General Election 2015

[eFestivals]

Yeah, turns out the argument is if we promised to vote Labour so would they.

When you can't win the argument, resort to inventing a myth.

No one has said what you claim.

What has been said is that how others intend to vote impacts into any person's choice of how they'll vote.

Given that snippers have been claiming that exact thing about themselves, the rejection of it working the other way is absolutely laughable.

As is the resorting to myths.

But as it's all you have, it's all you have to use as a counter argument.

[eFestivals]

Could you show me that policy?

I can only show you that the SNP had no policy on implementing Leveson, as you already know.

Care to tell me how doing nothing is reigning Murdoch in?

Care to show me how giving Murdoch free reign isn't giving Murdoch free-reign?

FFS. ;lol:

[viberunner]

You seem to know that Labour are progressive, because that's what you clearly stated here.

After posting how reactionary they are for years and calling them "red tories".

It's a party full of Jack Straw and Geoff Hoon and Harriet Harmen types.

Not as bad as Bullingdon, but it's not the old Labour of the anti-Thatcher years

The thirteen years of Red Tory power proved that - Blair butchered millions while Gordon simply gave millions to the city.

.

[eFestivals]

It's a bit anti-Establishment handy too, to it's credit

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_riots

And Easton is now represented in Parliament by a woman called Thangam Debbonaire which is, undoubtedly, the best name of any Parliamentarian. (So also appears to be a pretty good/serious person... we'll see if she graduates to the Labour frontbench).

With a surname like that you'd think she must be a tory.

Bristol has the UK's best history of anti-establishment rioting. Bristol's rioting in the 1830s is what brought the UK's "modern" constitution into being, the UK's biggest parliamentary reform ever.

And yet we're not drawing a line around ourselves and saying we're better than everyone else, that we deserve a special deal because we're different, or any of the other bollocks are you can invent by the drawing of self-serving imaginary lines as a way to reject democracy.

And yet Bristol is FAR more different to the rest of the UK than Scotland is, from how people voted.

[eFestivals]

It's the Red Tories of London Labour to give them the full title.

Also, unsure about your figures.

24.3 Labour

14.9 Conservative

07.5 Liberal Democrat

01.6 UKIP

01.3 Scottish Green

00.1 TUSC

00.2 Others

-----------------

50.0%

SNP 50.0%

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2015_(Scotland)

if you do the maths properly you'll know the SNP were the minority, again.

I guess maths isn't thought much of a skill in Scotland. The SNP certainly reject doing sums as a nasty English trait.

Edited May 10, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

I demand a recount.

(hint, you'll find the correct answer is less than 49 %. I guess if you round each individual % up you can fiddle it to over 50% but you wouldn't do that.

The SNP's share of the vote was a tad under 50%.

(I used 51% for others as a way of making that part of things clear. I know it was actually 50.x%, and not the full 1% extra)

It's back to adding up properly being a nasty English trait, I guess.

[eFestivals]

I agree it is not a sovereign state, but countryhood is a wider term than that.

you said Scotland was "technically" a country.

I'm pleased to see you admit your error.

Edited May 10, 2015 by eFestivals

[viberunner]

Has anyone read the Salmond contribution to Leveson?

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122145147/http:/www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Witness-Statement-of-Alex-Salmond.pdf

Met Murdoch 5 times... in 5 years.

This one made me laugh:

b. your letter of 31 October 2007 to Mr Murdoch - please set out in full the circumstances of your offer to accommodate him and up to four guests at a performance of the play "Black Watch" the extent to which it was taken up by him personally or through others, and if so who paid for the tickets;

A: The National Theatre of Scotland was responsible for the hugely successful production of the Black Watch. The Scottish Government had part funded the production and as such had access to complimentary tickets. Given our divergent views on the Iraq war one of my aims was to provide Mr Murdoch with an alternative view of the conflict

LOL!

