West Ham Cockney Boys


    Not for viewing by the 'Unionists'

    Share
    avatar
    SemiOldIron
    Academy

    Posts : 975
    Join date : 2011-07-13
    Location : Oxfordshire

    Re: Not for viewing by the 'Unionists'

    Post  SemiOldIron on Fri 19 Sep 2014, 9:25 am

    45% Yes - 55% No - so no immigration and customs at Gretna , then.
    Whatever else they are, the Sweaties are no fools when it comes to money, and this was all about money really. Still, they did have Cameron shitting himself for a bit, so fair play to them for that. Wink
    avatar
    alfiehammer
    Reserves

    Posts : 1927
    Join date : 2012-08-15
    Age : 34
    Location : East Sussex

    Re: Not for viewing by the 'Unionists'

    Post  alfiehammer on Fri 19 Sep 2014, 5:54 pm

    Despite jokes about rebuilding Adrian's wall I find myself quite pleased really
    avatar
    Jiggs
    1st team

    Posts : 5269
    Join date : 2011-02-18
    Age : 59
    Location : Romford or Upton Park

    Re: Not for viewing by the 'Unionists'

    Post  Jiggs on Fri 19 Sep 2014, 10:52 pm

    Hadrian's wall Alfie.   Rolling Eyes


    _________________
    avatar
    alfiehammer
    Reserves

    Posts : 1927
    Join date : 2012-08-15
    Age : 34
    Location : East Sussex

    Re: Not for viewing by the 'Unionists'

    Post  alfiehammer on Sat 20 Sep 2014, 6:21 am

    Jiggs wrote:Hadrian's wall Alfie.   Rolling Eyes


    I will try to pass this off as an autocorrect 
    avatar
    Blakey
    Reserves

    Posts : 1221
    Join date : 2011-02-19
    Location : Norff

    Re: Not for viewing by the 'Unionists'

    Post  Blakey on Sat 20 Sep 2014, 2:41 pm

    alfiehammer wrote: Adrian's wall


    FFS
    avatar
    alfiehammer
    Reserves

    Posts : 1927
    Join date : 2012-08-15
    Age : 34
    Location : East Sussex

    Re: Not for viewing by the 'Unionists'

    Post  alfiehammer on Sat 20 Sep 2014, 8:57 pm

    I'd happily put Adrian's wall further down South and add Yorkshire to jock land 
    avatar
    Jiggs
    1st team

    Posts : 5269
    Join date : 2011-02-18
    Age : 59
    Location : Romford or Upton Park

    Re: Not for viewing by the 'Unionists'

    Post  Jiggs on Sat 20 Sep 2014, 9:17 pm

    muttley


    _________________
    avatar
    daib0
    Academy

    Posts : 983
    Join date : 2012-08-09
    Location : Spain - England

    Re: Not for viewing by the 'Unionists'

    Post  daib0 on Sat 20 Sep 2014, 9:56 pm


    Interesting graph - and amazing truth ...

    [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]



    Apparently, take away the over 65+ 'grumpies', and Independence easily WON !




    avatar
    Jiggs
    1st team

    Posts : 5269
    Join date : 2011-02-18
    Age : 59
    Location : Romford or Upton Park

    Re: Not for viewing by the 'Unionists'

    Post  Jiggs on Sat 20 Sep 2014, 10:10 pm

    Take away the 16/17 year olds and it's back to No.  IMO, They should never have been given the opportunity to vote in the first place.  Just out of nappies ffs!  Wink


    _________________
    avatar
    daib0
    Academy

    Posts : 983
    Join date : 2012-08-09
    Location : Spain - England

    Re: Not for viewing by the 'Unionists'

    Post  daib0 on Sat 20 Sep 2014, 10:15 pm

    Jiggs wrote:Take away the 16/17 year olds and it's back to No.  IMO, They should never have been given the opportunity to vote in the first place.  Just out of nappies ffs!  Wink

    yep, swings and roundabouts
    avatar
    Charlie Ham
    Reserves

    Posts : 1816
    Join date : 2011-07-27
    Location : North West Kent

    Re: Not for viewing by the 'Unionists'

