That's all fine, I don't agree with all of it but fair enough. What next? If your answer is to vote Tory, that's bad. If it's to vote someone else, that might be bad if it's in an area where the only winner will be Labour or Conservative, thanks to our wonderful FPTP election. Otherwise, go for it! I'd probably vote Green if I could. Anyway, I'm interested.

edit - wait, did you say you're in Scotland these days. You also get to choose the SNP you lucky blighter.

That would only cover sarcasm, Peter!

Tend to agree with Milko on these points.

Specifically 1 and 3: he was everywhere. I visited a couple of his events. They were well attended and had news and camera teams. Nothing they filmed ever appeared on National TV or radio or in the papers. Odd. It was as though they hadn't happened. Try to say that to anybody and you get, 'Yeah but, even so, surely....' 

I think it's easy to assume that this can't happen, that he must be as bad a leader and communicator as they say. But it does. It's not planned; there's no great conspiracy. There doesn't have to be.

Yes, I agree on point 2. But I suspect he's always had serious doubts about the EU. Him and me differ on this. I loath nationalism and it hits me in the heart that article 50 was signed. But there you go.


 

Exactly, we do have SNP here. I don't agree with their nationalism, but they do actually seem to give a crap about the common person here, which is refreshing. Hence I can vote in a way that counts (to some degree) and which isn't Labour or Tory.

I'm considering Scotland as an emigration possibility if the independence vote looks likely. 
My main trouble is the same as going anywhere though, I haven't really sussed out what I'd do for work yet.

Become a tour guide along the English/Scottish border.

Yeah, it's always a tough one. I was forced to move here several years back as my girlfriend (now wife) got a job at Aberdeen University. Thankfully, the oil industry was still going well, so I managed to get an IT job at an oil services company. This then led to another (sub-contracted) job at GE.

Now, I work more generally for my company - still focusing exclusively on the GE side of things, but covering all of GE's operations in EMEA. It does at least mean that I'm pretty protected from the decline of the O&G industry as it's just a small part of my role, which is good. Unfortunately, the O&G decline does mean that job openings are a lot more sparse than they were 4 1/2 years ago when I moved up.

What's the feeling up your way as to the future of o&g? A few people I've been speaking to are hopeful the deep water stuff will become more viable soon is, but no one seems too positive.

Honestly, it's mixed. The O&G industry has had to do a lot of cost cutting, but there's still money in it, and GE's business is still running OK up here, albeit with a lot of cutbacks, cost-cutting and unfortunately job losses. The problem is that as long as the money in Oil remains low, the viability of a lot of the more difficult sources is limited due to the costs involved. Of course, people more closely involved in these matters will know a lot more than me! I just make sure their IT infrastructure works properly.

The place I'm at laid loads of folk off last year, but a new contract outwith o&g means things are starting to pick up again. Sadly they're now relying on volume of work to make up for the terrible money they're getting from non o&g :(

I live n Blair's old seat, with the current incumbent having somewhat dickish tendencies, so I'l pobably vote green, if they stand, simply because it won't make a jot of difference, but nor will I be saying, yeah, have my wholehearted approval.

Completely forgot about this thread... Looks like everyone got it wrong about Corbyn, or rather we assumed that May would not do her level best to make him a relatively appealing alternative. I think that the Conservatives+UKIP will still win, albeit with a diminished majority.  :-@ Sure hope not.

Diminished majority?
It will likely be an increased majority unfortunately.

A few rumours of government prepping for a hung parliament, but it won't happen. We'd need the 18-24s to turnout, and they won't to anywhere near the levels required for a surge of non-Tory votes.

I'm not optimistic about the outcome. Neither am I surprised that Corbyn came over better when he was actually shown in person. speaking, than all of the UK media, including the supposedly liberal papers portrayed him in the lead-up to campaigning.

I think it's difficult to get the extent of this across. It's the constancy of the narrative and the way that it's infiltrated so comprehensively through all levels of our media that is jaw-dropping. For example, the BBC has prided itself on impartiality over the years and championed this view of it's reporting. So it should - it's a publicly funded service. In practice, over the last 20 years, there's been something of a split, with news journalism taking a distinct position that you might call left of the Tory party but Right of the Labour party, with many of the entertainment areas, from documentary to comedy being rather more left-leaning. This is a broad-brush description and there are many counter-cases. However, over the last 5 years plus, the news journalism has shifted sharply to the right and this has been especially noticeable in reporting of Corbyn and those working with him and for him in the Labour party and beyond.

