CyclopsRock
Member
Sturgeon with Leia bangs would get it so hard.
-
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
JonathanEx
Member
I've been saying that all along, when you look at the likely survivors from Lib Dems, there aren't many natural pals for the Tories outside of Clegg and Laws. And from a party activist base, given the damage the past 5 years has done to the party at the local, european and soon to be national level I don't see them in a hurry to go in for it again, regardless of what Clegg wants. Honestly the best thing for the Lib Dems as party might just be 5 years in 'opposition' working to get Liberal polices through as a price for occasionally lending support to a minority Labour government on specific issues. You can take some of the credit for the good shit and put all the blame on Labour for the bad shit, it's basically what the SNP are going to do.
The Tories and Lib Dems made the coalition work, but that's mainly because the Lib Dem leadership were all Orange Bookers who'd mostly be Tories if they Tories weren't so fractured on the EU. A lot of those guys ain't surviving this election, and Clegg is unlikely to be leader afterwards.
Without the Lib Dems the Tories would need snookers.
Wrestlemania
Banned
"These plans are old. The actual £12bn of welfare cuts we have planned but haven't detailed are far less cunty, honest!"
SymbiantXenos
Member
How anyone reads that fucking rag is beyond me.
Wouldn't say it's impossible. Unlikely though, we welcome our overlord Miliband.
I wish that were the case, but I'm still apprehensive. We shall see.
In related news, I was watching Friends with my 9 year old daughter earlier (it's constantly on Comedy Central, and she loves it even though most of the jokes are over her head) when an advert came on for the South Park election special next Thursday. Only it's not an election special, oh no.
"Dad, what's an erection?"
Er...
"Dad, what's an erection?"
Er...
Doesn't help I was giggling at the ad to be fair, I really need to grow up.
I think this is just the guardian reaching. It just seems like its digging up a leaked document from a couple of moths ago and trying to get some extra mileage out of it. The whole thing comes from the thought of rolling child tax credits into universal credit which was abandoned.
I think either the times or telegraph run the same story a couple of weeks ago. It didn't make a dent then, so I doubt anything will change, especially running in a paper that the average tory voter finds laughable
CyclopsRock
Member
That only really works if there isn't a cohesive anti-minority-government vote, but in this instance there almost certainly would be - even without an agreement, both Labour and the SNP (and likely Plaid and maybe some wild LDs) would vote against a Queen's speech, effectively bringing down the government and forcing a re-election. More realistically in that scenario, the Conservatives would basically throw in the towel.
Miles Quaritch
Member
Bigger copy of The Sun's front page, in case anyone wanted to read the small text:
Terrifying.
Sun really believe anyone still cares about their opinions.
"It's The Sun Wot Won It" will never be a thing ever again and thank God for that...
Kotetsu534
Member
I think it's more Danny Alexander trying to distance himself from the Tories with a "big reveal" of their proposals. He's in extreme danger of losing his seat to the SNP, and presumably he's damaged by having been Osborne's right hand man for 5 years. Not that this will do him much good - as you say, it's small beer.
Doubt Cameron will fight on to the bitter end if he can't form a government with a safe majority (e.g. Con only, Con + Lib, Con + DUP). IMO, the likelihood in that event is a Tory leadership contest in fairly short order.
On a side note, I wonder what the Lib Dems plans are if their party is "decapitated" by the Sheffield Hallam result - the situation would need to be resolved fast ahead of possible coalition negotiations.
AHA-Lambda
Member
Huh, well there ya go,surprised it was so strong =/
To me I can't support them ever again after their referendum , I refuse to give them more influence, especially when they won't refuse another one in the short term future. Absolutely no support from me.
To me I can't support them ever again after their referendum , I refuse to give them more influence, especially when they won't refuse another one in the short term future. Absolutely no support from me.
IdreamofHIME
Member
Hope Will has the brains not to show Kate that cover, no way she want to think about giving birth to Cameron.
Can't believe they photoshopped his head on to George, is there no Lèse-majesté that can be used to shut the paper down for this?
Can't believe they photoshopped his head on to George, is there no Lèse-majesté that can be used to shut the paper down for this?
Then vote for Scottish Conservatives in the Holyrood elections, the regional divisions of the big parties don't give two shits about the state of affairs in Scotland, vote for the SNP to represent you in the UK. Presumably the people dissatisfied with the SNP will kick them out in the next Holyrood election, it's proportional and 55% of Scotland told them no.
