GENERAL ELECTION 2017: The Results

Thorin wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

About 60% of over 65's voted Tory.

So the facts don't back your view.

actually it backs his views as that would be down on tory support from that age group

nicko wrote:Hello Zack,   did you watch the news?   all channels say it was the young vote that helped Labour,   also pissing off the Pensioners.

You should wait before saying i'm wrong.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Thorin wrote:

actually it backs his views as that would be down on tory support from that age group

Well, I've just checked the stats for 2015.

45% of 60+ age group voted Tory in 2015.

Perhaps you didn't think I would check facts and bust you for your bull shit. But I did.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Thorin wrote:

And I think you need to actually live here and even then begin to understand what Nicko is saying is right. The youth demand everything on a plate today and fail to understanding nothing is free, but expect that it should be. That is wrong and selfish

Again who cause the massive debt?

labour

Wrong again...

It was a combination of poor lending standards from your banks, poor financial regulations by both Tory and Labour gov'ts, and greedy corporations employing inbred idiots as directors..

How many successful socialist countries in history?

France,  Sweden, Australia, New Zealand,  Canada,  Norway, Cuba, modern-day Germany, Finland have all had successful "socialist" leaning governments..

China, still with a communist government, now has the second-largest economy in the world.

Zero

 

sassy wrote:Fred:

Plus, and I hate to have to admit it, the dramatic improvement in the personal appeal of Corbyn. He came across as relaxed, cheeful, confident...and a real Mr Nice Guy. OK, it was clearly the result of much coaching and expertise on behalf of Labour's spin doctors and campaign organisers - but it achieved results.



Utter bollocks.   Everyone who has ever met him knows the reason he came over so well was because he was relaxed and being himself and doing what he loves to do, fighting for justice for ordinary people.   He even met his wife because he helped her get her niece back.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

sassy wrote:Fred:

Plus, and I hate to have to admit it, the dramatic improvement in the personal appeal of Corbyn. He came across as relaxed, cheeful, confident...and a real Mr Nice Guy. OK, it was clearly the result of much coaching and expertise on behalf of Labour's spin doctors and campaign organisers - but it achieved results.



Utter bollocks.   Everyone who has ever met him knows the reason he came over so well was because he was relaxed and being himself and doing what he loves to do, fighting for justice for ordinary people.   He even met his wife because he helped her get her niece back.

Don't be stupid. Don't you know that every party leader, together with CEOs and senior spokespersons in both the public services and the private sector almost automatically receive media training on appointment or promotion, particularly in handling press radio and TV interviews that might become hostile, and that they are coached either by external consultants or their own PR departments on public speaking and presentation?

And don't tell me that it doesn't happen because as well as going through the process myself in the past on joining the staff of a nation organisation that was constantly subject to public and media exposure, I did the same job as an outside consultant for several  rural-based industries and organisations for four years after I retired.

I've seen a vast, indeed remarkable, improvement in his presentational skills and his public speaking style (effective use of pauses, voice pitch, looking earnestly direct to camera when making a particularly important point, etc.)  and the natural skills that he already has have clearly been honed to equip him better for the role of leader.

Utter bollocks? Just what the hell is wrong with you, you supercilious moron? You can talk down to and expect grovelling sycophancy from the people on your own site if you want, but don't damn well try it with me.

My post contained no criticism of Labour whatsoever, just the opposite in fact, plus what anyone with half a brain should at least be be capable of appreciating was my opinion - and this is a bloody opinion forum and not a repository for spam - and that it was  based on some knowledge and experience of the subject.

eddie wrote:Teresa May needs to step down asap.
I am not at all happy with her coalition choice.

Angry Andy wrote:Coalition of terror.
Some real nasty history in the DUP.
And to think the shit JC got for trying peace talks with the Northern Irish.

Angry Andy wrote:Dont think they will Thor. It all seems a bit desparate and clutching at straws.
The 1922 committee  meets tuesday. Still some twists and turns to come.
Also , if the DUP DO form a formal coalition, will they want a place or two in the cabinet?

Angry Andy wrote:Coalition of terror.
Some real nasty history in the DUP.
And to think the shit JC got for trying peace talks with the Northern Irish.

eddie wrote:

Angry Andy wrote:Coalition of terror.
Some real nasty history in the DUP.
And to think the shit JC got for trying peace talks with the Northern Irish.

This is what I'm thinkng.

sassy wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Don't be stupid. Don't you know that every party leader, together with CEOs and senior spokespersons in both the public services and the private sector almost automatically receive media training on appointment or promotion, particularly in handling press radio and TV interviews that might become hostile, and that they are coached either by external consultants or their own PR departments on public speaking and presentation?

And don't tell me that it doesn't happen because as well as going through the process myself in the past on joining the staff of a nation organisation that was constantly subject to public and media exposure, I did the same job as an outside consultant for several  rural-based industries and organisations for four years after I retired.

I've seen a vast, indeed remarkable, improvement in his presentational skills and his public speaking style (effective use of pauses, voice pitch, looking earnestly direct to camera when making a particularly important point, etc.)  and the natural skills that he already has have clearly been honed to equip him better for the role of leader.

Utter bollocks? Just what the hell is wrong with you, you supercilious moron? You can talk down to and expect grovelling sycophancy from the people on your own site if you want, but don't damn well try it with me.

My post contained no criticism of Labour whatsoever, just the opposite in fact, plus what anyone with half a brain should at least be be capable of appreciating was my opinion - and this is a bloody opinion forum and not a repository for spam - and that it was  based on some knowledge and experience of the subject.

I said bollocks Fred, because it was bollocks.  You see, in your reply you showed just why the commentators and the media have been caught on the hop.   Jeremy couldn't have sustained going to the numbers of rallies he did during the election by being anything but Jeremy.   On top of that, he wouldn't have bloody allowed it.   That's why he has made the impact he has, people who meet him know he is genuine, he's not been coached and manipulated, he's learnt his skills through campaigning for 30 years.   What you see is what you get.   He didn't have to be marshalled into hangers with accolytes waving a few banners.   He went out and met everyone who wanted to meet him, exchanged jokes and hugs and tears.   That is what he has always done.   I first met him at Burston Strike School Rally in 2015, before he was leader, and we all knew this was a man who was going to change things.   He spoke exactly the same way then as he does now.   You think last night was a surprise?   You ain't seen nothing yet.

This is when I met him, he would have looked bloody stupid in a suite there:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

sassy wrote:



I said bollocks Fred, because it was bollocks.  You see, in your reply you showed just why the commentators and the media have been caught on the hop.   Jeremy couldn't have sustained going to the numbers of rallies he did during the election by being anything but Jeremy.   On top of that, he wouldn't have bloody allowed it.   That's why he has made the impact he has, people who meet him know he is genuine, he's not been coached and manipulated, he's learnt his skills through campaigning for 30 years.   What you see is what you get.   He didn't have to be marshalled into hangers with accolytes waving a few banners.   He went out and met everyone who wanted to meet him, exchanged jokes and hugs and tears.   That is what he has always done.   I first met him at Burston Strike School Rally in 2015, before he was leader, and we all knew this was a man who was going to change things.   He spoke exactly the same way then as he does now.   You think last night was a surprise?   You ain't seen nothing yet.

This is when I met him, he would have looked bloody stupid in a suite there:

Do you honestly think that I'm going to fall for all that garbage that the rallies and banner waving crowds just happened without the best locations being carefully and professionally  selected with local radio and TV in mind, the news media alerted, banners and placards designed and  printed, agents and branch chairman briefed and asked to circulate the details with a request for maximum attendance, briefing notes issued in advance on what points to concentrate on in vox pop interviews, photo opportunities arranged with the appropriate age, gender and racial mix arranged to stand next to or behind the leader (and that's not "racist" or "ageist" before you start screeching at me)...or even when he should wear his traditional Breton cap and open-necked shirt and when to wear a collar and tie?

Frankly, Sassy, I don't give a shit whether you first met him at Burston Strike School rally in 2015 or whether you met him outside the gents' bog in Milton Keynes shopping centre in 2016; I don't care how bloody natural and easy going he is; I don't care how many jokes, hugs and tears he's exchanged...he has been coached in presentational skills and media interview techniques.


Do you think that after a lifetime in the job I can't spot the obvious signs?

In this modern day and age of the vital impotance of the media and instant news,  even God would have sent Jesus Christ on a presentational skills course before letting him preach the sermon on the mount!

I'm not criticising Corbyn; I'm saying that he's learned well and he's learned fast and he's honed the natural skills that he had.

I'm not criticising Labour, even though I'm not a member or supporter.

(In fact I'm not a member or supporter of any party, including the BNP, a falsehood that you appear anxious to promulgate at the behest of that vile, odious  liar S**t and his pathetic little lapdog Andy Pandy in your forum.)

I have simply made the point that the Conservative campaign was, in my opinion, crap and that the Labour campaign was, in my opinion,  excellently done.

And it not my fucking fault that you still lost by almost 60 seats and a million votes.

Now, for Christ's sake stop screeching at me like a novice nun who has been goosed behind the bike shed, and actually try to debate issues raised when they are honestly offered for debate instead of automatically going into defensive afterburn whenever anyone posts something which doesn't conform to your little book of Corbyn worship.

sassy wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Do you honestly think that I'm going to fall for all that garbage that the rallies and banner waving crowds just happened without the best locations being carefully and professionally  selected with local radio and TV in mind, the news media alerted, banners and placards designed and  printed, agents and branch chairman briefed and asked to circulate the details with a request for maximum attendance, briefing notes issued in advance on what points to concentrate on in vox pop interviews, photo opportunities arranged with the appropriate age, gender and racial mix arranged to stand next to or behind the leader (and that's not "racist" or "ageist" before you start screeching at me)...or even when he should wear his traditional Breton cap and open-necked shirt and when to wear a collar and tie?

Frankly, Sassy, I don't give a shit whether you first met him at Burston Strike School rally in 2015 or whether you met him outside the gents' bog in Milton Keynes shopping centre in 2016; I don't care how bloody natural and easy going he is; I don't care how many jokes, hugs and tears he's exchanged...he has been coached in presentational skills and media interview techniques.


Do you think that after a lifetime in the job I can't spot the obvious signs?

In this modern day and age of the vital impotance of the media and instant news,  even God would have sent Jesus Christ on a presentational skills course before letting him preach the sermon on the mount!

I'm not criticising Corbyn; I'm saying that he's learned well and he's learned fast and he's honed the natural skills that he had.

I'm not criticising Labour, even though I'm not a member or supporter.

(In fact I'm not a member or supporter of any party, including the BNP, a falsehood that you appear anxious to promulgate at the behest of that vile, odious  liar S**t and his pathetic little lapdog Andy Pandy in your forum.)

I have simply made the point that the Conservative campaign was, in my opinion, crap and that the Labour campaign was, in my opinion,  excellently done.

And it not my fucking fault that you still lost by almost 60 seats and a million votes.

Now, for Christ's sake stop screeching at me like a novice nun who has been goosed behind the bike shed, and actually try to debate issues raised when they are honestly offered for debate instead of automatically going into defensive afterburn whenever anyone posts something which doesn't conform to your little book of Corbyn worship.

Of course you can't spot the obvious signs, because there aren't.  Like so many commentators you got it wrong, well wrong, and you got it wrong because your are trying to compare apples with oranges.   He doesn't fit your box, or conform to your rules and isn't measured by your standands.   I don't worship him, his ideas are what we need and he isn't to be worshiped, he's one of us, and you will never get that, because you like to be ruled by people who tell you what to do and say.   JC listens and learns from you, that's what makes him different.  

Plus, I can assure you, nun I have never been and if I'd been goosed I'd turn round grab his balls.  I am debating, you are the one getting in a state and throwing out sexist abuse.

sassy wrote:Loyalists attack Irish Catholic school children with a pipe bomb in 2001. The DUP refused to condemn the threats against the children.

Eilzel wrote:Because if our youngsters are better educated, the whole country benefits longterm.

No much point in going on with this. I think university education should be free because knowledge and career opportunities should not be commodified.

You think university education is a luxury.

Agree to disagree.

Thorin wrote:

sassy wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Do you honestly think that I'm going to fall for all that garbage that the rallies and banner waving crowds just happened without the best locations being carefully and professionally  selected with local radio and TV in mind, the news media alerted, banners and placards designed and  printed, agents and branch chairman briefed and asked to circulate the details with a request for maximum attendance, briefing notes issued in advance on what points to concentrate on in vox pop interviews, photo opportunities arranged with the appropriate age, gender and racial mix arranged to stand next to or behind the leader (and that's not "racist" or "ageist" before you start screeching at me)...or even when he should wear his traditional Breton cap and open-necked shirt and when to wear a collar and tie?

