UK General Election on 5th May - voting intentions?

[Jon_in_london]

It's not snobby to refuse low paid menial labour for slave wages. It's simply sensible. Indeed it is excellent that they refuse to do such work. It might encourage those who want these jobs done to pay vastly higher wages. Cleaning urinals and cleaning skid marks off public tolet bowls shouyld pay at least £30,000. And if the unemployed were compelled to clean them for their benefits, I would advise them to engage in appropriate criminal activity to make ends meet.

It is absolutely snobby when you live on the back of other peoples hard work- including people who clean toilets- to refuse to give anything back in return.

Why should toilet cleaners get double what a nurse gets? Toilet cleaning takes no skill and requires no qualifications. If toilet cleaning pays more than the median wage, why bother to gain any kind of skills or education?

I'm sure you would encourage people to engage in "appropriate" criminal activity- until you become a victim.

 

[Interesting Ian]

It is absolutely snobby when you live on the back of other peoples hard work- including people who clean toilets- to refuse to give anything back in return.

Why should toilet cleaners get double what a nurse gets? Toilet cleaning takes no skill and requires no qualifications. If toilet cleaning pays more than the median wage, why bother to gain any kind of skills or education?

I'm sure you would encourage people to engage in "appropriate" criminal activity- until you become a victim.

What an unbelievable complete @rsehole you are. I do not say toilet cleaners should get double the wage of a nurse; nurses are underpaid too.

In addition ones qualifications ought not to be the sole criteria of how well a job pays. Why on earth should it be the sole criteria?? The intrinsic unpleasantness of a job should be taken into consideration too.

Again, note the word "appropriate", don't just ignore it. If one is compelled to engage in criminal activity, then it's entirely the fault of the arsehole who implements deeply unethical policies i.e you.

And what exactly is wrong with refusing to give back in return. What the f*ck about all the rich people who get vastly more than is commensurate with the amount of work they do??

I've met tossers like yourself all my life. My loathing of you and them, and everything you stand for, you wouldn't believe. You and them are as thick as f*ck, and obnoxious to boot.

I'm outta this thread. I have a very nasty taste in my mouth.

Consider yourself to be on ignore.

 

[asthmatic camel]

WooHoooo... Happy election everyone

 

[Rolfe]

ooops sorry. I just installed this spellchecker thing. I assumed it was just checking my words and I didn't really look and just pressed ok all the time. No idea why it "corrected" practice (or was it practise). I won't use it again. It's only when I type quickly I misspell sometimes; not that my spelling is particularly bad. Now my grammar; that's a different matter. I'm vaguely aware of the difference between practice and practise though .

OK, you're forgiven!

Sounds as if you have a dodgy Merikan spell-checker though. Upgrade to actual English recommended as soon as possible.

Rolfe.

PS. "Criteria" is plural. If you've only got one of them, it's "sole criterion".
[/ pedant mode]

 

[Jon_in_london]

I'm outta this thread. I have a very nasty taste in my mouth.

Consider yourself to be on ignore.

That taste is probably the Sh!t you talk.

Being on your ignore list is something of a complement my dear Ian.

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

Boys and Girls, Ian seems to have a problem with the fact that people who invest in education, skills and qualifications generally earn more than people who are too lazy and apathetic to get off their fat, pasty arses and make something of their lives.

I guess thats just the difference between right and stoopid.

 

[asthmatic camel]

That taste is probably the Sh!t you talk.

Being on your ignore list is something of a complement my dear Ian.

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

Boys and Girls, Ian seems to have a problem with the fact that people who invest in education, skills and qualifications generally earn more than people who are too lazy and apathetic to get off their fat, pasty arses and make something of their lives.

I guess thats just the difference between right and stoopid.

Umm, Jon, what qualifies, in your eyes, as "making something of their lives"? Becoming a Prime Minister who sends his countrymen to an illegal war on the basis of lies, and so to their deaths?
Becoming a publishing tycoon making a living by detailing others' miserable times? Perhaps all the lazy people should be encouraged to make their own documentaries of how much fun it is to be a lazy bastard; they'd probably be featured at "TATE" (spit). They could enter the priesthood and hope to be Pope one day. They could try to play guitar and then realise that not many people are good enough to earn a living at it. Hell, they could even pretend to be me.

