Guerrillas in the Mist
Member
The Borders is such a strange place... odd accents, strange place-names and very atypical political views. It sure is beautiful in places, though.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
May 7th | UK General Election 2015 OT - Please go vote!
- Thread starter Volotaire
- Start date
- Status
The Borders is such a strange place... odd accents, strange place-names and very atypical political views. It sure is beautiful in places, though.
The scone of destiny. THE SCONE OF DESTINY. That kind of headline is aiming for a severely low degree of intelligence. I should just peace out, nothing is going to save the world at this point.
industrian
will gently cradle you as time slowly ticks away.
As someone who grew up in Galashiels, I'm not sure how to respond to this.
But our political situation can be summed up easily:
Rural area with no cities or large urban areas = Conservative votes.
"Ay been" mentality taken to scary heights = Conservative votes++.
Our two largest towns having sizeable student populations = Lib Dem votes.
David Steel = Lib Dem votes++.
Few (if any) large-scale industry, factories, or union-heavy jobs = no Labour votes.
Frustration at this status quo, unemployment issues, the reality of the Borders economy being extremely regressive and stagnant, no hope of change, being ignored by both Westminster and Holyrood, seeing the High Streets of places like Galashiels becoming graveyards, and no hope in sight = SNP votes+++.
Guerrillas in the Mist
Member
As someone who grew up in Galashiels, I'm not sure how to respond to this.
But our political situation can be summed up easily:
Rural area with no cities or large urban areas = Conservative votes.
"Ay been" mentality taken to scary heights = Conservative votes++.
Our two largest towns having sizeable student populations = Lib Dem votes.
David Steel = Lib Dem votes++.
Few (if any) large-scale industry, factories, or union-heavy jobs = no Labour votes.
Frustration at this status quo, unemployment issues, the reality of the Borders economy being extremely regressive and stagnant, no hope of change, being ignored by both Westminster and Holyrood, seeing the High Streets of places like Galashiels becoming graveyards, and no hope in sight = SNP votes+++.
Fair enough! It's just that I've got a few friends from the Borders, and occasionally poke fun at their accents (especially if they're talking to others from the Borders) and their love of all things farming.
JonathanEx
Member
People who aren't working, probably.
industrian
will gently cradle you as time slowly ticks away.
People from Hawick talk their own little language. That and if you stay in the Borders indefinitely then your speech patterns become totally Bordersified. My parents had 30+ years in Glasgow behind them and thus haven't been fully Bordersified, and I managed to escape back there when I was 17 (but with living in Asia for 5 years I now lack an identifiable Scottish accent.)
And now that I remember it, when I moved to Glasgow in 2002 for college and was working in McDonalds, not a single one of my coworkers in my new store could understand me for a week or so. Part of that was the yin/wan divide, but there's only so many "a deh ken like" that Weegies can understand.
I've no idea what you're talking about in regards to the "love of farming", but seeing as my family came from Glasgow and my closest friends from Edinburgh, we're interlopers into this teuchtar lifestyle more than anything else.
Could be interesting, probably won't be: Miliband has done an interview with Russell Brand.
If there's one thing this election campaign needs it's more Russell Brand.
Looking forward to CCHQ's fake snapchats suggesting he's writing Labour's foreign policy or something.
CyclopsRock
Member
I actually quite like Russell Brand as a person, I think he's quite funny. But he don't and half talk some shit, especially when what he's saying is written down. And that's the case for a lot of people - when newspapers want to be mean, they always quote politicians verbatim and it hardly makes any sense, the way they don't actually end sentences or change tenses or whatever - but look at this wild wank:
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/steerpike/2015/04/brian-may-questions-russell-brands-revolution/
At a public event, Brian May (yeah, the Queen and Badger guy) asked...
BM: I have a campaign called Common Decency which is about trying to change the system radically from within. Im proposing that we form a strategy on May 7th and I think my strategy is so good that Im even going to persuade you to vote but we shall see. My question is: If you really dont want to vote and you dont want us to vote, what do you want us to do to achieve the things that we know we need to do because we just watched your film. What do you want us to do?
To which Brand replied...
RB: Did you put Freddy Mercury under this kind of fing pressure? No wonder he was off doing lines and hanging out in Rio. Its a long term strategy of the re-centralisation of the power under the co-ordination of vital institutions and vital services fully autonomous collectives that collaborate to preserve the rights of the individual and the rights to pursue spiritually whatever direction we want to with the prioritisation of the ecological preservation of the planet. Its going to take a while for it to get on the ballot box but I dont know if that is necessarily the right way to go about it but I support you, what I support most of all is people becoming fully activated and Id be very, very happy to talk to you and Anita Dobson in your caravan.
Que?