Frankly, Sassy, I don't give a shit whether you first met him at Burston Strike School rally in 2015 or whether you met him outside the gents' bog in Milton Keynes shopping centre in 2016; I don't care how bloody natural and easy going he is; I don't care how many jokes, hugs and tears he's exchanged...he has been coached in presentational skills and media interview techniques.


Do you think that after a lifetime in the job I can't spot the obvious signs?

In this modern day and age of the vital impotance of the media and instant news,  even God would have sent Jesus Christ on a presentational skills course before letting him preach the sermon on the mount!

I'm not criticising Corbyn; I'm saying that he's learned well and he's learned fast and he's honed the natural skills that he had.

I'm not criticising Labour, even though I'm not a member or supporter.

(In fact I'm not a member or supporter of any party, including the BNP, a falsehood that you appear anxious to promulgate at the behest of that vile, odious  liar S**t and his pathetic little lapdog Andy Pandy in your forum.)

I have simply made the point that the Conservative campaign was, in my opinion, crap and that the Labour campaign was, in my opinion,  excellently done.

And it not my fucking fault that you still lost by almost 60 seats and a million votes.

Now, for Christ's sake stop screeching at me like a novice nun who has been goosed behind the bike shed, and actually try to debate issues raised when they are honestly offered for debate instead of automatically going into defensive afterburn whenever anyone posts something which doesn't conform to your little book of Corbyn worship.

Of course you can't spot the obvious signs, because there aren't.  Like so many commentators you got it wrong, well wrong, and you got it wrong because your are trying to compare apples with oranges.   He doesn't fit your box, or conform to your rules and isn't measured by your standands.   I don't worship him, his ideas are what we need and he isn't to be worshiped, he's one of us, and you will never get that, because you like to be ruled by people who tell you what to do and say.   JC listens and learns from you, that's what makes him different.  

Plus, I can assure you, nun I have never been and if I'd been goosed I'd turn round grab his balls.  I am debating, you are the one getting in a state and throwing out sexist abuse.

eddie wrote:I have to share this!!! HAHAHAHAHAHHA

eddie wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Hahahaha you couldnt  make that shit up didge

eddie wrote:Didge I read this and was a bit concerned.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/who-are-the-dup_uk_593a79c7e4b0b13f2c697d36

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

sassy wrote:


Of course you can't spot the obvious signs, because there aren't.  Like so many commentators you got it wrong, well wrong, and you got it wrong because your are trying to compare apples with oranges.   He doesn't fit your box, or conform to your rules and isn't measured by your standands.   I don't worship him, his ideas are what we need and he isn't to be worshiped, he's one of us, and you will never get that, because you like to be ruled by people who tell you what to do and say.   JC listens and learns from you, that's what makes him different.  

Plus, I can assure you, nun I have never been and if I'd been goosed I'd turn round grab his balls.  I am debating, you are the one getting in a state and throwing out sexist abuse.

Since you are obviously intent on making yourself appear even more ridiculous, then so be it.

Perhaps taking the cowardly option in facilitating the spreading of what to even the most intellectually challenged are filthy and disgusting lies about a poster whose account has been conveniently removed so that he cannot respond is more your forte.

Thorin wrote:

eddie wrote:Didge I read this and was a bit concerned.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/who-are-the-dup_uk_593a79c7e4b0b13f2c697d36

I get where you are coming from and this is the left wing media at play.

Yes the DUP is filled with politicians i would never back on a month of Sundays, but lets take a reality check.

It was the Tories who brought about Gay marriage. This will give you a clue that 10 Mp's have not a rat shits chance of swaying any views religiously in this country, as much as an Islamist. The Liberals had 56 seats and they failed to get the Tories to do many things, other than hold a referendum on how AV.

Eddie, 10 MP's are never going to sway the majority view in parliament.

I get your view and would agree to the fact to never be part of any coalition with such backward religious muppets and join you in condemning. They will have as much influence only in closely contest issues. Which will involve all parties Eddie, Hence 10 MP's will only sway a full backing Tory vote. Not Tory is going to implement any DUP policy

sassy wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Since you are obviously intent on making yourself appear even more ridiculous, then so be it.