QuicheFontaine
Member
Hope Will has the brains not to show Kate that cover, no way she want to think about giving birth to Cameron.
Can't believe they photoshopped his head on to George, is there no Lèse-majesté that can be used to shut the paper down for this?
Treason?
CyclopsRock
Member
Tbf George may well be a Tory.
QuicheFontaine
Member
Jezbollah
Member
That is pure gold.
I appreciate this wont win me any friends, but you know in the old days if you could not afford children you did not have them...
we have a generation caused by Labours welfare policies in the 90's where people expect..
Welfare was never meant to be a life choice, it was meant to be a stop gap, the tories should be able to scrap child benefit and people be ok with it, but all we then get is then the poverty line thrown around...
I am not trying to be uncaring but I feel we need a whole shift back to paying for your own offsprings not relying on tax payers to raise them
we have a generation caused by Labours welfare policies in the 90's where people expect..
Welfare was never meant to be a life choice, it was meant to be a stop gap, the tories should be able to scrap child benefit and people be ok with it, but all we then get is then the poverty line thrown around...
I am not trying to be uncaring but I feel we need a whole shift back to paying for your own offsprings not relying on tax payers to raise them
BossDarkseid
Member
It's not that it won't win you friends, it's the fact that this is factually untrue.
1) Teenage pregnancy rates have been falling over the last 15 years. Turns out that education and decent sex ed and family planning goes a long way in tackling teenage pregnancy.
2) The idea that people previously didn't use to have families because they couldn't afford them is again, factually untrue. Wildly so. Not sure where you get that idea from, but people have been having more children than they can 'afford' since time began. Its just that previously, child mortality rates were much higher or we were happier to stand by and let kids be raised in poverty (which is a dreadful idea in the long run as I'm sure you can imagine).
3) the Tories were in power for the majority of the 90s. Labour only took over in 1997, and they continued the overall tory spending plans for the first two years of their administration.
I'm afraid everything you have posted is basically the same tired anecdotal stuff that has been proven false repeatedly, often in this thread. It's the stuff the daily mail puts on their front page every so often, about families who are out of work and having children to live off YOUR taxes. Unfortunately, that's simply not the case usually. The number of families doing this is tiny.
If you actually wanted to cut welfare, you need to cut welfare to the biggest group of welfare recipients - pensioners. 46% of the welfare bill goes on the state pension, whereas Jobseeker's Allowance is only 3% of the bill. Even if you add in housing benefit, income support, council tax benefit and Jobseeker's allowance together that's still only 25% of the welfare bill, and the number of people on those benefits that you describe is *tiny*.
What old days would that be exactly?
Your attitude is built upon the misconception that one; there are a huge number of people abusing the system and two; they somehow are living a good life. Child benefits are also not only used by the unemployed, many families rely on them thanks to a wage that is isn't enough to live on.
The twisting of the benefit systems purpose (get out what you put in bullshit), and the image of those that use it is one of the most disgusting, disgraceful campaigns by the government and the media.
Cutting families meagre benefits isn't going to give people an incentive to work (or stop claiming child benefits). Giving them a fair wage so they don't need to will..
PJV3
Member
We can go back to the golden age before benefits, there wasn't any social disfunction, workhouses, unwanted street children, orphanages or crime.
Yeah, that's great. Let's discourage people from having kids, see how that works out in a few years time...
CyclopsRock
Member
I think it's actually that traditionally "families" had a much larger role in raising kids (and I don't just mean literal families, but neighbourhoods and social clubs too). Cousins being brought up like siblings, large family holidays (to the seaside, natch), all that stuff. As family sizes got smaller, this inevitably fell away somewhat. I can count on one fingers of one hand the number of family members I've seen in the last 5 years, for example. In this environment, it's more necessary for the state to step in and provide what used to be provided by, ahem, the big society.
Jezbollah
Member
The deadline is to ensure your vote gets to where it's supposed to be before the voting count starts.. So I would say to fully ensure it is used, fill it, post it 1st class by close of play on Tuesday.
BossDarkseid
Member
Apparently so.
