attack today so don't start crying that the big boy is picking on you.

And, genuinely, you can't see where you have accused anybody of anything? You're accusing me, again, in this post of swearing at you & bullying you, despite being unable to back up the claim; you've accused a number of people here of being partisan to the point of stifling debate, despite the fact you appear to be far from stifled - indeed you are using the classic Kipper tactic, as I pointed out earlier, of banging on and on (and on and on ....) about how you are being silenced so, the instant anybody dares to suggest you might be wrong, you can say "look, I told you so".

You've accused people of insulting you, and belittling you and dismissing you out of hand (when, ironically, that is exactly what you are doing yourself) and then complaining that nobody wants to engage with you. Well, forgive me for being a little cynical, but from here it doesn't look like you want to engage; you don't want to be persuaded, because you've already decided that Labour=bad, but you do want to show us how clever all you Greens are (and, to be honest, I think you do a lot of people a disservice by claiming to speak for all) and shame all of us stupid Labour sheepie into converting to your cause. It may surprise you to know that I've voted Green a couple of times in the past, and I stopped doing so mainly because of the sanctimonious attitude displayed by the Anointed Believers ..... exactly the sort of attitude you've displayed last week and again today.

One last time. You show me where I've done the things you accused me of, before today; if you do that I will apologise, mollify my tone and leave you alone. If you don't/can't I would hope you are big enough to do the same ..... but I'm guessing that won't happen.
I really shouldnt respond to such a meaningless rant of effluent, but I guess I am a masochist.

I'm not trying to convert anyone, I don't need to. I'm not angry at people voting labour, it doesnt bother me in the slightest. Why would it? I don't think labour supporters are stupid I think they are wrong, there is a difference (although I understand comprehension isn't your strongest virtue) I haven't been aggressive, I havent been insulting about labour supporters in general although I have most certainly ridiculed you.

As for today your whole tone has been in my face aggressive and thus far I have been remarkably restrained in merely mocking you. If you dont like my opinions don't engage with me, if you want to engage, be civil or accept you are going to be mocked and ridiculed by me.

I'm not resorting to anger or aggression you really arent worth the energy; it's much easier to laugh at you.
Says it all really. Temulkar, you were wrong and you know it; I thought you'd be man enough to admit it, seems I misjudged you. Oh, btw, you don't get to set the ground rules after your performance over the past week; if I think you are talking garbage I'll let you know, if you don't like it .....tough. But you don't get to whine about people being partisan, or being aggressive, not any more.

Sigh, I am not whining, nor being aggressive, I honestly don't know how many times I have to say that. You are perfectly entitled to have a go at me and of course must respect the fact that I am then going to laugh at your inconsistencies, contradictions, tantrums, and flouncing. You keep coming back to me like a dog to vomit if you want, its been a quite amusing diversion today, and Im sure given your level of discourse the fun can only get better.

Post by **letsskiptotheleft** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 10:17 pm

Western Mail front page is good tomorrow.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 10:19 pm

Temulkar wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:
Temulkar wrote: I understand that, actually when it comes to the godzilla approach to the Greens this is something that is a growing feeling amongst the party. So when I say we I know I am representing a large swathe of the party who are feeling the same way.

You know in 1910 the Labour party got 40 seats and the liberals were unable to get a majority. The Labour voters, espescially in Non-conformist areas like Wales were accused of betraying the working class by putting at risk the peoples budget and the Liberal reforms.

The same arguments are being used by the Tories against the Kippers. Labour should know enough of its own past as well as of the political present to understand its an approach which is counter productive.

I wonder if you had been there, would you have voted for Kier Hardie or Herbert Asquith? Honest question.

I am doing today what my great grandfather did when he was one of the first labour councillors in the Amman Valley, despite being non-conformist and from a Liberal family. I'm voting for my Kier Hardie.
The Liberal Party in those days were competing for working class votes and went on to bring in the 1911 Budget.
So not an entirely stupid point. Don't know how Labour looked in 1910. It didn't look ready for government in 1924, getting done over by the Bank.
It's a good comparison though, a rising labour party splitting the working class/left vote and costing the liberals the election. Certainly the feeling of betrayal was big in what had been liberal strongolds in south wales.

History doesn't repeat, but it does rhyme. Ive learned a lot about late weimar, watching the rise of UKIP.

We should always learn from what history tells us and it is clear that the Labour take over from the Liberals in the early 20th Century shows how the political weather can change radically.

We also though have to be aware of the context and not be too superficial. The Liberals were badly hit by internal divisions and rivalries within the party. There was also a party champing at the bit with a groundswell of new voters ready to support them with the unions helping.

I think it is more likely we see UKIP doing damage to the Tories than the Greens to Labour as I do not think there is anywhere near the support for the Greens - if anything their showing has been quite disappointing in some ways after the LD collapse

In my view, and it is my view, the Greens will never get close to the tipping point to take over from Labour in the forseeable future. What they may do though is disrupt the Labour vote from the left but that may actually push Labour further to the right because of the 5th columnists waiting to pounce on Miliband.....