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/steerpike/2015/04/brian-may-questions-russell-brands-revolution/
At a public event, Brian May (yeah, the Queen and Badger guy) asked...
BM: I have a campaign called Common Decency which is about trying to change the system radically from within. Im proposing that we form a strategy on May 7th and I think my strategy is so good that Im even going to persuade you to vote but we shall see. My question is: If you really dont want to vote and you dont want us to vote, what do you want us to do to achieve the things that we know we need to do because we just watched your film. What do you want us to do?
To which Brand replied...
RB: Did you put Freddy Mercury under this kind of fing pressure? No wonder he was off doing lines and hanging out in Rio. Its a long term strategy of the re-centralisation of the power under the co-ordination of vital institutions and vital services fully autonomous collectives that collaborate to preserve the rights of the individual and the rights to pursue spiritually whatever direction we want to with the prioritisation of the ecological preservation of the planet. Its going to take a while for it to get on the ballot box but I dont know if that is necessarily the right way to go about it but I support you, what I support most of all is people becoming fully activated and Id be very, very happy to talk to you and Anita Dobson in your caravan.
Que?
QuicheFontaine
Member
#Brand says he wants a revolution, well you know.
We all want to form fully autonomous collectives that collaborate to preserve the rights of the individual.#
Edit:
New Elections Etc forecast out today:
Not sure where they're getting this 10% chance of Con majority from.
We all want to form fully autonomous collectives that collaborate to preserve the rights of the individual.#
Edit:
New Elections Etc forecast out today:
Not sure where they're getting this 10% chance of Con majority from.
fizzelopeguss
Banned
He gonna lead the revolution from his mansion, And is this before or after he snorts coke off some bints tits?
Why does having a lot of money mean he can't possibly help people less fortunate than him? Criticise his actions and words by all means but his money? That's just lazy.
jimbobsmells
Member
Sat on a tube for almost an hour yesterday while two private school boys next to me were talking about the election. The conversation covered how Boris Johnson will invigorate the Conservative party, whether the Tories will split over a European referendum result, why Cameron is the only choice for this country, why Miliband is too socialist for his own good, and why the Greens want to cripple our economy with all their anti-fossil fuel nonsense.
One of them got tired of talking about the election so he started explaining how peace in the middle east could be achieved if only Hamas would put down the weapons and actually talk to Bibi (by the way, he's a great speaker, very charasmatic apparently).
By the time I got to my stop I wanted to rip my dick off and send it into orbit.
One of them got tired of talking about the election so he started explaining how peace in the middle east could be achieved if only Hamas would put down the weapons and actually talk to Bibi (by the way, he's a great speaker, very charasmatic apparently).
By the time I got to my stop I wanted to rip my dick off and send it into orbit.
I'm pretty sure given his past problems with drug abuse, and how he talks about overcoming them, he's probably not snorting coke off of anything.
Oh look, it's the champagne socialist argument. As far as I can tell it seems to revolve around how someone must be an idiot if they have money and also try to work to help others that are worse off than them? It's dumb, so drop it.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
At least they're talking, even if the conversation was rubbish. We'd probably be in a better position if everyone else had earnest conversations about the election on the tube too.
Because there are very little additional gains for the Tories between 35% and 37% if Labour are around the 32%/33% mark. Remember 36.1% didn't get the Tories a majority last time with Labour polling at 29%. If it's 35/33 then that's a swing to Labour of about 3.5% over 2010. Assuming that's a UNS swing Labour would pick up about 27 of their target seats of which 23 of them at Con/Lab marginals. So, even the Tories pick up 10 Lib/Con marginals, they'd still be about 13 down on their 2010 results or sitting about 294 seats. In reality Labour will probably pick up quite a few from the Liberals as well.
I think the polls are finally starting to move in the Tories favour, but if Labour keeps it's vote share in the 32/33 it's pretty difficult to see a Tory majority even if they're the largest party by far.
jimbobsmells
Member
That is very true, sir.
TNS GB VI
LAB 33% (-1), CON 34% (+2), LIB DEM 7% (-1), UKIP 15% (0), GREEN 5% (0), OTHER 5% (-1)
I think almost every pollster apart from populous has had the Tories up in their last poll. I think the polls are starting to move, but it'll probably take until this Thursday (the next big poll release day) to find out if that feeling is accurate as most of the polls are within the usual MOE movement.
LAB 33% (-1), CON 34% (+2), LIB DEM 7% (-1), UKIP 15% (0), GREEN 5% (0), OTHER 5% (-1)
I think almost every pollster apart from populous has had the Tories up in their last poll. I think the polls are starting to move, but it'll probably take until this Thursday (the next big poll release day) to find out if that feeling is accurate as most of the polls are within the usual MOE movement.
My hair was falling out just reading. Eurgh .