"The deadlines to apply to vote by post or proxy in the elections on 7 May have now passed. The postal vote deadline was 5pm on 21 April and the proxy vote deadline was 5pm on 28 April. If you become unable to the polling station after 5pm on 28 April, you may be eligible to apply for an emergency proxy."
https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sour...UTF-8#q=deadline for postal vote 2015&es_th=1
Edit: I may have misread
I hope you have a shower after using that phrase! ;-)
But yes, there is an element of truth to what you say as well - my childhood was wildly different to that of kids nowadays, and I'm only in my 30s. I use to have many aunties and uncles that weren't actually family members, but close friends and neighbours who helped raise me. That doesn't seem to exist that much anymore in many communities.
That makes sense.
I think that deadline was the postal vote application deadline, not the postal voting deadline itself. Pretty sure she received her package after that date.
Miles Quaritch
Member
Because the Tories have been proven themselves to be trustworthy and would never lie.
It's much more likely that the leak is legit and the Tories would rather lie through their teeth now to get back into power and then just push ahead with the cuts under the guise of deficit reduction with the cuts being deeper thanks to slowing economic growth.
QuicheFontaine
Member
Yep, that's to get a postal vote. Nibs asking about when you need to send your postal vote in I think.
Were Danny Alexander in a safe seat I would say you were correct, but the fact he is in real danger says to me there is a selfish motivation for this...
after all if he is willing now to say this, why not when it happened, as the Lib Dems have been bashed for 5 years, why wait until right now....
Like that report that leaked about how George Osborne told Nick Clegg he would be crazy to vote for a increase in tuition fees (which was denied)
wish just for once we could all get the damn truth
Isn't Alexander's seat going to the SNP though, not the Tories?
Bit of a weird one for me in Bath. Lib Dems have been in charge here at a local level for a good while. I was quite fond of Don Foster (local Bath Lib Dem MP) who's stepping down after this term, but his successor seems good enough. Met Don a few times, and he has always been supportive of our community requests etc. Also feel like Bath has done very well under him. It's certainly changed for the better since I came back from London, hell it's almost an entirely different and far better off city.
Thing is, I was going to vote Labour, but a Labour vote here seems rather pointless. Here the battle ground seems to be between mainly Lib Dem and Conservatives, with Labour's local running MP being a 19 year old University student .I have nothing against young people, but finish your damn degree man. No way you can run a city and finish your degree along side it, whilst giving full attention to either or.
So given my predicament, and the fact that I'd rather Lib Dem be in charge of Bath at a local level, despite wanting Labour at a national level, do I just vote Lib Dem? Labour is not going to win here, and I don't really want to waste my vote to help the Conservatives.
Thing is, I was going to vote Labour, but a Labour vote here seems rather pointless. Here the battle ground seems to be between mainly Lib Dem and Conservatives, with Labour's local running MP being a 19 year old University student .I have nothing against young people, but finish your damn degree man. No way you can run a city and finish your degree along side it, whilst giving full attention to either or.
So given my predicament, and the fact that I'd rather Lib Dem be in charge of Bath at a local level, despite wanting Labour at a national level, do I just vote Lib Dem? Labour is not going to win here, and I don't really want to waste my vote to help the Conservatives.
yes, but you know headlines and all that, this would be quite embarrassing for the Lib Dems if they lose one of their main guys
I might just be looking at it to cynically, perhaps he is a decent guy with no other reason than telling the truth, but of course only after he has had his 5 years of power, minister cars, flat etc
FPTP brings up these crazy situations where you have to vote tactically, which is shit.
And also, the complication with you is that there is a chance of vote Lib Dems, get Tories.
However, I still say vote Lib Dems. The closer Labour are to the Tories when it's all done, the more likelihood we can have our "left leaning government"
Yes, the sixties were famed for mass celibacy.
Yeap, with you on on all points.
PJV3
Member
I'm in the same boat, I will swallow my pride and vote for Ed Davey, he's an Orange book fuck, but I will hold my nose and think of England.
Vivalaraza
Member
That Danny Alexander leak is pathetic.
For one, he's sat in government not doing a fucking thing.
And second, he should not be leaking internal government documents full stop. Desperate stuff.
I suspect he knows the game is up for him and this is his goodbye.
For one, he's sat in government not doing a fucking thing.
And second, he should not be leaking internal government documents full stop. Desperate stuff.
I suspect he knows the game is up for him and this is his goodbye.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked