NationStates Jolt Archive

It looks like there will be a general election in the UK very soon, with polling day set for November the 1st or possibly November 8th.

So for all the British posters, will you be voting, whom will you vote for and what do you think of prime minister Gordon Brown so far (he has been in power since June 28th 2007)?

at the moment i have no idea. although if the poll listed parties i would not vote for and it was multiple choice it would be easy.

I always think it is a shame that people in England can't vote for the SNP.

I always think it is a shame that people in England can't vote for the SNP.

I am of that opinion too.

However, check this party out:

http://http://www.englishindependenceparty.com/

Unlike the SNP, the EIP have a more hard right nationalist stance and do take a nationalist line on the race question and immigraion.

Out of the options listed I went for the British National Party, though not so much out of any concern for the National Question, just more a protest vote against Britain's crime problem, the other parties have no credible solution to the crimwave pandemic our nation suffers from now.

When I didn't see the British Marxist-Leninst Party, I went with the only other sane choice... The Labour Party.

Well, that, or British National Party.

Vote Saxon

Vote Saxon

Not British, but seconded.

:D

Here. Come. The Drums!

Despite Gordon Brown being a much better improvement than Tony Blair as prime minister, both in terms of crisis management, policy, personality and in vision, I still cannot bring myself to vote for the Labour Party.

The Conservatives are in a shambles and their leader, David Cameron, is a spineless and out of touch arrogant opportunist, much like Tony Blair. The fact that Cameron used to be a advertising consultant/PR executive says it all about him and his politics.

The Liberal Democratic Party has a leader no one has heard of (Menzis Campbell) and they don't seem to have any engaging policies.

For me the number one issue at the moment is crime and the big, big problem Britain has with street gangs, gun violence and violent feral youths, most of whom have been out of work their entire lives and make their money via theft and drug dealing.

Britain is in the grip of a massive crime wave and a near break down of what should have been a stable and functioning society.

For this very reason, I am going to vote (if they stand in my locality) for the British National Party and I do hope that their though and harsh policies on crime and criminality will become accepted policy and eventually law.

The BNP are one of the few, if only parties left in Britain that actually have half decent policies and regardless of what some people say about them, they cannot be any worse then what we have now.

The BNP are one of the few, if only parties left in Britain that actually have half decent policies and regardless of what some people say about them, they cannot be any worse then what we have now.

I've read some of their actual policies, like encouraging racial equality by allowing a population-percentage based quota of people from ethnic minorities to work in certain service industries, entirely in the interest of equality of course.

They then list the industries that would be affected as corner shops, taxi services, and resteraunts/takeaways.

Liberal Democrats?...I don't really follow British politics

Liberal Democrats?...I don't really follow British politics

They don't really stand for anything. And they swing between being the 'third force in british politics' to facing near extinction. Their only real function - outside of representing Berwick forever - is to muck up the results in marginal seats. Sort of a parliamentary Ross Perot or Ralph Nader.

Recently they've sort of tried to swing left of the labour party. But I can't imagine that really goes down all that well with many of the tribal liberals that have viewed themselves in the post war era as centrists.

...where's the OMRLP?

...where's the OMRLP?

Well, 1987 called and asked for its joke back.

conservatives or the English Indepence Party

Oh... I probably won't bother to vote. I'll fob off anyone who wants me vote by saying I'm voting in my home constituency. Even though the MP there would be one of the last that Labour would lose in a general election.

*sigh* This I'll be the first General Election that I won't have been disenfranchised by some various means... but I'll just lost the will to vote.

If someone starts a campaign to spoil ballots then I might do that.

I can't believe that people would trade a perceived increase in security for the deportation of ethnic minorities and the criminalisation of homosexuality by voting BNP.

Britain is in the grip of a massive crime wave and a near break down of what should have been a stable and functioning society.

Yeah, unfortunately that isn't actually anywhere near the truth. I haven't been reading many tabloids recently admittedly, but I don't think I've been affected in any way whatsoever by this so called crime wave.

Yeah, unfortunately that isn't actually anywhere near the truth. I haven't been reading many tabloids recently admittedly, but I don't think I've been affected in any way whatsoever by this so called crime wave.Neither have I. No wait... I think I had my bike stolen when I was 10 or something. That was 12 years ago...

I'm just hope they wait till after the 24th Nov for the election or else I ain't franchised.

And also that we don't end up with any BNP MPs

Where are the Northern Irish party options? It will be interesting to see how SDLP will do now that they have the blessing from Fianna Fail.

For me I think the only choice is to vote for the labour party, I would vote for the green party but they would never get in. the labour party is the party is the one that has brought Britain stability and better public services, with the only major bad thing I can think of is the iraqi and afghanistani war. I feel sorry for Brown if he loses and becomes shortest lived PM in history.

Yeah, unfortunately that isn't actually anywhere near the truth. I haven't been reading many tabloids recently admittedly, but I don't think I've been affected in any way whatsoever by this so called crime wave.

Indeed, a quick check of the official statistics from the violent crime survey shows that since 1997 overall crime has fallen 32%, including a 55% fall in burglaries and a 52% fall in vehicle thefts. The idea that Britain is somehow 'overrun' with crime is an illusion - in fact if things are out of control just now, in 1995 Britain must have been a Mad Max-esque anarchic wasteland because crime was far higher then. The idea that Britain is awash with sociopathic ten year olds armed with guns mugging the elderly is fear mongering perpetrated by tabloid media.

Out of the options listed I went for the British National Party, though not so much out of any concern for the National Question, just more a protest vote against Britain's crime problem, the other parties have no credible solution to the crimwave pandemic our nation suffers from now.
Crimewave pandemic?

Using my immense psychic powers...*burns entrails, reads tea leaves, checks crystal ball*...I predict you read the Daily Mail.

http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/Page54.asp
This is a chart of BCS figures from 1981 - present. As you can see, crime peaked at around 19 million incidents per year in 1995, and stood at around 16 million a year in 1997 when Labour came to power. In 2005-6, incidents per year stood at about 11 million. In other words, you stand about a 1 in 5 chance of being the victim of crime in this country, and that's without taking into account that 3.5 million of those incidents (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/hosb1506.pdf) are people using illegal drugs (page 8 of that document).

Personally, it doesn't matter who I vote for. I live in a fairly safe Labour seat. I might vote Green if they put a candidate forward, because they did quite well in the council elections earlier this year.

I don't know who I'll be voting for. Our current mp, Quentin Davis, left the Tories and joined Labour so I have no idea if he'll still be our MP after the election since the consituency is a Tory stronghold. I mean it is the birthplace of Maggie Thatcher and all.. It should be interesting...

Well, I can either vote in a conservative stronghold or a lib dem stronghold, based on where I'm registered, so it may matter little what I do. I am more inclined to the lib dems, but they really need to be more forceful in their political convictions and not promise things too unrealistic.

I'm British, but living abroad. If I were able to vote... hmmm...

I'd probably go Lib-Dem. Or, if I were in a constituency where the Lib-Dems are sure to win, I might vote Green. (Stupid first past the post system...) Or perhaps a genuinely socialist party, if there's one that's sane and not anti-EU; the UK doesn't seem to have any good left-wing party.

I'm too young to vote, but if I could then I'd vote for Labour in the national scheme of things.
Brown's govt has been good in the crises that we've been hit with, and in his adress at the party conference, apart from him going on for longer than it could have been, I thought it was a good speech that the Tories have no hope in hell of winning an election.
Cameron is a Tory carbon copy of Blair- a prat who hasn't a clue.
Menzies Campbell (it's f***ing Menis!)- didn't he atend the opening of Stone Henge?
BNP= scum.
Green Party- *bursts out laughing at pathetic sods.
The other national parties- jokers and narrow minded.
Respect Party- shoot the cat!

Mmmm. What an enigma. I can't bring myself to vote Labour in a national election (I did in a council election as she was the only candidate that lived in my town, let alone my ward) or the Conservatives. I could vote Lib Dem, but my LD MP, Nick Clegg, is the archetype 'liberal' closet Conservtive, although out the main three, it's the closest I could go for.

The rest I would have to decide based on who else decides to stand in Sheffield Hallam.

I always think it is a shame that people in England can't vote for the SNP.
I give a big 'meh' to the West Lothian Question (even though it is currently costing me £3000 per year). If streched, I could go for an devolved English parliament if we abolished the Lords to pay for the new legislature. I suppose having been born in Scotland to half English/Scottish parents and now living in Englandmeans I can't really get fired up about English/Scottish nationalism.

