LIVE - UK GENERAL ELECTION 2015 RESULTS

I'm just saying what I heard.

 

Can we not descend into 'LEFTIE HYSTERIA' please?!

 

Too late for THAT, darl.

 

There's a HEATHEN AMONG US!!

Besides, not all of us are as WELL VERSED in ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING in POLITICS, so allow us to just have HYSTERICAL OUTBURSTS.

 

Not sure why RB is being SO SMUG, with some of the SHIT he's coming out with.

 

But surely you have access to CWEJ'S BOOK OF STATS?

 

TOTALLY. And even during the debates and media discussions, differentiating between the statistics was the most difficult to the point where most cancelled themselves out. So I can understand how people basically cling to the ones that ring true for most of them.

That said, I know the impact that the cuts have had on Manchester City Council, on the legal system etc, and for me, they are HARSH and are supporting an austerity campaign that so many economists don't think will be helpful.

 

SOZ

 

Because currently ALL Tories are being FUCKING SMUG, because they've been bailed out of a pretty dodgy administration by the collapse of the Lib Dems and the fear of UKIP and a FUCKING BACON SANDWICH, and ended up coming up smelling of roses.

 

I voted Lib Dem.

 

LOSER

 

it's a question of economic and social convictions. i won't go into the social policies but there was a good article in vice explaining why the tories' economic convictions are making the poor poorer (and i wouldn't put them knowing what they're doing and still doing it past them). this is the gist:

 

This is the CRUX of it. I've hardly seen any economist saying they've worked or were a good idea. We KNOW the national debt is WAY UP. It's ideological, rather than logical and that's what scares me about Tories.

 

This is the essence of the Conservative party and always has been. Money from YOU to US and our STINKING RICH FRIENDS. Of course they can't say that as such, so it's dressed up by appealing to the similar side of the voters' nature hence "KEEPING MORE OF YOUR HARD-EARNED PAY PACKET" and other such ROT. That's all VERY NICE and APPEALING as long as you are in a fortunate enough position not to have to think about what the COROLLARY of that will be.

 

I think your second sentence is EVERYTHING. Even though I try to disregard that for the principle of 'reasoned discussion' (whatever that is), the Tory approach to austerity and all other things have been totally ideological and rooted in the worst of Thatcherism. Look at where the way that the vast majority of the Cabinet CHAMPION Thatcher and her similarly ideology-driven policies and RB has an answer to why the left is so hysterical.

 

Lionel Shriver puts it far more eloquently than me.

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...hy-tories-left-conservatives?CMP=share_btn_tw

 

Jim Murphy has resigned.

CORRECTION: He's tendering his resignation in a month's time along with a reform plan.

 

Maybe he'll use his new spare time to go back and finish his degree.

 

Hopefully Joanne Lamont will make a dramatic comeback.

 

The SNP are already taking liberties - trying to evict Dennis Skinner from his front row seat. No class or respect.

 

HOW DARE THEY

 

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/bhgd6p7kuQ4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

A page called 'Justice For George Galloway' (ALMOST CERTAINLY run by Gorgeous himself on prior form) just wrote this MENTAL essay

 

I'd have expected Galloway to use 'its' correctly.

 

It's really hard to pin down exactly what the Tories actually believe in their heart of hearts. I think a lot about the moral attachment that they place on work and being self-sufficient and the like... I think it's almost as if they feel the human sacrifice is a necessary consequence if they are to pursue their true end goal. The Tories also appear to believe that some people need a bit of a kick to be forced into action and that there's nothing jolly well wrong with that because it will be good for them in the long run. The problem with this government particularly is that the net has widened from not only people that are genuinely problematic to basically ANYONE who happens to be unemployed at any given time including those with the NERVE to be disabled and thus unable or limited in their capacity to work. You can see it in the absolutely RIDICULOUS diatribes you see directed toward anyone who is unemployed and had anything NICE ... the notion the people without jobs for whatever reason should be self-sacrificial martyrs the second they receive their P45. My flatmate for example, who was on the dole for three months last year, by that logic should have sold off the big TV and PS4 despite the fact he found himself another full time job that I imagine is contributing more than a pittance to the Exchequer in contributions. He is far more representative than the both the Tories and the entire absurd media narrative constructed around the unemployed gives credit for. Of course, his job is a skilled 35 hour a week number with the SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT and the Tories would rather he wasted his competencies in literally any private sector job than be in receipt of public money.

Furthermore, their unflappable belief that even the most minuscule amount of employment is better than none shows it's an ideological and not necessarily a fiscal interest. I also consider what they must think ordinary people are actually like, and have concluded that David Cameron believes all working class people are like the cheery men and women you see stacking shelves in supermarket adverts, looking absolutely DELIRIOUS to be living out their years putting in 40 hours a week at ASDA and STILL having to claim working tax credit to pay the fucking bills.

