pap

Good piece by Diane Abbott here for fans of "Red" (arf) Ed. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/13/ed-miliband-leftwing-labour-not-paying-attention?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook

Nah, not really. I nailed this years ago. He doesn't want his content on here associated with his real life identity. Who can blame him?

Impossible. Verbal-mort (he who must not be named) will call the authorities as soon as I refer to him by his moniker!

Didn't know you were. I know solentstars is, as was Dr Who?

I do, just not exclusively on left or right

Arf. You can talk.

Oh, aye - I've talked about the headcount trick before. However, when the shít hits the fan, those best placed are the ones with tons of experience. The employers get to pick and choose, and they place a higher priority on tech staff than they do on softer roles. Because anyone can do BA, right? I know that's not true, but I've seen enough firms rocking along without them to know people believe it. Put it this way. I've survived a lot of management.

You haven't been in work long enough to make that determination. What is it, seven/eight years? You're barely out of short trousers, and obviously don't remember the dot com bubble going.

You're not me. When I decide to be judgemental on an Internet forum, I do it properly.

I don't have an issue with describing Tory voters as selfish. I don't really have a problem with selfish people who can admit they are. That said, I do think that is a fundamental difference between voting intentions, especially above a certain income level. I haven't been out of work for over a decade now. I barely use public services, and truth be told, the Conservative government will probably put more money in my pocket than Labour would. And yet, I'd never vote Tory because I know that even though they'll look after the likes of me, they'll do a considerably worse job of helping the less fortunate. That's the real difference to me. Someone who votes against their own self-interest for the benefit of others wouldn't be considered selfish. Someone who says "I'm alright, Jack" would be.

Is it stereotyping? When voters go to the polls, especially Conservative voters, do you honestly think they believe they're voting for the "best" the country can offer, for all people? Or are they saying "this government works for me and mine. I will vote for it". I suspect it's the latter, and if it is, then it's selfish.

I believe bletch quoted "The Thick of It", which used the phrase "solid bed of c**ts". That's probably closer to how I feel.

Yeah, but sometimes there's a collective sense of a person which just makes certain jokes fit better. You have, in your posting history, pretended to be your own girlfriend and have referenced girlfriends far too readily, just to let us know that you have one. At the same time, you're resolutely against any sort of public outing for yourself. The "doth protest too much", "pretend to be your own girlfriend" and impending marriage all conjure some colourful kaleidoscope of you, hunched over your computer, lad in hand, ordering wives off troubledbrides.com. I'm sure there's better, more general material that doesn't specifically apply to you. But that's hardly the point, is it?

I've found every attempt incredibly amusing. If it's alright with you, I'd like a few more years on this point.

Ah cool. I didn't realise that troubledbrides.com had those search facilities.

Your intended wife is one lucky girl. She gets this standard of argument forever.

Ah, fk it. I'll play. "Hur hur. That's right wingers that is. All of them. If you vote Tory, that's what you are"

He's using pound shop EDL tactics because he's upset that no-one is losing their shít here. When they can't find extremism locally, they go global, and try and make out like that happens everywhere. The only ones I can see that have "lost their shít" since the result are all the crowing cowards that crawled out of the woodwork afterwards. "Shy" Tories, I believe they call them.

C'mon, Jeff's just doing the same old trick the media like to do at demonstrations. Going by the TV footage of demos, you'd think that they were all violent agitants looking to rush the police. That's because non-violent protest isn't news. Instead, they'll focus on the one bit they think is newsworthy (the few toerags at the front) and pretend that's the whole thing. If he had his own TV company, he'd be quids in. As it is, he's just a mug on an Internet forum making the same point loads of other mugs on Internet forums have made.

Interesting, especially the last few categories which relate to class. Shows why so much time and effort is spent chasing the ABCs. Somewhat makes a mockery of the percentages claimed by the article. At the same time, there are things not present in the raw numbers either, such as social mobility, which if you're getting a council house on the cheap, is quite possible.

Maybe to us, but to future historians it could be a goldmine. "I don't understand it. The early 21st century people are an educated lot. Why are they unable to unravel what we realise so readily? Why don't they set themselves free?!!" "Hmm, this, and the frequent mammary content, explains much"

So basically, a colossal waste of everybody's time? Burn him!* *Just joshing. A couple of slaps outside the pub will do just fine. "Waste everyone's facking time on a football forum, will ya boy? Gertcha!", etc.

I read that article myself. Apart from the partisan vindictiveness, it raises some interesting points, particularly about the collapse of the working class vote in the 1980s.