CyclopsRock
Member
Owen Jones is really getting annoyed at the "smug" comments about Ed meeting Brand for an interview, on the grounds that Brand engages with the youth who are ignored by politicians and mainstream political commentators. But, like, when his message is "don't vote", I'm not sure how useful that engagement really is.
Edit: Wait, other than the Bibi bit, what part of that conversation on the tube is cray-cray? I mean, I know a lot of you don't like the Tories but the idea of someone prefering Cameron to Miliband isn't that hair-tear-outy, is it?
Edit: Wait, other than the Bibi bit, what part of that conversation on the tube is cray-cray? I mean, I know a lot of you don't like the Tories but the idea of someone prefering Cameron to Miliband isn't that hair-tear-outy, is it?
You mean in the same way people criticise politicians for being 'toffs'? Yeah, no idea.
The idea that Miliband is any way socialist for one thing. His Dad might have been, but that apple as rolled far away from the tree.
People might not agree with his rent policy, but it's not a particularly socialist policy at all. It's basically the same system (with slightly less protection for the Renter) used in Ontario, Canada, yet it's painted as some sort of red ed scare.
I'm struggling to actually think of a Miliband policy I'd consider socialist, there's a few which are the usual Labour clunking hand of the state, the usual Labour statist centralisation crap. And some fiddling on the margins of taxation.
I don't think Brand's message to the kids is simply 'don't vote', although he definitely said that. It's more that any significant change will have to come from outside the current political system. I'd vote for the lesser evil while getting on that. He gets his ideas from/parrots some smart people at least.
He clarified this last week at the Q&A after his film he said he personally won't vote but it's a personal decision for everyone else. Which is fair enough.
He was on about people being more active in protesting and in local battles like housing something, I think he does well at. He said his happy to use his celebrity to help groups like that from not getting trampled on.
CyclopsRock
Member
Well I'm not sure that "usual Labour statist centralisation crap" and "socialist" are necessarily mutually exclusive. I agree he's not exactly a Bolshy but I think the argument that he's a socialist has enough merit to not simply be dismissed as untrue. A "reckoning" with banks, price ceilings on private products (such as rent and energy bills), he says things like "I'm bringing socialism back" and... well, he said this, too:
Aside from the fact that the government have acted re: petrol prices and train fares (socialists!!), what would he have the government do in that situation? More market intervention?
I don't really think he's a socialist, but nor do I think that referring to him as such is all that ludicrous, especially when he self-identifies as one.
Pie and Beans
Look for me on the local news, I'll be the guy arrested for trying to burn down a Nintendo exec's house.
The problem is, you have to change systems from the inside unless you're suggesting an armed coup d'etat. Thus whatever time wasting shittery he's advocating is the bleatings of a slacktivist idiot.
Its especially dangerous in a period where UKIP voters are ready to let their ignorant garbage influence the path of the country while those that could be voting against them are following the orders of another daft cunt to just let worse people all into the system they apparently think is too far gone, because who cares, we'll change this world with pixie dust.
He's an arrogant dipshit that likes the sound of his own voice but realises actually doing the whole "politics" thing would be hard work and so ehhhhhhh, make some jokes, fuck it.
Billy_Pilgrim
Member
In general I cannot stand Russell Brand. I think he's an anti-intellectual dressed in the robes of intellectualism.
However I don't think he's a hypocrite. I think he does want change, and he has used his celebrity for genuine good. He stopped a housing project full of people from being evicted, that to me is a good use of your profile, and it didn't benefit him. If anything he took nothing but flak for it.
I'm not entirely sure meeting Brand at his house was a good idea. It can be spun too easily. It all depends on the outcome of the interview.
However I don't think he's a hypocrite. I think he does want change, and he has used his celebrity for genuine good. He stopped a housing project full of people from being evicted, that to me is a good use of your profile, and it didn't benefit him. If anything he took nothing but flak for it.
I'm not entirely sure meeting Brand at his house was a good idea. It can be spun too easily. It all depends on the outcome of the interview.
CyclopsRock
Member
Lol, "clarified". He was 100% clear before - as well as when he told people to stop paying taxes and stop paying their mortgages and that the economy is "metaphorical" or that the US government may have been involved in 9/11. I'm glad that he likes to turn up at protests, and getting people to talk about things is never a bad thing. But he engages in a sort of pantomime, almost conspiricy theorist way. If I'm right and talking about things is never a bad thing, then that is maybe the least best context for dialogue.
Maybe he should meet with Karen Danczuk, whirr up the ol' rumour mill again. She gets people involved in, uh, politics too.
FlammableD
Banned
That's hilariously blatant.Tories being Tories
From the IFS:
Distributional impact of Tory income tax plans, including pension relief changes
Distributional impact of benefit cuts proposed by the Tories Photograph
CyclopsRock
Member
Lol. Obviously tax changes are going to benefit people with more money more, because the poorest people already pay the less tax. Likewise, the richest people already get the least benefits so it's never going to affect them as much.