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 10:20 pm

AngryAsWell wrote:
seeingclearly wrote:I think there was some kind of Labour statement on fracking last year, several points that iirc would considerably slow down any planning process leading to fracking as well as conditions that might be impossible for it to take place. Conditionality about effluent and chemicals. At the time I thought it would stall things to the point of making fracking uneconomic.

Been racking my brains trying to remember who made it, but I'm only getting a name I know is wrong.
This ?
Labour attempts to strengthen regulation of UK fracking industry
Opposition party to table amendments to Lords infrastructure bill that would tighten rules for companies drilling for shale gas

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... g-industry" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's good and it will persuade some people, not me, Im very much against any fracking at all which is the Green stance.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 10:23 pm

Another good policy- no EU Referendum. Because leaving the EU doesn't achieve what its proponents say it will. And holding a referendum will delay business investment we need to start taking over from consumption about now.

As for a vote being a good thing in itself, nowhere else is leaving a major plank of policy to the whims of the electorate. Scotland's flirtation with fiscal disaster (without a proper central bank) was quite silly enough.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 10:24 pm

My comment was not addressed to anybody in particular,I'm honest enough to pinpoint any criticism should I feel.the need to a particular poster.I'm in the main systematically ignored,that's fine I don't give a flying fig,just seems to me the ones with an agenda dominate any discussion(if you can in reality call it that,beyond the ping pong of every increasing posturing ).It's very much like the Guardian which the trolls have basically stopped me commentating,not through sensitivity,you just know you will be ignored or pounced on.

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 10:26 pm

It was Tom Greatrex. I read the regulatory stuff he mentions when I first saw it, but the link given does not work for me.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... ble-energy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Post by **refitman** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 10:26 pm

letsskiptotheleft wrote:Western Mail front page is good tomorrow.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 10:27 pm

HindleA wrote:My comment was not addressed to anybody in particular,I'm honest enough to pinpoint any criticism should I feel.the need to a particular poster.I'm in the main systematically ignored,that's fine I don't give a flying fig,just seems to me the ones with an agenda dominate any discussion(if you can in reality call it that,beyond the ping pong of every increasing posturing ).It's very much like the Guardian which the trolls have basically stopped me commentating,not through sensitivity,you just know you will be ignored or pounced on.

Sorry for ignoring you, not intentional, but its something I also find happens to me a lot.

Post by **letsskiptotheleft** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 10:30 pm

Thanks Dan!

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 10:30 pm

howsillyofme1 wrote:
Temulkar wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote: The Liberal Party in those days were competing for working class votes and went on to bring in the 1911 Budget.
So not an entirely stupid point. Don't know how Labour looked in 1910. It didn't look ready for government in 1924, getting done over by the Bank.
It's a good comparison though, a rising labour party splitting the working class/left vote and costing the liberals the election. Certainly the feeling of betrayal was big in what had been liberal strongolds in south wales.

History doesn't repeat, but it does rhyme. Ive learned a lot about late weimar, watching the rise of UKIP.

We should always learn from what history tells us and it is clear that the Labour take over from the Liberals in the early 20th Century shows how the political weather can change radically.

We also though have to be aware of the context and not be too superficial. The Liberals were badly hit by internal divisions and rivalries within the party. There was also a party champing at the bit with a groundswell of new voters ready to support them with the unions helping.

I think it is more likely we see UKIP doing damage to the Tories than the Greens to Labour as I do not think there is anywhere near the support for the Greens - if anything their showing has been quite disappointing in some ways after the LD collapse

In my view, and it is my view, the Greens will never get close to the tipping point to take over from Labour in the forseeable future. What they may do though is disrupt the Labour vote from the left but that may actually push Labour further to the right because of the 5th columnists waiting to pounce on Miliband.....

That's a really good point and why I find the Greens costing Labour an election rhetoric so utterly laughable. As I have stated here many times I still think it will be a labour landslide.

I'm not sure about the second point, UKIP have undeniably dragged the tories to the left. I would hope that we could be the same lodestone to drag labour back to the left.

However, I do think we are seeing the end of 2/3 party politics in the short term. How it plays out in the long term is anyones guess.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 10:30 pm

Temulkar wrote:
AngryAsWell wrote:
seeingclearly wrote:I think there was some kind of Labour statement on fracking last year, several points that iirc would considerably slow down any planning process leading to fracking as well as conditions that might be impossible for it to take place. Conditionality about effluent and chemicals. At the time I thought it would stall things to the point of making fracking uneconomic.

Been racking my brains trying to remember who made it, but I'm only getting a name I know is wrong.
This ?
Labour attempts to strengthen regulation of UK fracking industry
Opposition party to table amendments to Lords infrastructure bill that would tighten rules for companies drilling for shale gas

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... g-industry" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
It's good and it will persuade some people, not me, Im very much against any fracking at all which is the Green stance.