I am of that opinion too.

However, check this party out:

http://http://www.englishindependenceparty.com/

Unlike the SNP, the EIP have a more hard right nationalist stance and do take a nationalist line on the race question and immigraion.

Out of the options listed I went for the British National Party, though not so much out of any concern for the National Question, just more a protest vote against Britain's crime problem, the other parties have no credible solution to the crimwave pandemic our nation suffers from now.

For this very reason, I am going to vote (if they stand in my locality) for the British National Party and I do hope that their though and harsh policies on crime and criminality will become accepted policy and eventually law.

The BNP are one of the few, if only parties left in Britain that actually have half decent policies and regardless of what some people say about them, they cannot be any worse then what we have now.
Please, no. I mean, voting BNP because of a crime wave that exists is one thing, but voting BNP because of one that doesn't exist is pretty low. Luckily for the majority of the population who don't believe everything the "gay gene found abortion hope" Daily Hate, the "there's no smoke without fire" [on the holocaust] Mark Collett and the "show the ethnics the door" Nick griffin have to say, the chances of the BNP ever getting into government is close to zero.

Well, 1987 called and asked for its joke back.

Unofrtunately, we don't have a time machine to return you there.

I poked the Green button, but I'm not actually going to vote for them... I would only do that if they had an icecube in hells chance of winning... (or greater) but they really don't.

It terrifies me that people could ever choose the bnp... I love the way they're so honest with everyone though "Look! A crime wave! We'll fix it for you! and destroy everything you hold dear, but shhhh Oh you love us! You know you do!"

They are all a pile of shit, but if I had to I would vote Labour.

Liberal Democrats just don't have enough experience, have no clear policies or aims, and have too many dodgy politicians.

David Cameron is a populist pillock completely up his own arse.

Obviously parties like the respect party, green party, BNP and UKIP are shit, naturally.

Labour seem, at least, competent enough to not fuck up as much as the other parties.

Ah.. three issues.

1) I'm 17, a year too young to vote.
2) Not a British citizen.
3) I live in the states.

But if I could, I'd vote Labour.

Voting in a British election isn't as simple as choosing a party and putting an X by their name on the ballot paper. You ought to consider where you live, what the local candidates stand for (as the major parties are all broad churches) and what kind of overall balance of power is desirable.

Overall, I fear Labour (particularly for their illiberal measures such as ID cards, detention orders, etc.) and would like to see their ability to legislate removed or at least significantly restricted. This leaves the following best case scenarios:

1) a Conservative government (not something I wish to see),
2) a hung Parliament with the Liberals supporting one of the big two in coalition, or
3) a slender Labour majority where the rebel elements thwart the more contentious legislation.

Personally, I find Labour marginally preferable to the Tories, but would like to see the Lib Dems in a position where they can advance their positions on electoral reform and civil liberties (especially ID cards), so option 2 holds the most appeal. I'd particularly like to see Nick Clegg in a prominent role; I saw him speak at the Liberty (http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/) AGM and was very impressed.

Now, with respect to local politics, I live in a Labour stronghold in England. If I were registered in a marginal seat where the Lib Dems were in a strong position, then I would vote LD and hope to see the Labour MP dislodged. If the Conservatives are the main challengers then, well, I'd take the risk of them gaining the seat and vote LD or Green. However, in my situation, my vote is almost worthless, so I may as well vote for whomever or spoil the ballot (a tempting though futile protest at the shabby state of British democracy).

Except... my MP is Jeremy Corbyn and he, to my mind, is pretty much the most admirable politician in Parliament. Do I really want to vote against him? I'm torn.

In short, I'm undecided between the Lib Dems and Greens. Or possibly Labour. Or no one at all.

Sigh.

Oh, and the BNP are despicable. 'Nuff said.

UKIP, obviously. Its one of two parties a real British patriot would vote for.

UKIP, obviously. Its one of two parties a real British patriot would vote for.

Isn't UKIP just another way of spelling BNP?... Ok, they're not really as bad, but they're still insane.
And patriotism is about more than isolating ourselves from the world, global integration is good, trust me on this (unless you want to deport anyone who isn't pure british (bye normans, bye vikings, bye saxons, bye romans, bye celts... hello squirrels!)).