Perhaps taking the cowardly option in facilitating the spreading of what to even the most intellectually challenged are filthy and disgusting lies about a poster whose account has been conveniently removed so that he cannot respond is more your forte.

Not my forte at all, I come on and confront you in person, and unlike you, I don't resort to sexist abuse when you can't handle being wrong.

eddie wrote:

Thorin wrote:


I get where you are coming from and this is the left wing media at play.

Yes the DUP is filled with politicians i would never back on a month of Sundays, but lets take a reality check.

It was the Tories who brought about Gay marriage. This will give you a clue that 10 Mp's have not a rat shits chance of swaying any views religiously in this country, as much as an Islamist. The Liberals had 56 seats and they failed to get the Tories to do many things, other than hold a referendum on how AV.

Eddie, 10 MP's are never going to sway the majority view in parliament.

I get your view and would agree to the fact to never be part of any coalition with such backward religious muppets and join you in condemning. They will have as much influence only in closely contest issues. Which will involve all parties Eddie, Hence 10 MP's will only sway a full backing Tory vote. Not Tory is going to implement any DUP policy

I'm sure you're right didge, I hope you're right anyway!
I feel like the world has gone mad lately.

eddie wrote:Didge I read this and was a bit concerned.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/who-are-the-dup_uk_593a79c7e4b0b13f2c697d36

Ruth Davidson distances herself from DUP deal by tweeting a link to her gay pride lecture



Ruth Davidson signalled her opposition to Theresa May’s deal with the DUP in blunt fashion by tweeting a link to the same-sex marriage lecture she gave at Amnesty 's Pride lecture in Belfast last year.

The Scottish Tory leader is engaged to Jen Wilson, an Irish Catholic Christian who campaigned during the Republic's same-sex marriage referendum, is a practising Christian herself and has said she would like to get married in her local church.

More at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/09/ruth-davidson-distances-dup-deal-tweeting-link-gay-pride-lecture/    

Thorin wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:



The Dodger didn't vote  !!!

That puts you into a pretty shaky position next time you want to attack your opposition on here,  Didge..

Does it?

I live in a very safe Tory seat, so what would have been the point in voting?
As far as I can see Labour is not going to  be in power

Exactly what I wanted

Thorin wrote:

eddie wrote:

I'm sure you're right didge, I hope you're right anyway!
I feel like the world has gone mad lately.

You dont need to trust me Eddie

As 10 MP's can never outweigh 640

Your last point though is bang on the money

Raggamuffin wrote:Yes, what's in it for the DUP?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Does it?

I live in a very safe Tory seat, so what would have been the point in voting?
As far as I can see Labour is not going to  be in power

Exactly what I wanted

That's a really bad reason for not voting actually. There have been safe seats that have become not so safe because people voted for other parties.

sassy wrote:

Thorin wrote:


You dont need to trust me Eddie

As 10 MP's can never outweigh 640

Your last point though is bang on the money

No, you definitely don't need to trust him, of course they will have the power, without their vote she will be outvoted on everything she wants to do and they can demand she does things they want in return.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

That's a really bad reason for not voting actually. There have been safe seats that have become not so safe because people voted for other parties.

Why is it bad?

I have no party to vote for

Corbyn has no hope in my area

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Why is it bad?

I have no party to vote for

Corbyn has no hope in my area

If you don't like any of the parties, that's a good reason, but to not vote just because you think your vote won't count is a bad reason.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

If you don't like any of the parties, that's a good reason, but to not vote just because you think your vote won't count is a bad reason.

Where did i say my vote would count?

I again live in a very safe Tory seat

I still do

What purpose would it serve to vote when I do not support Labour or Tory?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Where did i say my vote would count?

I again live in a very safe Tory seat

I still do

What purpose would it serve to vote when I do not support Labour or Tory?

Read my post again. I said "won't count".

That safe Tory seat might not be safe one day - perhaps if all the people who thought like you actually went out and voted.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Read my post again. I said "won't count".

That safe Tory seat might not be safe one day - perhaps if all the people who thought like you actually went out and voted.

#

But maybe you need to read, i do not support any party.

So you want me to vote for who exactly?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:
#

But maybe you need to read, i do not support any party.

So you want me to vote for who exactly?

You said you didn't vote because it's a safe seat, not because you didn't want to vote for any of the parties.