It's not a (consensus) science stance though. Can't you see why other parties might be more equivocal?

Tizme1 · Post by **Tizme1** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 10:30 pm

ohsocynical wrote:Crikey. I haven't seen any posts where we've actively ridiculed or dismissed The Green Parties views and I pretty much read all the posts every day. In fact most of us are in broad agreement with many of their policies.
What we have had is a view from the majority of posters on here that no matter how much we might be uncomfortable with some Labour policies we feel our vote would be wasted if we voted Green in 2015.

Tactical voting is always going to be a sticky subject.
Should we be braver? Yes probably, but can we risk it in 2015?
The answer from me is a resounding no!

Oh dear, I'm clearly not being at all articulate today Ohso. I come up against this "but you must vote Labour even though you're a Green otherwise everything will be terrible and YOUR FAULT" quite a lot - in real life. Likewise the ridicule aspect so my comments were not directed at people on here, so much as a generalised commentary about how I feel. That said, Tubby did basically say he can't take Greens seriously at a National level. Now obviously he is absolutely entitled to his opinion, but I'm sure you can understand how I might feel my opinions are being dismissed by such a comment. And more broadly, it was that dismissing of potential UKIP supporter's fears, that has led to UKIP support rising. And now, much to my disappointment, Ed Miliband [who as you may recall, I quite admired], seems to be joining in with the anti immigrant rhetoric.

@TheGrimSqueaker, I am sorry that you felt I was being condescending. It was not my intention at all. Also I'm sad it appeared I was spoiling for a fight because that wasn't the case. I don't consider Labour voters to be 'red tories'. As I've said earlier today, I think Labour supporters/voters have many beliefs/wishes in common with Green supporters/voters - it's the Labour leadership I'm struggling with. And the fact we have a rubbish local Labour candidate.

@one button, Don't blame yourself. As I said to Angry as well, it was in truth probably my initial comment that 'kicked things off'. The article of itself was an interesting read.

The meeting I was at this evening was a Green party meeting. At which I argued strongly against us standing a candidate in next years g/e. My reasoning was due to local factors. The party agreed with my reasoning and so, unless there is some major change in circumstances [events dear boy!], we won't stand a candidate. This leaves me in the same position as all local Green supporters. Can the Labour leadership allay our fears and persuade us to vote Labour [despite their poor local candidate]? Or will I, like you in my Tory/UKIP scenario, have to spoil my vote? Believe you me, I am really struggling with it!

@everyone I am sorry if my comments have caused bad feeling and/arguments. It was not my intention. I was simply trying to get across how the view expressed in the article makes me feel.

I forget which book it is in now but Fay Weldon in one of her novels was describing how the Host at a party was driving his secretary home and his wife knew they were having an affair. It went on to describe why the wife put up with it. And finished by saying we advise our daughters to make the same calculation "but for our granddaughters we hope for something better". And that's a bit how I feel. Do I make the 'least worst choice' for my children [and all the other youngsters - not to mention the rest of us], or do I say, actually, no, it's time to try and bring about the 'something better'.

TheGrimSqueaker · Post by **TheGrimSqueaker** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 10:32 pm

Temulkar wrote:
TheGrimSqueaker wrote:
Temulkar wrote: I really shouldnt respond to such a meaningless rant of effluent, but I guess I am a masochist.

I'm not trying to convert anyone, I don't need to. I'm not angry at people voting labour, it doesnt bother me in the slightest. Why would it? I don't think labour supporters are stupid I think they are wrong, there is a difference (although I understand comprehension isn't your strongest virtue) I haven't been aggressive, I havent been insulting about labour supporters in general although I have most certainly ridiculed you.

As for today your whole tone has been in my face aggressive and thus far I have been remarkably restrained in merely mocking you. If you dont like my opinions don't engage with me, if you want to engage, be civil or accept you are going to be mocked and ridiculed by me.

I'm not resorting to anger or aggression you really arent worth the energy; it's much easier to laugh at you.
Says it all really. Temulkar, you were wrong and you know it; I thought you'd be man enough to admit it, seems I misjudged you. Oh, btw, you don't get to set the ground rules after your performance over the past week; if I think you are talking garbage I'll let you know, if you don't like it .....tough. But you don't get to whine about people being partisan, or being aggressive, not any more.
Sigh, I am not whining, nor being aggressive, I honestly don't know how many times I have to say that. You are perfectly entitled to have a go at me and of course must respect the fact that I am then going to laugh at your inconsistencies, contradictions, tantrums, and flouncing. You keep coming back to me like a dog to vomit if you want, its been a quite amusing diversion today, and Im sure given your level of discourse the fun can only get better.

Tem, you're sounding exactly the same as Rusty does when I hand him his arse on a tray; purely coincidental I'm sure.