Labour.

i used to swing more to the lib dems, but since Kennedy got booted they've lost touch with the public (or, at least, me)

plus i've always liked Brown.

Labour.

i used to swing more to the lib dems, but since Kennedy got booted they've lost touch with the public (or, at least, me)

plus i've always liked Brown.

JFK was lib dem??
No... I know he wasn't... I just wanted another post :P
(and also to mention for those who don't know that Kennedy is Charles Kennedy, who rocks in his own political way)

JFK was lib dem??
No... I know he wasn't... I just wanted another post :P
(and also to mention for those who don't know that Kennedy is Charles Kennedy, who rocks in his own political way)

yes, JFK came back from the grave as a ginger, scottish alcoholic leader of the Liberal Democrat party *nods* :p

i have wondered if that would ever confuse an american person... just like how (Michael) Howard and (John) Howard of Australian politics makes me have to think twice sometimes >.>

yes, JFK came back from the grave as a ginger, scottish alcoholic leader of the Liberal Democrat party *nods* :p

i have wondered if that would ever confuse an american person... just like how (Michael) Howard and (John) Howard of Australian politics makes me have to think twice sometimes >.>I'm telling you that Boris Yeltsin and Charles Kenedy are the same person. Do you ever seem them in the same place at the same time? No. Are they both alcoholic politicians? Yes. I rest my case.

I'm telling you that Boris Yeltsin and Charles Kenedy are the same person. Do you ever seem them in the same place at the same time? No. Are they both alcoholic politicians? Yes. I rest my case.

lol! conclusive. :p

i think, by that logic, G.W. Bush and Jade Goody are the same person, clearly. they're both thick as two shits and they both got to where they are today by some unknown means. plus you never see them in the same place... spooky. ;)

Oh my god...
Such horrors... I never realised before...

Anyone want a jaffa cake?

I really don't care anymore; a choice between centrism with a dash of Labour, or centrism with a dash of conservatism. Whoopdefuckingdoo!

I'll probably vote Tory on blindly tribal grounds. That or vote UKIP.

Incidentally, as we're all BNP bashing, read this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7020848.stm). I cannot express how happy the downfall of that odious woman makes me; quite why she is considered a Tory "big gun" when Cameron essentially ignores Clarke, Widdecombe, Davis and Howard is beyond me. She has no electoral mandate, no great eloquence, and no particular personal appeal.

Isn't UKIP just another way of spelling BNP?... Ok, they're not really as bad, but they're still insane.
And patriotism is about more than isolating ourselves from the world, global integration is good, trust me on this (unless you want to deport anyone who isn't pure british (bye normans, bye vikings, bye saxons, bye romans, bye celts... hello squirrels!)).

Nope. UKIP are what the Tory party ought to be.

As for global integration being a beneficient force; I've yet to see the merits of this in a post-colonial paradigm.

Nope. UKIP are what the Tory party ought to be.

Fair enough, I'll take your word for that.

As for global integration being a beneficient force; I've yet to see the merits of this in a post-colonial paradigm.

Closed communities = inbreeding = smaller gene pool = genetic disorders = bad
Integration = more diverse gene pool = still some genetic disorders (but not so many) = not as bad.
And also other things that have been covered in other threads that I'm really too tired to bother rambling about.

Fair enough, I'll take your word for that.



Closed communities = inbreeding = smaller gene pool = genetic disorders = bad
Integration = more diverse gene pool = still some genetic disorders (but not so many) = not as bad.
And also other things that have been covered in other threads that I'm really too tired to bother rambling about.

I'm not convinced that principle works when considering some 67 million people.

hopefully the election will be after the 7th so I can vote and ultimately go to the pub to talk drunk-onomics with whoever is drunk enough

I'm voting Greens not because I want them to win more just have some say in matters to see how they go

Nope. UKIP are what the Tory party ought to be.
Yep. A marginal party with a very low percentage of the overall vote.

Labour Party - Nope, not in a million years now. Not just for their illiberal policies, using the NHS as political football and other thing. But as a traditionally socialist party it annoys me that their education policies have left my girlfriend and I hugely in debt. And we're only in our early 20s. I can't see me ever voting for them.

Conservative Party - As much as I dislike them, I would vote for them before Labour. But the Cons near me are an obnoxious lot.