The reality is that life for the majority is pretty piss-poor; they know it and you know it. There aren't enough jobs at the top for everyone to "make something of themselves". Dangling that carrot only leads to dissatisfaction. Most folks have to get by as well as they can and enjoy it as much as they can.

Get real; one day soon you'll be old, and some poor bugger will have to wipe your arse, spoon feed you and change your catheter bag. At that time, I hope you truly appreciate how important "making something of their lives" really is.

 

[Mojo]

If toilet cleaning pays more than the median wage, why bother to gain any kind of skills or education?

Because I don't want to have to clean toilets for a living?

 

[Interesting Ian]

Umm, Jon, what qualifies, in your eyes, as "making something of their lives"? Becoming a Prime Minister who sends his countrymen to an illegal war on the basis of lies, and so to their deaths?
Becoming a publishing tycoon making a living by detailing others' miserable times? Perhaps all the lazy people should be encouraged to make their own documentaries of how much fun it is to be a lazy bastard; they'd probably be featured at "TATE" (spit). They could enter the priesthood and hope to be Pope one day. They could try to play guitar and then realise that not many people are good enough to earn a living at it. Hell, they could even pretend to be me.

The reality is that life for the majority is pretty piss-poor; they know it and you know it. There aren't enough jobs at the top for everyone to "make something of themselves". Dangling that carrot only leads to dissatisfaction. Most folks have to get by as well as they can and enjoy it as much as they can.

Get real; one day soon you'll be old, and some poor bugger will have to wipe your arse, spoon feed you and change your catheter bag. At that time, I hope you truly appreciate how important "making something of their lives" really is.

Well said AC!

And Jon, I certainly think that people should earn much more than others (albeit not as much disparity in income as actually pertains). I also think that the unemployed should get less than any job. They're not the issues at all.

 

[mummymonkey]

You might be quite close with that, though obviously I wouldn't have put it that way. Labour set up the parliament, and seem to have been doing their damnedest to make it boring, expensive and irrelevant. This in turn reflects on the SNP who are associated in the voters' minds with the parliament, even though what we've got bears little resemblance to what the SNP would like to see in a parliament.

It's relatively early days in a relatively long haul though. It would be interesting to see what might happen if we have a Tory government in Westminster with Labour in charge of Holyrood.

By the way, care to explain why you're so anti-SNP?

Rolfe.

The parliament was always going to be boring, expensive and irrelevant; that's why I voted against it in the first place. Pointless, stupid and populated by vote chasing pole climbers. That the so-called "First" Minister has yet to utter a pronouncement worthy of being written down, just about sums it up. Oh yes and the building itself sucks big time.

It might pep up a bit with a Tory/Labour split like you say but I doubt it. Hard to tell them apart these days and anyway, the Torys have no chance.

I hate all separatist movements, not just the SNP. I can't be doing with all this "Wha's like us" nonsense and the undercurrent of English hating that goes with it. I've never been able to understand why I should have more common interest with somebody in Dumfries than with somebody in Cardiff or Nottingham.

I remember the "It's Scotland's Oil" campaign and thinking at the time just how selfish and pathetic it was. What next? "It's Cornwall's Tin", or maybe "It's Eccles' cakes"?

I'm sorry I've just got no time for all that insular rubbish. I like being part of the UK, I work 3 days a week in England, I've lived there for several years in the past and my mother's from Worksop.

I'd say the only thing that would tempt me to vote for independence would be if the SNP promised a republic, the total separation of church and state, and an end to faith schools. That'll never happen.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
That taste is probably the Sh!t you talk.

Being on your ignore list is something of a complement my dear Ian.

Complement? Complement?? WOW! You certainly deserve a low wage!

 

[Rolfe]

The parliament was always going to be boring, expensive and irrelevant; that's why I voted against it in the first place. Pointless, stupid and populated by vote chasing pole climbers. That the so-called "First" Minister has yet to utter a pronouncement worthy of being written down, just about sums it up. Oh yes and the building itself sucks big time.

It might pep up a bit with a Tory/Labour split like you say but I doubt it. Hard to tell them apart these days and anyway, the Torys have no chance.