[eFestivals]

It's a party full of Jack Straw and Geoff Hoon and Harriet Harmen types.

Not as bad as Bullingdon, but it's not the old Labour of the anti-Thatcher years

The thirteen years of Red Tory power proved that - Blair butchered millions while Gordon simply gave millions to the city.

.

and we *ALL* got richer and public services were much improved as a result of that extra wealth. You forget that part.

Social services rely on economic success. They cannot be done in any other way.

As you'll find out when Chicken Dave grants you your wish of self-funding your own public services.

[LJS]

I don't think there's any problem with waiting for the results before discussing potential deals. It may be slightly vague, but tactically would have been worth it, if snp didn't want to help the torys in England.

And with the polls showing Labour would be likely to need the support of the SNP to form a government, they would have run exactly the same campaign and the Tory press woudl have run exactly the same stories. The Tory's campaign did not rely on the SNP stating it would work with Labour it relied on scaremongering of the nightmare scenario that would result if Labour needed support fro the SNP to form a government. I'm not exactly sure what the SNP could have done to stop this.

[kaosmark2]

they're not a progressive party, and they have no progressive policies.

They have a policy of "if it's money from the people of Scotland, Scotland doesn't need more money, but if we can get the suckers in England to pay we need shit loads of money from outsiders".

Or has the last year passed you by?

Their manifesto and campaign included progressive policies.

Whether you believe they actually give a damn about them is a different issue. They're still claiming progressive politics as a means to independence.

[eFestivals]

Met Murdoch 5 times... in 5 years.

24 times in 2 years.

Didn't you know that?

That's because Salmond lied and got caught out for lying about his Murdoch meetings.

[LJS]

The SNP's share of the vote was a tad under 50%.

(I used 51% for others as a way of making that part of things clear. I know it was actually 50.x%, and not the full 1% extra)

It's back to adding up properly being a nasty English trait, I guess.

I think we can reasonably add the green's 1.6% to the progressive side of the equation.

[kaosmark2]

We

You guys clearly prefer fox hunting & WMD.

you voted for

We voted

You guys voted

You guys

And you're all perpetuating the fucking us vs them divide and conquer that the c**ts in power want.

[eFestivals]

And with the polls showing Labour would be likely to need the support of the SNP to form a government, they would have run exactly the same campaign and the Tory press woudl have run exactly the same stories.

.... and the English electorate would have reacted much the same.

That part's important.

Hands up who wants 4% of the population to dictate all policy?

No one at all.

Unless it's your own party who gets that power.

England rejected that sort of duplicious bullshit. Who's surprised?

The Tory's campaign did not rely on the SNP stating it would work with Labour it relied on scaremongering of the nightmare scenario that would result if Labour needed support fro the SNP to form a government. I'm not exactly sure what the SNP could have done to stop this.

The SNP could have said "we won't try and force policies which are not supported by the majority onto the country".

Instead, they said "we support undemocracy, and the rest of you have to lump it. WE'LL have all power".

It didn't pass anyone by - except in Scotland, as you're proving endlessly.

Labour tried to counter that attempt of undemocracy via the idea that parties should vote for what they could support.

the SNP screamed and shouted and said that wasn't fair. They demanded special privileges that they didn't deserve from the democratic result.

Edited May 10, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

I think we can reasonably add the green's 1.6% to the progressive side of the equation.

so anti-SNP is progressive?

Glad we've sorted that one out.

[eFestivals]

And you're all perpetuating the fucking us vs them divide and conquer that the c**ts in power want.

I'm not attributing blame. I'm simply trying to show cause and effect, that some refuse to accept.

The snippers claim that what they wanted couldn't effect what others decide to want is as stupid as saying that within England what Labour advocated didn't cause some to vote tory, or that what the tories wanted didn't cause some to vote Labour.

Nothing exists within a vacuum. All actions cause an unwanted reaction.

Edited May 10, 2015 by eFestivals

[kaosmark2]

From experience turkeys don't normally vote for christmas.

