[Ad Lib]

Granny Danger, on 03 February 2012 - 16:37, said:

No I am holding someone who claims to be a liberal and seeks elected office at government level at a higher standard. If people in that position are not prepared to forward the cause of gay people then they, and we as a society, have little hope of overcoming the prejudices that exist.

Why do you think it's remotely necessary for someone to disclose their sexuality to forward the cause of gay people?

[Granny Danger]

Ad Lib, on 03 February 2012 - 16:42, said:

Why do you think it's remotely necessary for someone to disclose their sexuality to forward the cause of gay people?

You are being deliberately obtuse. You may not agree with the point I am making but you understand it.

[Ad Lib]

Granny Danger, on 03 February 2012 - 16:47, said:

You are being deliberately obtuse. You may not agree with the point I am making but you understand it.

No, actually, I don't understand what point you're trying to make at all. I absolutely agree that politicians have to be held to a higher standard but I fail completely and utterly to see why it is any of your business that a liberal politician disclose their sexuality to promote equality any more than it is necessary an animal rights activist to disclose whether or not they personally are a vegetarian/vegan. It's immaterial.

This reminds me of an episode of The West Wing when Josh Lyman asks a gay Republican congressman why he isn't a Democrat. The answer given was "being gay doesn't have to define who I am."

This post has been edited by Ad Lib: 03 February 2012 - 16:58

[Jim McLean's Ghost]

Ad Lib, on 03 February 2012 - 16:42, said:

Why do you think it's remotely necessary for someone to disclose their sexuality to forward the cause of gay people?

For David Laws was his sexuality really the issue? If he was in a heterosexual relationship that he wanted to remain private then it would have been just as immoral to take taxpayers money that he wasn't entitled too. If he really wanted privacy he could've kept his snout out of the trough and forgone that £1000 a month in rent to just live with his partner.

[vikingTON]

Interesting (well not, realy really tedious financial bore stuff) that has been found on this site.

Remember the common right-wing mantra that the state's direct borrowing was responsible for the UK's massive levels of indebtedness?



Looks like while those 'socialist fucks 'were actually making little to no change to the UK's debt, the City of London decided to pork out on everything it could get. Presumably we'll be seeing austerity and cutbacks for the City and the bankers for some time to come.

Is the UK's position markedly different from the rest of the world? Certainly, but not due to excessive Government borrowing:

This post has been edited by vikingTON: 04 February 2012 - 02:28

[Reynard]

vikingTON, on 04 February 2012 - 02:27, said:

Interesting (well not, realy really tedious financial bore stuff) that has been found on this site.

Remember the common right-wing mantra that the state's direct borrowing was responsible for the UK's massive levels of indebtedness?



Looks like while those 'socialist fucks 'were actually making little to no change to the UK's debt, the City of London decided to pork out on everything it could get. Presumably we'll be seeing austerity and cutbacks for the City and the bankers for some time to come.

Is the UK's position markedly different from the rest of the world? Certainly, but not due to excessive Government borrowing:

Nope. But I do remember the right going on about SOVEREIGN debt.


You dim left wing f**k.

[MacDonald Jardine]

Ad Lib, on 03 February 2012 - 16:57, said:

No, actually, I don't understand what point you're trying to make at all. I absolutely agree that politicians have to be held to a higher standard but I fail completely and utterly to see why it is any of your business that a liberal politician disclose their sexuality to promote equality any more than it is necessary an animal rights activist to disclose whether or not they personally are a vegetarian/vegan. It's immaterial.
This reminds me of an episode of The West Wing when Josh Lyman asks a gay Republican congressman why he isn't a Democrat. The answer given was "being gay doesn't have to define who I am."

It smacks of double standards.


"It's okay to be gay but I don't feel comfortable telling you I'm gay."

If there's nothing wrong in being gay, why not say?

But you know that.

[vikingTON]

Reynard, on 04 February 2012 - 07:54, said:

Nope. But I do remember the right going on about SOVEREIGN debt.


You dim left wing f**k.

Sovereign debt due to government spending? That tiny yellow bar.

It seems clear to absolutely everyone except woodchopper survivalists that the problem isn't government borrowing, isn't even household borrowing, but is quite clearly financial borrowing from the City of London. Naturally I expect them to make cutbacks and force their terminally-ill family members to find employment because after all, we're all in this together.

[capybara]

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/

Polls continue to look good for the SNP at Holyrood and the gap in the Independence vote narrows. The Leaders , Salmond apart are still on negative ratings. The good news for Miliband who is trying very very hard these days, is that he is up 3 points to minus 45. Bless.

[Reynard]

vikingTON, on 04 February 2012 - 10:42, said:

Sovereign debt due to government spending? That tiny yellow bar.

It seems clear to absolutely everyone except woodchopper survivalists that the problem isn't government borrowing, isn't even household borrowing, but is quite clearly financial borrowing from the City of London. Naturally I expect them to make cutbacks and force their terminally-ill family members to find employment because after all, we're all in this together.

It seems clear to most people that you are a fuckwit plook faced undergraduate that hasn't got a fucking clue about economics.

Go and f**k yourself. Especially as nobody else ever will.

[vikingTON]

Reynard, on 05 February 2012 - 13:17, said:

It seems clear to most people that you are a fuckwit plook faced undergraduate that hasn't got a fucking clue about economics.

Go and f**k yourself. Especially as nobody else ever will.

At least you're not absolutely raging.

[Tryfield]

vikingTON, on 05 February 2012 - 18:00, said:

At least you're not absolutely raging.

At least Reynard knows what he's talking about. You don't. Fact.

[Gordon EF]

capybara, on 05 February 2012 - 13:10, said:

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/

Polls continue to look good for the SNP at Holyrood and the gap in the Independence vote narrows. The Leaders , Salmond apart are still on negative ratings. The good news for Miliband who is trying very very hard these days, is that he is up 3 points to minus 45. Bless.

Some very interesting stuff there.

Quote

There was also a Panelbase Scottish survey in the Sunday Times. On the referendum question 37% supported independence, 42% opposed it and 21% were undecided.

If we could trust these figures that would mean, if referendum day was tomorrow, only around 62% of undecideds would need to be convinved to vote yes, for the yes vote to carry a majority. Whilst there's clealry a very long way to go and, in a sense, some unionists are right, that the yes camp need to do some convincing yet, I'm fairly confident that it's not a massive tide in option which needs to be turned and I do think that the most convincing argument will win this referndum. It's difficult to say before the campaign gets started for real but it's there to play for and this SNP have a track record of overhauling poll leads.

Quote

The Sunday Times’s website doesn’t appear to show voting intention figures, but I have seen them reported elsewhere as having shown CON 14%, LAB 29%, LD ??%, SNP 50% for the Holyrood regional vote and CON 13%, LAB 29%, LD ??, SNP 48% for Holyrood regional vote. I haven’t had them conformed at all.

Apart from the refereudum poll, this makes good reading for the SNP and pretty tragic reading for the rest. Although the Lib Dems are linsted as ??, these figures would vote them a maximum possible voting intention of 7%. It would be interesting to see a Westminster voting intention poll ran in parrallel. I don't doubt Labour would lead it. I wonder how comparable these figures would be to voting intenstions for the council elections in May.

[10 CC ICT]

Gordon EF, on 05 February 2012 - 18:31, said:

Some very interesting stuff there.

uh-hu

[Reynard]

Gordon EF, on 05 February 2012 - 18:31, said:

Some very interesting stuff there.



If we could trust these figures that would mean, if referendum day was tomorrow, only around 62% of undecideds would need to be convinved to vote yes, for the yes vote to carry a majority. Whilst there's clealry a very long way to go and, in a sense, some unionists are right, that the yes camp need to do some convincing yet, I'm fairly confident that it's not a massive tide in option which needs to be turned and I do think that the most convincing argument will win this referndum. It's difficult to say before the campaign gets started for real but it's there to play for and this SNP have a track record of overhauling poll leads.



Apart from the refereudum poll, this makes good reading for the SNP and pretty tragic reading for the rest. Although the Lib Dems are linsted as ??, these figures would vote them a maximum possible voting intention of 7%. It would be interesting to see a Westminster voting intention poll ran in parrallel. I don't doubt Labour would lead it. I wonder how comparable these figures would be to voting intenstions for the council elections in May.

You'd imagine they will pan out roughly the same. The council elections matter more to me than the diddy parliament one does as the councils can actually shag you for tax wedge. Iwill be happy enough in my area as long as Labour don't get in again (which they won't) or some sort of coalition between tory and SNP turns up again. They seem to work OK together down here and although the SNP have never been a majority in this part of the world, I'll be quite happy to see them skim more Labour dafties away. The Labour party are disgusting at every level of government.

[kiwififer]

The SNP will work with most at local levels if it is for the common good and all that.

Labour........

[capybara]

http://www.bbc.co.uk...litics-16927626

So it is budget time again at Holyrood. This year the SNP do not need to take other parties along with them, although Swinney is trying to build a consensus . But with local elections around the corner there is not much chance of that. Labour are on about the Government implementing Tory cuts. But as usual there is no detail what they would change. Have any of the other parties put forward an alternative budget or are they just sying i dont like the one on offer?

The cuts to college budgets is a difficult one for the Governemnt ,especially at this time, so if they can find a way to funnel more money in that direction they may get some more support. Housing always seems to come out badly, yet it is such a big issue in Scotland.

[Gordon EF]

capybara, on 08 February 2012 - 10:43, said:

The cuts to college budgets is a difficult one for the Governemnt ,especially at this time, so if they can find a way to funnel more money in that direction they may get some more support. Housing always seems to come out badly, yet it is such a big issue in Scotland.

To cut college funding by 8.5% when the Scottish Government's overall budget has been cut by 11% isn't even a relative cut.

The opposition parties are whining about this, as usual but I haven't seen anything constructive come out of any of them. Labour seem to think they'd be able to just spend more money (quelle suprise) on anything they like with a reduced budget. These people just don't understand basic arithmetic.

[kiwififer]

2000 new members since Cameron opened his mouth.....

[capybara]

kiwififer, on 08 February 2012 - 12:53, said:

2000 new members since Cameron opened his mouth.....

And the polls are good . Labour will vote against the budget and not say what they would do differntly. And they will embark on a negative campaign at the council elections. It will be interesting to see how much the Independence debate impacts on them.

I certainly want to see a debate on local government finance ,i am not sure how long the Government can continue with the Council Tax freeze.Welcome though it is.

[Ad Lib]

kiwififer, on 05 February 2012 - 19:29, said:

The SNP will work with most at local levels if it is for the common good and all that.

Lol jk I can haz Single Scottish Police Force

[kiwififer]

so you don't agree that the SNP will work with other parties for the common good? Strange that, cause the budget is spot on in Edinburgh...

Oh aye, enjoy political oblivion cause the canvass suggest you are not even in meltdown, you are dead.

[capybara]

kiwififer, on 08 February 2012 - 16:55, said:

so you don't agree that the SNP will work with other parties for the common good? Strange that, cause the budget is spot on in Edinburgh...

Oh aye, enjoy political oblivion cause the canvass suggest you are not even in meltdown, you are dead.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...litics-16927626

Budget backed by the Lib Dems. Labout and Tories did not, no surprise there. I presume they did not put forward an alternative.

Brian Taylor was full of praise for Rennie....His entire speech was a model of gentle, emollient oratory. He praised the partial concession on colleges. He praised the effort to improve the housing market.

This post has been edited by capybara: 08 February 2012 - 18:12

[Ad Lib]

kiwififer, on 08 February 2012 - 16:55, said:

so you don't agree that the SNP will work with other parties for the common good

I said nothing of the sort. I was dismissing your glib claim that SNP is a party of localism.

Quote

Strange that, cause the budget is spot on in Edinburgh...

Oh aye, enjoy political oblivion cause the canvass suggest you are not even in meltdown, you are dead.

I noticed your lot made the last minute concessions on higher education colleges that Willie Rennie has been banging on about for months. For a corpse we're not doing too badly.

[Granny Danger]

Ad Lib, on 08 February 2012 - 18:50, said:

I noticed your lot made the last minute concessions on higher education colleges that Willie Rennie has been banging on about for months. For a corpse we're not doing too badly.

Will be interested in your appeal to necrophiliacs ahead of the next election.