I hate all separatist movements, not just the SNP. I can't be doing with all this "Wha's like us" nonsense and the undercurrent of English hating that goes with it. I've never been able to understand why I should have more common interest with somebody in Dumfries than with somebody in Cardiff or Nottingham.

I remember the "It's Scotland's Oil" campaign and thinking at the time just how selfish and pathetic it was. What next? "It's Cornwall's Tin", or maybe "It's Eccles' cakes"?

I'm sorry I've just got no time for all that insular rubbish. I like being part of the UK, I work 3 days a week in England, I've lived there for several years in the past and my mother's from Worksop.

I'd say the only thing that would tempt me to vote for independence would be if the SNP promised a republic, the total separation of church and state, and an end to faith schools. That'll never happen.

You obviously feel "British" as if Britain were a homogenous nation (not denying regional differences of course). I work in England too, and live there a lot of the time. It's still in many ways a foreign country, to me.

I want Scotland to be like Denmark or one of the other small European nations, with her own voice in the EU and on the world stage, living in friendship and amicable co-operation with her neighbours. "Wha's like us?" and English-hating has got absolutely nothing to do with it, and overt attitides of that sort can get you thrown out of the SNP actually.

The vast majority of SNP members want a republic, the end to faith schools, and the separation of church and state. There just seems to be a bit of a perceived problem with voter support if the party comes out and says all that officially. Remember all the "Republican Rose" stuff being thrown at Roseanna Cunningham, intended as an insult and to lose her votes?

"Separatist" just seems to me to be a pejorative thrown at independence movements. Look at all the newly-independent states in Eastern Europe. Do you hate them for "separatism", and want them to join back up with Russia? Certainly, they had a very much worse deal from the USSR than we have from the UK, but the basic point is the same - being outvoted as a small part of an incorporating union, or having a fair and proportional voice as part of the EU. Call it "separatism" if you like, but I can't help feeing that anyone who throws that term around willy-nilly hasn't really thought about the issues.

I can just about understand a Scot who wants to remain a very small and outvoted part of the UK rather than an independent country governing its own affairs within the EU. Though I don't agree with the attitude. But you do seem to have a very twisted and inaccurate view of the SNP - do you read the Record or something?

Rolfe.

 

[geni]

You obviously feel "British" as if Britain were a homogenous nation (not denying regional differences of course). I work in England too, and live there a lot of the time. It's still in many ways a foreign country, to me.

England isn't a homogenous nation (the indepandance for conwall people are getting on my nerves at the monment).

I want Scotland to be like Denmark or one of the other small European nations, with her own voice in the EU and on the world stage, living in friendship and amicable co-operation with her neighbours. "Wha's like us?" and English-hating has got absolutely nothing to do with it, and overt attitides of that sort can get you thrown out of the SNP actually.

A very small and largly ignored vioce on the world stage. Scotland has a lower population (by about 300K) than Denmark. Britan is a G8 memebr and has a UN veto. Denamark has?

The vast majority of SNP members want a republic, the end to faith schools, and the separation of church and state. There just seems to be a bit of a perceived problem with voter support if the party comes out and says all that officially. Remember all the "Republican Rose" stuff being thrown at Roseanna Cunningham, intended as an insult and to lose her votes?

Source?

"Separatist" just seems to me to be a pejorative thrown at independence movements. Look at all the newly-independent states in Eastern Europe. Do you hate them for "separatism", and want them to join back up with Russia?

Wrong example. Eastern europena states were never part of Russia to sart with.

Certainly, they had a very much worse deal from the USSR than we have from the UK, but the basic point is the same - being outvoted as a small part of an incorporating union, or having a fair and proportional voice as part of the EU.

You already do thanks the the PR regional system. Admitedly this amounts to smeg all but that wouldn't change much.

Call it "separatism" if you like, but I can't help feeing that anyone who throws that term around willy-nilly hasn't really thought about the issues.

I have though about the issues I view all nationalism as separatism.

I can just about understand a Scot who wants to remain a very small and outvoted part of the UK rather than an independent country governing its own affairs within the EU. Though I don't agree with the attitude. But you do seem to have a very twisted and inaccurate view of the SNP - do you read the Record or something?