Liberal Democratic Party - Nope. Not so much the party as the local MP. I didn't vote for him last time (I spoiled my ballot), and I won't vote for him next time on account of his support for homeopaty, and presumably other anti-science.

Plaid Cymru/Party of Wales - N/A. They don't stand in Manchester.

Scottish National Party - Ditto

Green Party - If they put forward a candidate, they are the only ones I'd consider voting for.

UK Independence Party - No, if I wanted xenophobia and irrationality I'd rather vote Conservative.

The Respect Party - Don't think they stand round here.

British National Party - No. Just, no.



If someone starts a campaign to spoil ballots then I might do that.

Start a dirty protest. Soil your ballots! :p

UKIP, obviously. Its one of two parties a real British patriot would vote for.

Illustrating that patriotism is based on fear and hatred of the "other." Rather then love and mutual respect of the fellow citizen.

I'm very disturbed that there at least 4 people out there who would vote BNP. Proof positive that Raging Fucktard Syndrome is alive and well.

EDIT: as for British 'patriots', I can't think of a more ridiculous and entirely artificial thing. Patriotism for a pretty forced union of countries with fairly tenuous links is just bloody silly.

I would vote Conservative, if I was a British citizen. David Cameron seems like a good candidate for the office of Prime Minister. He is of the centre-right, but not as opposed to further European integration as other Tories.

I would vote Conservative, if I was a British citizen. David Cameron seems like a good candidate for the office of Prime Minister. He is of the centre-right, but not as opposed to further European integration as other Tories.

Vote Tory for any number of reasons, but not for Cameron. Blameron is not the Tory leader anyway; anybody who watched the applause following Hague's speech as opposed to Blameron's will discern whom the party actually want as leader.

I'm not convinced that principle works when considering some 67 million people.

It can work on any scale, admittedly it works more when dealing with a society of 10 people than it does on 67 million, but it still works... also, at the time of the last census (6 years ago) there were nearly 59M people in the UK, and projections suggest that a population of 67M won't be reached for at least 30 years from now.

I'm very disturbed that there at least 4 people out there who would vote BNP. Proof positive that Raging Fucktard Syndrome is alive and well.

EDIT: as for British 'patriots', I can't think of a more ridiculous and entirely artificial thing. Patriotism for a pretty forced union of countries with fairly tenuous links is just bloody silly.

In the defense of (some) BNP supporters, they aren't always Raging Fucktards (tm) but just don't realise what the BNP actually stand for and only pick up on immigration or their other, slightly more sane, ideals which appeal to many average people. Those who understand what the BNP stand for usually stop supporting them or are shockingly racist arseholes.

at the moment i have no idea. although if the poll listed parties i would not vote for and it was multiple choice it would be easy.

UKIP, BNP...

In the defense of (some) BNP supporters, they aren't always Raging Fucktards (tm) but just don't realise what the BNP actually stand for and only pick up on immigration or their other, slightly more sane, ideals which appeal to many average people. Those who understand what the BNP stand for usually stop supporting them or are shockingly racist arseholes.

I'd say you'd have to be blind and deaf not to realise that the BNP is severely lacking in the sanity department. They're never mentioned without reference to their sky-high levels of racism.

Vote Tory for any number of reasons, but not for Cameron. Blameron is not the Tory leader anyway; anybody who watched the applause following Hague's speech as opposed to Blameron's will discern whom the party actually want as leader.

I think Cameron is a great reason to vote Conservative. Seigneur Cameron knows that todays battles can’t be fought with the means of 1983, and so, he modernized his party, and moved it toward the center of politics.
In many ways he reminds me of the French President. Nicholas Sarkozy knew that he had to reinvent himself and the UMP to defeat the French Socialists. The difference between Sarkozy and Cameron is that Sarkozy had to move his party toward the right.

Unless they lower the voting age, I won't be.

But let's pretend they do for a moment.

I'll vote Conservative if Boris stands (He's trying to run off to London). Otherwise, I'll probably vote Lib Dem, unless one of the local candidates for a different has a really good position.

However, I won't be.

Unless they lower the voting age, I won't be.

But let's pretend they do for a moment.

I'll vote Conservative if Boris stands (He's trying to run off to London). Otherwise, I'll probably vote Lib Dem, unless one of the local candidates for a different has a really good position.

However, I won't be.