Techniques include: 1) almost never broadcasting his appearances or directly reporting his words. Instead, a BBC journalist will summarise these and it is this summary that will subsequently be discussed as the news. On one occasion, following the resignation of a Shadow Cabinet member, instead of reporting what the party had to say on the matter, the BBC asked Laura Kuenssberg the BBC political editor 'What will the Labour Leadership be thinking?' She supplied an answer (from her openly right-wing perspective) and this formed the basis of the subsequent 'news' report  2) the ambush. This is done to all politicians from time to time, but it is noticeable that it is done on almost EVERY interview with a Labour politician. Invited to discuss one topic, they will be confronted with, say, an interview given by Corbyn a few years earlier on another topic. This will be stripped of context and chosen to embarrass.  3) focus. The BBC focus has been firmly in line with the Tory Campaign. By focusing on issues that the Tories wish to headline they keep these issues firmly in the public eye. Thus Corbyn's past relationships with the IRA and Hamas are constantly discussed (unlike the numerous Tory party contacts with parties in the conflicts) whereas his policies on, say, re-nationalisation of the railways by not renewing contracts when they fall due (which is a very popular policy) are never discussed. Similarly, discussion will centre on where various Labour luminaries stand on the 'political spectrum', on supposed funding errors in their manifesto, on criticisms of them from the Tory Party and so on - things that are either never mentioned, or mentioned in passing, during reporting of the Tory Party. 

The list is endless and there is so much more that I suspect that many BBC journalists no longer realise that they are doing it - and it's often the simplest of language choices. One I recall was a report that the Tories hoped to win a local election whereas the Labour Party aimed to seize power. Other instances include persuading a one of Corbyn's shadow ministers to resign on air during a political discussion show timed to embarrass him during the Prime Minister's Questions parliamentary session. Then again there was an interview between Kuenssberg and Corbyn which she subsequently edited so that it appears he is answering one question when in fact he is answering a wholly different one that she removed. It gave the impression that he disagreed with the use of fire-arms against terrorists such as in the Paris attacks, and this was broadcast on the BBC's prime news slot at 6 in the evening and included a subsequent commentary from Kuenssberg contrasting this false representation of his views with Theresa May's. Incidentally, in case you think the BBC gives a damn or worries about being found out - the BBC's own trust organisation ruled that this interview broke guidelines on impartiality and accuracy but guess what? It's STILL up there on the BBC website and the BBC STILL use it in news discussions as though it's a model of unvarnished truth.

So I won't be shocked by a Tory majority. I think it's sad that somebody who seems rather incompetent and dishonest, and who's instincts are authoritarian and self-serving will probably be Prime Minister again. I think it's both sad and sickening that Insurance brokers including May's husband are slavering at the opportunity to relieve old people of family homes, just as private health care providers are delighted by the new source of income that her proposals promise. I'm incredibly lucky. I have a decent pension and own my home. I can afford to help my children out with rent and the occasional 'bonus'. I'm also acutely aware that they would struggle without this and I feel very sorry for those who now have to face more of the cold wind of Tory austerity in order to fund that tiny elite who grow ever more distant and out of sight at the end of society where all the wealth is piling up.

Yeah, that was poorly worded. What I meant was: less of a majority than she was originally projected to take.

Also: THIS IS YOUR BIRTHDAY!!!  :-O~~~

He's catching me up.

That is a really good post. Thanks. For what little it's worth!

I voted.

A friend of mine, however, hasn't been able to. He registered to vote and got a confirmation email but no polling card. Went to the polling station and he's not on the list.
Rang the council and his application was put to some department that "on the basis of information he gave in his application" was denied.
He's not got a criminal record and through admin errors has served jury duty twice.
So you can decide who is a murderer or not but still might not be allowed to vote!

I've told him to get in touch with the papers. Especially as they couldn't even give a reason as to why he's not been put on the list.

Nah - I'm just some sort of slack-jawed commie liberal. I think I need to stop thinking about this stuff for a while and be a bit more positive. 

The BBC has always been split which means that the Play for Today dramatists found a home at the same time as the News Service was supporting the status quo and music editors were banning records. I do feel quite sad about the collapse of any sort of strong independent, investigative journalism in the BBC. They really have merged into a kind of Times/Telegraph flavour with a bitter seasoning of Kuenssberg bile. Perhaps I'll stick to re-runs of Cheers.

Incidentally, while I write this I'm watching the election night programme on ITV (we're flipping around) and Gerry Adams is being interviewed. They've totally screwed the video feed so his voice is several seconds out of sync leading to the hilarious effect that his words are still being voiced by an actor.