Rolfe. [/B]

So instead of being small and outvoted in the UK you want to be even smaller and more outvoted in the EU

 

[Jon_in_london]

Complement? Complement?? WOW! You certainly deserve a low wage!

............................................................

earlier

I'm outta this thread. I have a very nasty taste in my mouth.

Consider yourself to be on ignore.

 

[Jon_in_london]

And Jon, I certainly think that people should earn much more than others (albeit not as much disparity in income as actually pertains). I also think that the unemployed should get less than any job. They're not the issues at all.

Still not found the ignore button?

Yet, you think that toilet-cleaners should earn more than the median wage? In fact, you think that they should earn more than a police constable, a third more than a fireman, twice a nurse, as much as a tube-driver, twice that of a research technician in a leukemia lab, a bit more than a middle-ranking civil-engineer, a third more than an army officer... etc...

So Ian, since you dont have large enough balls to put me on ignore, why should a toilet cleaner earn more than all of the above?

 

[Jon_in_london]

Because I don't want to have to clean toilets for a living?

Howabout if you got paid £30,000 pa for doing it? I'd certainly have cleaned bogs for that money when I was breaking my back working in a warehouse for £4.80 per hour when I graduated.... (of which around £2 per hour was lopped off as tax to feed all the parasites)- or maybe I should have just "signed on" and applied for housing benefit etc.... that would probably have been more rewarding than actually contributing to the country in which I live.....

 

[Rolfe]

England isn't a homogenous nation (the indepandance for conwall people are getting on my nerves at the monment).

I think they're a bit odd too, but I try not to be judgmental.

A very small and largly ignored vioce on the world stage. Scotland has a lower population (by about 300K) than Denmark. Britan is a G8 memebr and has a UN veto. Denamark has?

I'd be interested to hear from some of the Danes here as to whether they'd prefer to be one of the German Länder rather than an independent EU state. If not, why not?

Source?

Attendance at SNP conferences including sessions which were not open to the media but attended by members only. The preponderance of republican views is blatantly obvious, but there is also a perception that this isn't a vote-winner, and that even if SNP members favour republicanism, it is actually a matter for a popular referendum, not something to be imposed by a party which just happened to have it on its manifesto.

If you want a source for the specific "Republican Rose" stuff, try any anti-SNP Scottish newspaper either when Roseanna was first elected to parliament, or elected deputy leader of the SNP.

Faith-based schools are generally seen as divisive, but in Scotland opposing them is equivalent to opposing Catholic schools, and the Irish Catholic population has a lot of political clout and guards its right to its own schools jealously.

In fact, a couple of elections ago a (Catholic) neighbour said to my mother, "you wouldn't vote SNP, would you - they'd close the Catholic schools!" This as a daft point, as my mother isn't a Catholic and doesn't care tuppence if they close the Catholic schools. However, it was the mantra the Labour canvassers had been instructed to spout on every Catholic doorstep.

As so often the case, it was a lie with a grain of truth in it. Most of the SNP would dearly love to see the Catholic schools closed, but recognises that politically this cannot be achieved in any other way but persuading the Catholic population itself to vote to end the system.

Wrong example. Eastern europena states were never part of Russia to sart with.

I don't follow you. Scotland was an independent state until 1707.

You already do thanks the the PR regional system. Admitedly this amounts to smeg all but that wouldn't change much.

Not true. Scotalnd's interests are frequently sold down the river to achieve benefits for England. Historically, Scotland would never have lost her steel industry as an independent country, because there were EU rules to protect countries' single steel-making plants. More recently, the fishing deals were extremely detrimental to Scottish interests, but Scotland had no say, being "represented" by a UK minister who seldom even bothered to go to the meetings. It just wasn't a big enough issue in UK terms. I'm talking about a seat in the Council of Ministers, not any piffling regional representation.

I have though about the issues I view all nationalism as separatism.

Just out of interest, what would be your optimum solution for state structure? Presumably you'd want to subsume Britain in a Greater Europe? But why stop at that? One world state is your only rational choice. But then, the regions become equivalent to countries. So how do you divide them up?

So instead of being small and outvoted in the UK you want to be even smaller and more outvoted in the EU

This is where we agree to disagree, I think. The structure of the EU is much more favourable to states the size of Scotland than the incorporating union.