    Post  Charlie Ham on Sun 21 Sep 2014, 7:42 am

    daib0 wrote:
    Jiggs wrote:Take away the 16/17 year olds and it's back to No.  IMO, They should never have been given the opportunity to vote in the first place.  Just out of nappies ffs!  Wink

    yep, swings and roundabouts

    That's why Salmond brought the voting age down.
    Still the shits gone now.
    avatar
    alfiehammer
    Reserves

    Posts : 1927
    Join date : 2012-08-15
    Age : 34
    Location : East Sussex

    Re: Not for viewing by the 'Unionists'

    Post  alfiehammer on Sun 21 Sep 2014, 8:45 am

    I hadn't realised 16 and 17s voted. A bit scary IMHO, can't see them making any sensible decisions based on economy etc, that would be a nationalist vote. Which has been said, is why they were included.

    Wonder if 16/17s will vote in the in/out referendum coming up?
    avatar
    Blakey
    Reserves

    Posts : 1221
    Join date : 2011-02-19
    Location : Norff

    Re: Not for viewing by the 'Unionists'

    Post  Blakey on Sun 21 Sep 2014, 11:46 am

    alfiehammer wrote:I'd happily put Adrian's wall further down South and add Yorkshire to jock land 


    Hmmm, we could give Kent and Sussex back to the French as well 
    avatar
    mottinghammer
    1st Team Bench

    Posts : 2487
    Join date : 2011-02-22
    Age : 61
    Location : Narf Naarfolk 140 miles from UP

    Re: Not for viewing by the 'Unionists'

    Post  mottinghammer on Wed 24 Sep 2014, 3:40 pm

    Cameron is now talking about giving the vote to 16-17 year olds in the rest of the country FFS!!!
    avatar
    JulianDicksLeftKnee
    Reserves

    Posts : 1585
    Join date : 2011-02-18
    Age : 47
    Location : SE London now days

    Re: Not for viewing by the 'Unionists'

    Post  JulianDicksLeftKnee on Wed 24 Sep 2014, 5:00 pm

    Yeah, I mean who wants the future of the UK voting for the future of the UK???
    avatar
    mottinghammer
    1st Team Bench

    Posts : 2487
    Join date : 2011-02-22
    Age : 61
    Location : Narf Naarfolk 140 miles from UP

    Re: Not for viewing by the 'Unionists'

    Post  mottinghammer on Thu 25 Sep 2014, 3:41 pm

    Not when they are still in nappies though! 16-17 is far to young to allow them to do anything sensible, most shouldn't be allowed to vote or breed once they reach 18 especially if they have been on Jeremy Kyle
    avatar
    JulianDicksLeftKnee
    Reserves

    Posts : 1585
    Join date : 2011-02-18
    Age : 47
    Location : SE London now days

    Re: Not for viewing by the 'Unionists'

    Post  JulianDicksLeftKnee on Thu 25 Sep 2014, 3:57 pm

    But that's a generalised sweeping statement as saying women shouldn't vote; or people mentally unstable, dementia sufferers. Surely if you want to eradicate irresponsible people then surely outlaw the people who voted for the previous governing party (whenever, whichever is the case).

    I think at any age, the forming of an opinion is not representative of how people vote. People tend to vote historically, peer group and an irrational grasp of rudimentary "issues" gathered by hearsay, newspapers, media and family/friends. Surely that doesn't qualify any of us to vote? Using your argument.

    Is it age, the issue? I would1 say much the same proportion of 16-17 year olds will have the same misogynistic, misguided, ill-informed version of social and economic issues as the rest of us "responsible adults of age".

    By the way; I don't vote. Mainly for the reasons above-I don't think I am qualified to.
    avatar
    lizzie
    Academy

    Posts : 568
    Join date : 2011-02-18
    Age : 68
    Location : Here

    Re: Not for viewing by the 'Unionists'

    Post  lizzie on Thu 25 Sep 2014, 8:43 pm

    My soon to be 16 years of age grandson is much more sensible than me and his mother put together!