 

Are you saying ACADEMICS shouldn't have to resort to doing MENIAL jobs, like working in a shop or a call centre if they find themselves out of work, and just claim BENEFITS until they find a PAID job appropriate to their CIVIC STANDING?

 

FIRST OF ALL, my flatmate is not an academic. He's an IT guy. Secondly, he was only out of work for a few months and found a job that he is properly qualified for and good at. I'm not saying that people should spend copious amounts of time on the dole waiting for job openings in their "industry" (especially if they're few and far between) but by no means do I think qualified people should leap into the first fucking job available within a couple of weeks.

I don't agree with what you're saying at all, I just think it's fucking stupid and inefficient to have really qualified people doing jobs they're completely overqualified for. It locks out less qualified people who are capable of doing those jobs (and possibly better at actually performing those jobs), impedes their chances of getting back into the industry they're actually trained in (and that the state has given or loaned you money to train in) and understimulating work in the long term just fucks up your mental health and wellbeing (which I could also mention... has cost implications for the state) ... and this is probably exacerbated by the fact that you'd be bringing in far less than your earning potential.

I think a universal acceptance that so-called job-snobbery is a bad thing because like everything, individual situations are always far more complicated than such a blanket verdict allows. Are you honestly telling me that if you became unemployed tomorrow that you wouldn't at the very least START by looking for roles that were looking for your knowledge base and/or skill level before widening the net gradually if you weren't seeing any success?

 

I'm with the Tories if they are actively for abolishing the Scottish government.

 

So the "understimulating" work should be reserved for the plebs, or even better, THE IMMIGRANTS, so that unfortunate professional people in a pickle don't end up with mental health issues by having to slum it.

As long as everything is FREE then POWER TO THE PEOPLE.

 

You're ignoring the point i'm making purposefully. Firstly, understimulating isn't necessarily understimulating for everybody. I just think it makes sense to match jobs to knowledge and skills when the jobs are there, IDEALLY with the background aim of making sure that those in low skill jobs who do have the potential are able to get the educational, training or promotional opportunities that they need to move ahead.

When we've got over a million unemployed people in this country, many of whom only currently have the qualifications or skills for a low skilled job... what exactly is the POINT of professional people with skills, knowledge and experience going straight into a low-skilled job the minute they become unemployed when with a couple of months they could probably find another job that they're much more suitable for?

 

Because the financial support they get from the government is better spent elsewhere. Like disabled people or those with genuine mental health problems that leave them incapacitated from doing any jobs, not just jobs that they think are beneath them.

 

If you find yourself unemployed, would you rather claim benefits than work 14 hours a week in Starbucks?

 

And you don't think the eight to twelve weeks of Jobseekers Allowance that i'm talking about are more than worth the increased tax revenues that the Government will get by allowing someone the relatively brief time they need to get into a suitable and better paid job? We are talking about a fucking PITTANCE in budget terms here for the sake of so-called moral victories.

Working part time is a completely different ball game here. You'd still have more time to apply for jobs that you're qualified for but not as much time as you would without working those hours. And I should say that I am NOT necessarily talking about myself here... probably someone who is more set in their career path and/or older with some experience behind them. Starbucks probably wouldn't even hire them in the first place (it should be mentioned that low-skilled jobs also require job search and time investment in the application process too... most don't just walk into a job at Starbucks) and if they did then they'd waste time training before the person inevitably fucked off. Quickly by my bet also. Waste of time for the person and for Starbucks ... and a loss to the other person who probably would have been quite happy in that job for whatever reason and stuck around longer.

I should mention that those with employed partners also have the luxury of doing this ANYWAY. A woman who worked as a Business Development Manager while I was interning with the same company was recently made redundant or sacked or somerhing, but she was able to be supported by her husband for eight to twelve weeks or whatever and found another Business Development job.

 

So was that a yes or a no - claim benefits or work part time in Starbucks while you find a job you want more?

 

My first logic would not be to IMMEDIATELY apply for a job in Starbucks as opposed to jobs that I actually want to do, no. I'd put in applications for stuff with the balance weighted toward jobs I want to do to begin with before changing the balance more toward "anything will do" if that wasn't working. Again, I don't think i'd walk into a job at Starbucks... the competition for low-skilled jobs in this market is very high and time spent competing for those jobs is time taken away from applying for other jobs. And although my CV isn't exceptional by any means, a lot of those employers would take one look at it, see my qualifications and current work history and assume I would fuck off in five minutes. Which would be true!

But AGAIN, where I am at the moment is not really the type of person i'm talking about in this scenario. I'm not a good example for the situation i'm talking about.

 

And you'd claim benefits while you were trying to find a job that suited you?

 

Well, I personally have some savings I could rely on for the short time period i'm talking about but i'm well aware that other people don't. Again, i'm a bad example.