But a great deal of this is emotional. I don't necessarily expect an English person, secure as a manber of the dominant nationality, to see things the same way. That was why my question about being anti-SNP was directed to Mummymonkey (and other Scots). I'm interested to hear from other people in the same situation who don't experience the same emotional response. The nearest one gets to this from English people is to gauge their reaction to joining the Euro and becoming part of a United States of Europe (with strict one-citizen-one-vote). Then, it's amazing how many people who hate separatism seem to start singing another tune.

Rolfe.

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Rolfe:
Not true. Scotalnd's interests are frequently sold down the river to achieve benefits for England. Historically, Scotland would never have lost her steel industry as an independent country, because there were EU rules to protect countries' single steel-making plants. More recently, the fishing deals were extremely detrimental to Scottish interests, but Scotland had no say, being "represented" by a UK minister who seldom even bothered to go to the meetings. It just wasn't a big enough issue in UK terms. I'm talking about a seat in the Council of Ministers, not any piffling regional representation.

Succesive Irish governments did precisely the same thing with the Irish fishing industry. There was a lot of give at European level in terms of the fishermen in return for a bit of take when it came to Irish farmers. Maybe an independant Scottish minister would have done the same thing, assuming there were more votes to be had from the steel workers than the fishermen. I'm rather against the idea that protecting any particular industrial sector. The Irish experiance is that protectionism is a disaster.

This is where we agree to disagree, I think. The structure of the EU is much more favourable to states the size of Scotland than the incorporating union.

Hmmm. The EMU Growth and Stability Pact was kiboshed because of French and German pressure. I doubt very much that if circumstances were different, and the shoe were on a Danish or Irish foot that we'd see a similar outcome. The Bolkestein Directive met a similar fate because Jacques Chirac thinks free trade is as harmful as communism. If the Irish Taoiseach was of a similar mind he'd likely be told to like it or lump it.

 

[geni]

I think they're a bit odd too, but I try not to be judgmental.

I don't think they are odd as such I just wish they would stop claiming not to be county

I'd be interested to hear from some of the Danes here as to whether they'd prefer to be one of the German Länder rather than an independent EU state. If not, why not?

They speak different languages and have very different economies. Almagimation makes no sense at the present time.

I don't follow you. Scotland was an independent state until 1707.

And Poland and the other simular eastern european countries have also been independant states since the end of WW2 most were not part of the USSR

Not true. Scotalnd's interests are frequently sold down the river to achieve benefits for England. Historically, Scotland would never have lost her steel industry as an independent country, because there were EU rules to protect countries' single steel-making plants.

Until very recently there was a problem of over production in the steel industry

More recently, the fishing deals were extremely detrimental to Scottish interests, but Scotland had no say, being "represented" by a UK minister who seldom even bothered to go to the meetings.

You mean that people were still allowed to catch fish? As a memeber Of the EU scotland would have been unable to prevent it's fish stock falling to the current level since you can only really veto reductions.

It just wasn't a big enough issue in UK terms. I'm talking about a seat in the Council of Ministers, not any piffling regional representation.Just out of interest, what would be your optimum solution for state structure? Presumably you'd want to subsume Britain in a Greater Europe? But why stop at that? One world state is your only rational choice. But then, the regions become equivalent to countries. So how do you divide them up?

By language and geography.

This is where we agree to disagree, I think. The structure of the EU is much more favourable to states the size of Scotland than the incorporating union.

At present yes but do you think it will stay that way? The power of smaller states has already been reduced once. Germany is not going to put up with being underepresented forever for a start.

But a great deal of this is emotional. I don't necessarily expect an English person, secure as a manber of the dominant nationality, to see things the same way.

I'm not English. With my families background european would be most correct but I can tollerate British (for a given value of british).

 

[Rat]

You obviously feel "British" as if Britain were a homogenous nation (not denying regional differences of course).

Are you sure you don't want to use 'homogeneous' there? Hey, you started it!

And yes, I know that homogenous has been misused for long enough to appear in some dictionaries under that meaning, thank you. But my dictionary (apart from in a usage note) is not one of them.

Cheers,
Rat.

 

[mummymonkey]

Rolf, I'm setting off for a couple of days in lovely Darlington. I'll post when I get back.