What election result did you just see?

[LJS]

great debating strategies from a master debater

no. 106: How to make an argument when you agree with someone.

Lets look at this little exchange between Vibe & Neil

viberunner, on 10 May 2015 - 09:41 AM, said:

and of course ending the death and destruction caused by 100 years of nationalist bullshit played no part.

And now you think nationalist bullshit is great thing.

Reading that you would assume that Vibe was arguing that Labour was wrong to speak with the IRA & Neil was correcting him.

Now let's have a look at Vibe's full quote before Neil took his scalpel to it.

Labour were quite happy to work with and help get the IRA elected to power. And yes I think that's a good thing, if somewhat unseemly (as the people getting elected have presided over murders) but for the greater good for ending the Irish civil war it was the mature political thing to do.

(my emphasis) So clearly Neil & Vibe are pretty much in agreement on the Labour IRA thing.

So just remember kids, with a little careful editing, there is no need to let agreement get in the way of a good argument.

repeat after me "Neil is a master debater" now try saying that quickly 3 times

[kaosmark2]

I know! Let's exile that 16% to England and on a 1-for-1 basis accept left-wing immigrants providing none of them are Neil.

Exile, with immigration being controlled whether they accept the one-party state.

How very totalitarian.

[LJS]

Hands up who wants 4% of the population to dictate all policy?

Another master debating trick. Ask a question to which there is an obvious answer which in this case is clearly "no one"

and hope they don't notice that the question is completely crazy. Even the most deluded Daily Mail columnist wouldn't make that claim.

There are always (at least) two ways to ask a question. you could say "is it reasonable when party has no overall majority that it seeks consensus with other democratically elected MP's to try and form a stable government?

Edited May 10, 2015 by LJS

[LJS]

so anti-SNP is progressive?

Glad we've sorted that one out.

what?

[eFestivals]

great debating strategies from a master debater

no. 106: How to make an argument when you agree with someone.

Lets look at this little exchange between Vibe & Neil

Reading that you would assume that Vibe was arguing that Labour was wrong to speak with the IRA & Neil was correcting him.

Now let's have a look at Vibe's full quote before Neil took his scalpel to it.

(my emphasis) So clearly Neil & Vibe are pretty much in agreement on the Labour IRA thing.

So just remember kids, with a little careful editing, there is no need to let agreement get in the way of a good argument.

repeat after me "Neil is a master debater" now try saying that quickly 3 times

Is what the Labour party did to stop a REAL nationalist war where people were being murdered as a result of unending nationalists violence with a cause going back centuries in any way comparible to the situation in Britain today between the Labour party and the SNP?

If your debating technique is valid, you're saying that the SNP should start a violent war until Labour comes round to their ideas. Oh yeah, you're the smart guy.

Nationalist bollocks only leads to an ever greater nationalist bollocks.

Which is where everything you say falls apart, because it does not lead anywhere better.

[eFestivals]

Another master debating trick. Ask a question to which there is an obvious answer which in this case is clearly "no one"

and hope they don't notice that the question is completely crazy. Even the most deluded Daily Mail columnist woudl make that claim.

There are always (at least) two ways to ask a question. you could say "is it reasonable when party has no overall majority that it seeks consensus with other democratically elected MP's to try and form a stable government?

But the fact that the SNP were saying they'd rule the roost with just 4% support gets no mention in your reply.

Why is that? Is it because you're facing up the facts, or is it because you're denying them?

[kaosmark2]

The thing that scares me the most is that c**ts like Blair are coming out and saying Labour need to become a centre-right party again.

The solution to getting the Tories out isn't for Labour to imitate them with bribes for the middle-classes and shitting on their traditional core. 20 years of that from 96-2016 is why Scotland rejected Labour. It's why people are abandoning Labour for the Green party, it's why UKIP are coming 2nd in a large number of Labour seats.