I'm thoroughly middle class and I pay about 8x more tax than someone working full time on the minimum wage. Unless you specifically target tax cuts at those who already hardly pay anything, you're always going to get a graph like that.
Or am I wrong?
I'm thoroughly middle class and I pay about 8x more tax than someone working full time on the minimum wage. Unless you specifically target tax cuts at those who already hardly pay anything, you're always going to get a graph like that.
Or am I wrong?
Tories being Tories
From the IFS:
Distributional impact of Tory income tax plans, including pension relief changes
It's incredible how that chart manages to be exactly what you expect and completely shocking at the same time. Have they done anything similar for the other parties?
It's as a percentage of net income, not a set cash amount the amount an individual pays isn't the issue it's the proportion of their income. If you're hitting the bottom deciles with comparatively more cuts and giving the upper deciles comparatively more back, it's a regressive move. Taken as a whole it's a shockingly regressive set of policies.
And no you don't always get a graph like that. Raising the threshold of NI would be a pretty progressive tax cut which would comparatively help the bottom earners. And a relatively large proportion of benefits go to the upper and middle deciles which could be tweaked, but that would probably require changing the pension system to be truly effective.
To give it some context. Again from the IFS.
The Tories as is their wont are balancing the books on the backs of the poorest in society, and don't even have the decency to explain what their cuts are.
I agree on the top one, it's personal allowance so it will always look like that.
The bottom one sort of has a valid point (people in the lower deciles are £100 worse off a year) but showing it spilt by income is kind of pointless,at higher income you have close to no benefits to cut. There's no benefit the rich are getting that the poor don't.
Nope, you are right. It's a good chart to bash the Tories with though so shush.
People on what amounts to full-time minimum wage or thereabouts still pay a huge relative chunk to NI and tax. There are lots of people with little or no disposable income who can't afford a place to live without assistance. That's not a good for economic growth where it matters.
QuicheFontaine
Member
I think there's been a misunderstanding: that's exactly what I mean! i.e. how are they forecasting as high as 10% for something which at this stage, in my opinion, has no chance of happening?
CyclopsRock
Member
Right, but that just means they're cutting taxes and benefits, as opposed to raising taxes and leaving benefits where they were? That was basically their mission statement from the get go though, no? By which I mean it's not so much an expose but rather a visual elucidation of their whole angle, which is that the stimulatory impacts of tax cuts are the best solution to our woes.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
High margin of error allowance. Same reason they show a 1% chance of Labour majority. ElectionsEtc also makes the strongest swingback assumption, with a +1.2% bonus built in for the Conservatives that ElectionsEtc doesn't think will appear until the day of the election.
Oh right, it'll be the upper bound of the estimate for the Tory vote versus the lower bound for Labour vote based on their models likely margin of error. Their listed seat totals will represent close to the mid point of that range.
Tax cuts don't have to be regressive to be stimulatory, in fact as the poorer tend to spend the money the taxman returns and the better off tend to save it you could argue the best stimulus would be putting more money in the hands of the poorest in society not taking it away. Especially when you consider there are more comparatively poorer folk.
CyclopsRock
Member
Aye, and I think they should be cutting NI - but that's a pretty misunderstood tax, so from a "messaging" pov it's a tougher sell. Beyond that, the biggest regressive taxes - like VAT - aren't ones that can be given exclusively to poor people. Actual tax cuts (like raising the NI threshold) would also help in getting rid of that gap between benefits and work, wherein you can have the situation where people get more not working than working.
CyclopsRock
Member
We haven't had a new poll in, what? Hours. I'm getting all prickly, I'm sweating, I'm getting spasms, publically embarassing erections, nausea etc. I don't know what's going to happen after the election.
Oh, wait. Another election. I'll be fine. Just keep on giving me the methadone...
Oh, wait. Another election. I'll be fine. Just keep on giving me the methadone...
I don't mind Brand too much as I think his heart is in the right place, but for Cameron to call him and joke and Miliband one shows how out of touch he is. Like it or not Brands message has resonated with people who have lost faith with politics. To dismiss him, and by extention, people who listen to him as a joke is demeaning. If it had been me I would have said "Well Brand is entitled to his opinion and entitled to interview whoever he wants. I disagree with his views but that's democracy." Simple answer to give and it plays down the whole thing. Dave though is an idiot. He has now given the brand interview the oxygen of publicity. That's the last thing he should have done.
CyclopsRock
Member
I dunno, man. How many of those people who have lost faith with politics were ever going to vote for him anyway? I imagine, rightly or wrongly, that he's calculated that giving the interview oxygen is exactly the right thing to do.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked