Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Ludo*1

General Election 2015

Recommended Posts

The big problem with having a lawyer type politician is that there is an incentive to pass new laws and legislation. Just for the sake of passing them, which leads to the bureaucratic mess we have now. After all, the more complex the laws of the country are, the richer lawyers can get as a result of being the only people who can work through and understand them. It's no coincidence that lawyers in general tend to overwhelmingly support leftist leaning parties. Due to them being more likely to pass new laws. Believe me, I know this from my granddad who recently passed away. He was a prominent member of the Lib Dems in the west coast of Scotland. The solution to much of the problems when it comes to business, employment and taxes. is to get rid of some of the laws and regulations we have. So it becomes less bureaucratic and easier to understand. But to do that means having politicians acting against their own interests. However, people do not act against their own interests unless they're backed into a corner over it.

Edited by Fotbawmad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ad Lib will only fail at this if he fails to get more votes than Reynard did when he stood.

I would never vote for you or your party but knowing that you are going to be a lamb to the slaughter you deserve a bit of respect for standing.

Bearing in mind what happened to a candidate in the neighbouring constituency (and a fellow Jag) it might be good advice, as some have said to check your history.

When you are on the hustings, you may want to start a reply to Murphy with a *sigh* I'd pay to see that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is Oaksoft actually a real person or was he a fictional character created by UKIP types to portray Scottish left wing nationalism?

7

Throw all the P&Bisms together, seething mess, verge of tears, scrambling for relevance, rattled etc, and you'd have Oaksoft's contribution to this thread. It's becoming the biggest embarrassment since the OP of that christmas TV thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is Oaksoft actually a real person or was he a fictional character created by UKIP types to portray Scottish left wing nationalism?

7

Throw all the P&Bisms together, seething mess, verge of tears, scrambling for relevance, rattled etc, and you'd have Oaksoft's contribution to this thread. It's becoming the biggest embarrassment since the OP of that christmas TV thread.

Look at Black and white army forum ( st Mirren forum) for OAKSOFT and REYNARD and STUART DICKSON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is Oaksoft actually a real person or was he a fictional character created by UKIP types to portray Scottish left wing nationalism?

7

Throw all the P&Bisms together, seething mess, verge of tears, scrambling for relevance, rattled etc, and you'd have Oaksoft's contribution to this thread. It's becoming the biggest embarrassment since the OP of that christmas TV thread.

As a left wing nationalist, and a cool as f**k one you should take as your template, I have a full body riddy for what is going on here....and the Xmas one for that matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got to confess my views are quite Daily Mail these days, I'm leaning towards Nigel. Good guy, likes a pint and a fag. Doesn't want to pay Brussels millions a day. Ed is not even giving us a vote on it - if he doesn't trust the voter why vote for the clod?

Edited by Pete's Frontier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got to confess my views are quite Daily Mail these days, I'm leaning towards Nigel. Good guy, likes a pint and a fag. Doesn't want to pay Brussels millions a day. Ed is not even giving us a vote on it - if he doesn't trust the voter why vote for the clod?

Welcome to the forum mate. Look forward to debating with you and hearing what you have to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's not put this down to "left wing nationalism". Left, right, nationalist or unionist, we're all looking through our fingers at Oaksoft talking pure shite.

It's actually painful reading, please stop.

As a left wing nationalist, and a cool as f**k one you should take as your template, I have a full body riddy for what is going on here....and the Xmas one for that matter.

That's my point exactly lads. I'm not suggesting there's anything wrong with left wing nationalism, I'm suggesting that Oaksoft is some kind of Tory/Kipper masquerading as a Left wing Nationalist to make them look bad.

I'm glad to see that this complete fuckwit of a poster who tbh was given FAR too much respect before and shortly after the referendum has now been recognised as a total walloper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What other professions aren't available to the young? Just wondering whether it's for the greater good if I defer on my teacher training application for a decade while I go work in a dead end job in IT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion life experience is an entirely legitimate term. Obviously there are plenty of numpties who have bags of the stuff and plenty of young folk with next t no none who would be fantastic MPs and leaders in society. But for me those are the exceptions.

There’s obviously no scientific definition (for all the pedants) but for me it comes down mainly to work experience – with a few additions.
- Have you stuck at a job for at least 5 or 6 years (at the point where you’re pretty much as good as you ever will be and are looking for the next challenge)?
- The nature of how you got the job also counts. There is rightly a lot of concern about the number of MPs that leave university and move straight into the world of politics via some family or friend connections. These ‘advisors’ are simply jumping on the political bandwagon and all they do is increase the disconnect between the ruling classes and the people.
- The role of MP is also a leadership role (despite a good argument above which pointed out that MPs nowadays are usually just seen as lobby fodder) as they represent their constituents. For me that counts as leadership – you’ve been put forward by your peers. Wisdom and experience invariably improve your ability to lead.
It's not about a "scientific definition" at all: it's about actually explaining, in plain English, precisely what the f**k you are trying to claim merits the "life experience" tag, as opposed to apparent disqualifications based on the age occupational status or social class other candidates. This definition so far has unsurprisingly been lacking.
- There is absolutely no basis by which "sticking at a job" for "5 or 6 years" merits any level of recognition on its own, and does not actually do so in any other role in the entire country. Your claim that it ought to hold merit in politics is complete and utter bollocks. It's simply not a credible achievement.
- MPs are popularly elected to their roles. You can bitch and whine about how parties select their candidates for each seat, but it is actually incumbent upon the voters in any constituency to make their choice. Which, going by your seethe, appears to be yet another major hiring decision that in fact ignores the "life experience" tag that you're so fond of.
- A word salad, that fails to demonstrate how your much vaunted "life experience" actually correlates to "leadership". After all, your "5 or 6 years in a single job" criteria doesn't in fact require the undertaking of any leadership roles at all. Sweeping the floors for six years, by your own definition, earns a "life experience" chocolate watch - this doesn't however mean that a floor sweeper is even remotely qualified to analyse huge amounts of social science data, to formulate coherent policy arguments or to co-ordinate the activities of a department of civil servants and aides.
Anyway – after putting down my thoughts on the issue I had a wee google search to see if there was anything I’d missed. Below is the most interesting list of points that relate to life experience. Some thought-provoking stuff:
 The selflessness that one learns by raising a child
 The solemn, harsh reality of war
 The pain and organic tragedy of losing a friend
 The challenge in all life phases (emotional, physical, spiritual) that poor health and chronic illness bring
 The comfort and joy of having complete trust in another person
 The depth of love of a long-married couple
 The
first time you experience culture shock
 The pride in creating something
 The emotional anguish of a broken heart
 The magic of memories
 The annoyance of dealing with retail customers
 The love of human compassion towards each other
 The hopelessness of feeling alone and isolated
Well yes: the fact that a Google search for "life experience" dredged up that utterly cringeworthy list of entirely unquantifiable, vague, moralising claims confirms the point that "life experience" is simply a comfort blanket for life's losers. None of the above "life experiences" actually earns you credibility in any socio-political system in the entire world. It's just a particularly useless last straw clutched by the drop-outs from the University of Life.
Edited by vikingTON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome to the forum mate. Look forward to debating with you and hearing what you have to say.

Very good of you. I was about to post a Reynard alert. New member comes on and immediately posts contentious political views....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not about a "scientific definition" at all: it's about actually explaining, in plain English, precisely what the f**k you are trying to claim merits the "life experience" tag, as opposed to apparent disqualifications based on the age occupational status or social class other candidates. This definition so far has unsurprisingly been lacking.
- There is absolutely no basis by which "sticking at a job" for "5 or 6 years" merits any level of recognition on its own, and does not actually do so in any other role in the entire country. Your claim that it ought to hold merit in politics is complete and utter bollocks. It's simply not a credible achievement.
- MPs are popularly elected to their roles. You can bitch and whine about how parties select their candidates for each seat, but it is actually incumbent upon the voters in any constituency to make their choice. Which, going by your seethe, appears to be yet another major hiring decision that in fact ignores the "life experience" tag that you're so fond of.
- A word salad, that fails to demonstrate how your much vaunted "life experience" actually correlates to "leadership". After all, your "5 or 6 years in a single job" criteria doesn't in fact require the undertaking of any leadership roles at all. Sweeping the floors for six years, by your own definition, earns a "life experience" chocolate watch - this doesn't however mean that a floor sweeper is even remotely qualified to analyse huge amounts of social science data, to formulate coherent policy arguments or to co-ordinate the activities of a department of civil servants and aides.
Well yes: the fact that a Google search for "life experience" dredged up that utterly cringeworthy list of entirely unquantifiable, vague, moralising claims confirms the point that "life experience" is simply a comfort blanket for life's losers. None of the above "life experiences" actually earns you credibility in any socio-political system in the entire world. It's just a particularly useless last straw clutched by the drop-outs from the University of Life.

Just as well Lech Walesa had a repertoire of one-liners and an impressive moustache, then, wasn't it?

As for MPs being popularly elected - it was bad enough int the days when people voted blindly along Party affiliations which were only vaguely understood, but now we hear people Talking about "Ed", and "Nigel", as if it's the fucking X-factor, not the future of the country they're voting on.

Seriously, folks - it only happens once every few years. Go to meetings, ask the questions that are imnportant to you, listen to and read what they all have to say, and vote for whoever's best for you and your neighbours. There is no such thing as a wasted vote, if that vote is cast by someone true to their own values.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't live in the constituency, no. I have close links with the constituency party though. I was asked to put my hat in the ring and obliged as they are a decent enough bunch and would benefit from some fresh blood if they are to rebuild the party infrastructure. I'm under no illusions that it's anything other than an historically unfruitful seat for Liberals, having last been won by one almost a century ago.

Not to be a dick about it, but do you believe you have any chance of getting the deposit back?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as well Lech Walesa had a repertoire of one-liners and an impressive moustache, then, wasn't it?

As for MPs being popularly elected - it was bad enough int the days when people voted blindly along Party affiliations which were only vaguely understood, but now we hear people Talking about "Ed", and "Nigel", as if it's the fucking X-factor, not the future of the country they're voting on.

Seriously, folks - it only happens once every few years. Go to meetings, ask the questions that are imnportant to you, listen to and read what they all have to say, and vote for whoever's best for you and your neighbours. There is no such thing as a wasted vote, if that vote is cast by someone true to their own values.

Don't get Lech Walesa bit. Care to elaborate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't get Lech Walesa bit. Care to elaborate?

There seems to be a predominant opinion on here (from younger, more impressionable posters, I reckon) that the idea of "life experience" is dismissible as an excuse for those who don't get on. Walesa was a working man (plumber iirc) who achieved great things without the benefit of university, management training, leadership courses or any of the theoretical knowledge it appears is now necessary to get into a position where you influence the lives of millions.

What Walesa had was the support of his Union, the courage of his convictions, and a determination to do what was right. In particular, he acted according to the wishes of his constituents, not according to how his actions would affect opinion polls. He acted in a way that was good for people, not good for business.

Unfortunately, fewer and fewer voters were even born back then - the TU movement is now seen as a negative force, and "Socialist" is actually used as an insult, most ironically by the American Right, who love their bible-bashing. Because Jesus would have joined the Republicans, wouldn't he?

Edited by WhiteRoseKillie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite his and Solidarity's proud record, Walesa is now considered a bit of an outdated thicko by a lot of young Poles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There seems to be a predominant opinion on here (from younger, more impressionable posters, I reckon) that the idea of "life experience" is dismissible as an excuse for those who don't get on. Walesa was a working man (plumber iirc) who achieved great things without the benefit of university, management training, leadership courses or any of the theoretical knowledge it appears is now necessary to get into a position where you influence the lives of millions.

What Walesa had was the support of his Union, the courage of his convictions, and a determination to do what was right. In particular, he acted according to the wishes of his constituents, not according to how his actions would affect opinion polls. He acted in a way that was good for people, not good for business.

Unfortunately, fewer and fewer voters were even born back then - the TU movement is now seen as a negative force, and "Socialist" is actually used as an insult, most ironically by the American Right, who love their bible-bashing. Because Jesus would have joined the Republicans, wouldn't he?

Walesa was a religious nut job and a homophobic c**t. Anyone who holds him up as an example of anything should maybe consider that before holding him up as some unsullied hero.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...