    (And if anyone says "well, that's not too hard" then it'll be fisticuffs at dawn!)
    avatar
    daib0
    Academy

    Posts : 983
    Join date : 2012-08-09
    Location : Spain - England

    Re: Not for viewing by the 'Unionists'

    Post  daib0 on Fri 31 Oct 2014, 4:44 pm

    STV - [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

    STV poll: Two thirds of Scots support second referendum within ten years



    Two thirds of Scots would support another independence referendum within the next ten years, according to a STV News poll. Of those asked by Ipsos Mori, 66% said they would support the vote taking place in the next decade regardless of circumstances.

    Just 31% would oppose a referendum in the next ten years.

    The independence referendum was held on September 18, with No winning by 55% to 45% for Yes. Since then Nicola Sturgeon, who replaces Alex Salmond as First Minister next month, has refused to rule out holding another vote.

    STV News’ poll asked 1026 people whether they would support or oppose another referendum under a series of circumstances.

    It shows 58% of participants would support a vote in the next five years, regardless of the circumstances, with 39% against this.
    avatar
    daib0
    Academy

    Posts : 983
    Join date : 2012-08-09
    Location : Spain - England

    Re: Not for viewing by the 'Unionists'

    Post  daib0 on Sat 01 Nov 2014, 11:43 am

    Labour would be left with just four seats in Scotland if a general election was held tomorrow, according to a poll.

    The Ipsos Mori poll for STV News found that 52% of Scots would vote for the SNP if there was a Westminster election tomorrow.

    The poll puts Labour support at 23%, support for Conservatives at 10%, Liberal Democrats at 6%, the Greens on 6% and others at 3%.

    The findings mean the SNP could secure 54 seats at Westminster, with Labour taking four and the Liberal Democrats one, according to the Electoral Calculus website.

    Ed Miliband would find it almost impossible to win the election in seven months time without a holding onto a subsantial number of Scottish MPs.

    Election expert professor John Curtice said:
    "According to STV the estimated 25% swing from Labour to SNP would leave Labour with just four seats and give the SNP 54. If we were to assume there was a 25% swing everywhere, the Labour figure could in fact be just one, with the SNP on 57. Either way, anything approaching such an outcome could destroy Ed Miliband’s hopes of becoming Prime Minister."

    According to the poll, the only Scottish Labour MPs to survive would be Willie Bain in Glasgow North East, Tom Clarke in Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill, Gordon Brown in Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath and Ian Davidson in Glasgow South West. Shadow leader of the Commons Thomas Docherty, who is a Scottish MP, earlier told BBC Radio 4's World at One programme that the party was in a "dreadful position".

    "We’ve got to be honest about ourselves. We have very low esteem with the electorate. The electorate looks at us and has no idea what our polices are. We have a moribund party in Scotland that seems to think that infighting is more important than campaigning," he said. "And we have a membership that is ageing and inactive. We can return to be the grown-up party that wants to be in government or we can self-indulge like a throwback to the 1980s and watch our party implode, the SNP win again, the Tories win again, and have another referendum."

    The result would radically alter the electoral map in Scotland, as the graphic produced by Britain Elects below shows, turning almost the entire country SNP yellow.


    Scottish Labour leadership candidate Jim Murphy would lose his East Renfrewshire seat, the poll claimed. At the 2010 general election Labour won 42% of the Scottish vote, compared with the SNP's share of 19.9%. The party currently has 40 Scottish seats at Westminster compared with the SNP's six.

    The poll was carried out amid a turbulent period for Scottish Labour, which culminated in the resignation of leader Johann Lamont on Friday. She stepped down with an attack on UK Labour colleagues whom she accused of treating Scotland as a "branch office". A leadership race is now in full swing, with Murphy and Lothian MSPs Neil Findlay and Sarah Boyack vying for the position.

