[DaveO]

Re: The General Election Thread : Tue Mar 31, 2015 3:29 pm  

Saddened! wrote:

Well that's my point, people are too lazy, myself included. It's not easy to interpret what each party is going for in terms of their approach to the big policies this time, none of the parties are going into any real depth about them. Try it out, ask a couple of people who they are voting for, then ask them why, most won't know. Most people who aren't too lazy are too busy, which supports my point. A huge percentage of those voting won't really know why or understand what they are voting for on each key issue. The parties at the moment are doing very little to get their policies across to the people, fuelling the switch off most people have around politics. People care about policies but are not being given anything to get engaged by. Huge sums are spent on branding, marketing and PR and I'd bet most people haven't a clue what is going on.

I agree most people don't see past the headlines which is basically what you are saying but my point is you personally clearly have the brains to do it.

[DaveO]

Re: The General Election Thread : Tue Mar 31, 2015 3:32 pm  

Mr. Zucchini Head wrote:

Their production costs are tiny compared to ours.

<snip>

You hear horror stories in America, but their standards are pretty slack to say the least, and much of it is scaremongering anyway.

You don't think there is a link between those two then such that unless our standards were equally slack we still could not complete?

Re: The General Election Thread : Tue Mar 31, 2015 4:37 pm  

Mr. Zucchini Head wrote:

I'm pro fracking firstly for selfish reasons. I work for a company that would benefit massively from fracking. Indeed we are in the middle of a project that will see us ship liquid ethane from the states because it's much cheaper than using North Sea gas.

The plant I used to work on shut down last year because we couldn't compete with the U.S., China etc. Their production costs are tiny compared to ours. Unless someone finds a cheaper and more sustainable fuel source, industry will continue to die in this country.

Is it the perfect solution? Probably not, there are certainly risks involved, but there's always a safe way of doing things. You hear horror stories in America, but their standards are pretty slack to say the least, and much of it is scaremongering anyway.

California has always been the state known for its earthquakes, San Andreas fault, etc. Now its Oklahoma. In 2014 there were c. 300 times more 3.0+ magnitude 'quakes there than in 2008. They happen to inject waste water from fracking deep below the aquifers. Now imagine that in a tiny area, heavily faulted area like the NW of England.

Re: The General Election Thread : Tue Mar 31, 2015 4:37 pm  

DaveO wrote:

You don't think there is a link between those two then such that unless our standards were equally slack we still could not complete?

There is probably an element of that, we might not be able to produce shale gas quite as cheaply as other countries and do it safely at the same time, but it would give us a fighting chance.

Again, the company I work for are spending £300m to facilitate ethane being shipped over from the U.S. They reckon it will have paid for itself in a handful of years. Partly because it's more plentiful and allows us to run at higher rates, but mainly because it is massively cheaper.

The other argument is that energy has to come from somewhere, as things stand we are going to be relying on other countries. The other solution is nuclear power, but for obvious reasons people are opposed to that too.

Re: The General Election Thread : Tue Mar 31, 2015 4:51 pm  

DaveO wrote:

What I am passionate about is people voting from an informed position (hence my other reply to this thread) as to what is likely to happen if they vote for a particular party (because that is what you really are voting for) should that party gain power because despite whatever pet single issue registers with some people, you can damn well guarantee they will be affected a lot more by what any government does in power over many other issues.

I am pretty sure for those that follow politics think Charles Walker, the chairman of the procedure committee who rebelled against the governments attempt to change rules for voting for the Speaker on the last day seems a bit if a hero for voting against the government and for his speech but if you look at his voting record he has supported every nasty policy going. Hope he loses his seat!

You really are not voting for your MP but for a party and that parties policies on many issues so whatever good your MP has done on the one issue you mentioned if he is Tory or Lib dem he needs to be removed!

That is certainly the current situation, and probably will be for a long time to come as it suits ALL in parliament to not have to be quite so accountable to their tens of thousands of constituents - there will be MP's in the Commons who have never had to justify anything to anyone as they have never stepped out of line of the whips or even worse they are almost guaranteed their seat renewal because their constituents would vote for the party whatever they stood for or did or didn't do.

I heard a comment on Radio 5 yesterday which actually struck a chord and from memory went something like "A lot of LibDem MPs are elected because they are popular within their constituency", or something like that, after one commentator had predicted that they would lose almost all of their seats.

Personally I am not voting for any party (and I haven't clicked the poll) because all you are reading and hearing at the moment is the shopfront dressing, the double glazing salesman spiel, you hear what they think you want to hear and you'll never find out what they are going to do until they get into power - Labour's shyness at discussing how they will make savings using the "we'll decide when we see the books" bollax, and the Tory reluctance to name which Departments they will save £12bn in stating that they haven't decided yet is pure salesmanship and examples of hiding the truth for fear of losing.

Re: The General Election Thread : Tue Mar 31, 2015 7:25 pm  

Vote tory: Get more and more vicious austerity

Vote Labour: get more austerity at a slightly slower pace

Vote LimpDem: get yourself to a shrink as quick as you can

Vote UPRIK: get fooked

Re: The General Election Thread : Wed Apr 01, 2015 4:44 pm  

DaveO wrote:

f you do that and he is a Tory or Lib Dem I honestly can't see how you could vote for them if you have one iota of social conscience given what has happened to the disabled and disadvantage over the past five years regardless of what he has done locally.

So when Rachel Reeves says she'll be tougher than the Tories on welfare claimants or Debbie Abrahams proudly tweeting that "Ed Miliband vows to wield the axe on public services..." then voting for that shower is somehow seen, by the terminally thick, as having a social conscience? .

You're in the same boat as cod'ead, save us all some time reading your bitter, ill informed ramblings and just write "WAAAAHHHHH...Tories"

Re: The General Election Thread : Wed Apr 01, 2015 5:43 pm  

BobbyD wrote:

So when Rachel Reeves says she'll be tougher than the Tories on welfare claimants or Debbie Abrahams proudly tweeting that "Ed Miliband vows to wield the axe on public services..." then voting for that shower is somehow seen, by the terminally thick, as having a social conscience? .

You're in the same boat as cod'ead, save us all some time reading your bitter, ill informed ramblings and just write "WAAAAHHHHH...Tories"

"No amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin." - Aneurin Bevan


and you do not have the intellectual honesty to understand why he made that statement and how relevant it still is today.

Re: The General Election Thread : Wed Apr 01, 2015 6:13 pm  

Leaguefan wrote:

"No amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin." - Aneurin Bevan


and you do not have the intellectual honesty to understand why he made that statement and how relevant it still is today.

He made that statement because he, like so many who came after him, think they're somehow morally superior, when all along they're just been a bunch of hypocritical oafs who hoped no one would notice, but we did.

Re: The General Election Thread : Wed Apr 01, 2015 9:06 pm  

Notice what?

You're a strangely aggressive person.