    Speaking before details of the poll emerged, Murphy, the latest candidate to declare, pledged to end the streak of "losing Labour" in Scotland. The shadow international development secretary told BBC News he is confident he can turn around the party's fortunes in Scotland and hold the party's current Westminster seats. He said:
    "I'm not interested in left-wing Labour or right-wing Labour, or old Labour or new Labour. I'm interested in losing Labour. I want to end that period of losing Labour here in Scotland, starting with the UK general election in 2015, where I'm confident we can hold all the seats we currently have but pick up one or two on top, and also win that election in 2016 for the Scottish Parliament."

    Pledging to unite the party, Murphy said:
    "There is so much that has to change about the Labour Party and so much that has to change about our country. I'm determined to bring the Labour Party together, end the period of self-harm that we've had in the Scottish Labour Party and get on and improve our country."

    He denied Ms Lamont's claim that the Scottish party has been treated like a branch office. Murphy said:
    "I don't think the Scottish Labour Party has ever been run in that way. The Scottish Labour Party takes so many of its own decisions but I want to do more of that. I want to devolve and have a more autonomous Scottish Labour Party. I'm confident that I can appeal not just to Scottish Labour voters, not just to trade unions, but to people who are undecided, people who turned away from us in recent elections in Scotland and build that movement for change here in Scotland."

    Former premier Brown ruled himself out of the running in the leadership contest but Murphy plans to meet him to discuss further devolution for the Scottish Parliament. He said MSPs James Kelly and Jenny Marra will act as joint chairs of his leadership team. He will formally launch his campaign this weekend under the slogan Leading Labour, Changing Scotland.

    Findlay, Scottish Labour's health spokesman, announced his intention to stand yesterday. He said he wants to work for progressive change and "create a fairer, more equal and prosperous Scotland. 'I have been overwhelmed by the messages of support from people from within the Labour Party and across the wider Labour movement, all urging me to stand," Findlay said.
    ''It is no secret that I wanted Gordon Brown to run but, since Gordon has ruled himself out, I now believe we need to have a wide-ranging debate about the way forward for the Labour Party, but more importantly the country. If elected Labour leader, I will put the issue of social justice at the heart of everything we do - this is the historic mission of the Scottish Labour Party but it also has to be about what we deliver for the Scottish people in this post-referendum period.''

    Boyack co-chaired the review of Scottish Labour with Murphy in 2011, which was designed to make the Scottish leader head of the entire party in Scotland, including MPs, MSPs, MEPs and officials. She announced her intention to stand on Tuesday. She said:
    ''Scottish Labour is going to be the key party in the run-up to the UK elections. It's absolutely crucial that we get an Ed Miliband government elected. So, that's why I believe in putting my name forward. I can work with colleagues and I can take that debate forward. That is the key thing. I did the review of the Labour Party just a couple of years ago. There's unfinished business there."

    Ipsos Mori surveyed 1,029 adults aged 16 and over by phone between October 22 and 29.

    source: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
    avatar
    Campo
    1st team

    Posts : 5371
    Join date : 2011-03-08
    Location : Stranger in a strange land

    Re: Not for viewing by the 'Unionists'

    Post  Campo on Sat 01 Nov 2014, 8:14 pm

    shithappens It Don't really make much difference , ALL politicians are in it to line thier own pockets as much as they can, vote for anyone, they are all thieving sods
    avatar
    Jiggs
    1st team

    Posts : 5269
    Join date : 2011-02-18
    Age : 59
    Location : Romford or Upton Park

    Re: Not for viewing by the 'Unionists'

    Post  Jiggs on Sun 02 Nov 2014, 1:12 pm

    yeah that


    _________________
    avatar
    Admin
    1st team

    Posts : 5326
    Join date : 2011-02-18
    Age : 27
    Location : Scandyland

    Re: Not for viewing by the 'Unionists'

    Post  Admin on Sun 02 Nov 2014, 2:59 pm

    Its one thing to paying these politicians  for running a country but its another thing getting shafted as the Lab/Lib/Con are doing at the mo and meanwhile handing even more powers over to an unelected bunch of arseholes who will shaft you again just for good measure 



                                                               jawdrop

    Sponsored content

    Re: Not for viewing by the 'Unionists'

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sun 22 Oct 2017, 5:23 am