Boris ran for rector of my university (Edinburgh) a couple of years back. He stood on a platform of "if I get elected, I'll do absolutely nothing" and ended up getting trounced by some Green MSP, much to the annoyance of the English public-school types in the union.

Boris ran for rector of my university (Edinburgh) a couple of years back. He stood on a platform of "if I get elected, I'll do absolutely nothing" and ended up getting trounced by some Green MSP, much to the annoyance of the English public-school types in the union.
Excellent.

I think Cameron is a great reason to vote Conservative. Seigneur Cameron knows that todays battles can’t be fought with the means of 1983, and so, he modernized his party, and moved it toward the center of politics.
In many ways he reminds me of the French President. Nicholas Sarkozy knew that he had to reinvent himself and the UMP to defeat the French Socialists. The difference between Sarkozy and Cameron is that Sarkozy had to move his party toward the right.

So Mr. Cameron has assumed the correct approach in seeking office for the sake of office?

There is little point in a consevative government that will follow centrist policies; it is merely the same administration of we have suffered under since 1997 with a blue tie replacing a red one.

Incidentally, Thatcher was elected in 1979; she was only re-elected in 1983 due to the Falklands.

Boris ran for rector of my university (Edinburgh) a couple of years back. He stood on a platform of "if I get elected, I'll do absolutely nothing" and ended up getting trounced by some Green MSP, much to the annoyance of the English public-school types in the union.

VOTE BORIS!!!! The man has principles, charisma, and crucially, he isn't red Ken.

I thought Boris went to Oxford anyway? Why they fuck would he bother with Edinburgh?:confused:

So Mr. Cameron has assumed the correct approach in seeking office for the sake of office?

There is little point in a consevative government that will follow centrist policies; it is merely the same administration of we have suffered under since 1997 with a blue tie replacing a red one.

I would prefer a government of the center-right rather than a government of the centre-left. I think that most people on the right would agree with me on that.


Incidentally, Thatcher was elected in 1979; she was only re-elected in 1983 due to the Falklands.

And because Labour had splitt into two parties, one social democratic/liberal and a hard-left version (with the likes of Tony Benn).
And she was re-elected again in 1987. I beleive she would have won a fourth time as well.

I really don't care anymore <snip>
I find myself in the same boat. I honestly can't remember ever before feeling quite so apathetic about domestic politics. Actually, perhaps apathetic is the wrong word. Cynical would be more accurate. Yeah, that'll do. Now that I think about it a little more, I think I'm actually more cynical about the whole thing than I was when I first voted.


There is little point in a consevative government that will follow centrist policies; it is merely the same administration of we have suffered under since 1997 with a blue tie replacing a red one
...and this is a large chunk of the problem.

The two main parties have both positioned themselves in the 'centre'. By doing so, they both hope to pick up a slice of the floating vote, whilst banking on being able to retain enough votes from their traditional support base (that I've noticed TBC referring to as the 'tribal' vote on a couple of occasions) to carry them into power.

Honestly, I'm tired of it all. It seems to me that, even within my relatively short voting lifetime, the 'big 2' have abandoned all pretence of actually holding opposed ideologies and are now focussed almost solely on just disagreeing with the other side of the House. Have any of you watched any broadcasts on BBC Parliament? It's like a bloody schoolyard at break-time. Petty point-scoring and verbal sparring with no actual debate from either of the front benches. Pathetic.

The country needs a shake-up. If things continue to degenerate the way that they've been doing in the last couple of decades then it's only a matter of time before the electorate just stop voting altogether.

Whew, feels good to have gotten that off my chest.

I'm still undecided, but I'll probably vote LibDem this time around. Perhaps enough other people will do the same to at least force a change of attitudes amongst the rest.

Closed communities = inbreeding = smaller gene pool = genetic disorders = bad
Integration = more diverse gene pool = still some genetic disorders (but not so many) = not as bad.
And also other things that have been covered in other threads that I'm really too tired to bother rambling about.

Inbreeding was maybe an issue back when communities consisted of a couple of hundred people, but that's not the case anymore.

The UK has, what, 60 or so million people? Genetic inbreeding isn't really an issue in a population group of that size.

We can talk about the good and bad aspects of immigration in the UK, but a larger gene pool isn't a relevant issue.

Unless they lower the voting age, I won't be.

But let's pretend they do for a moment.

I'll vote Conservative if Boris stands (He's trying to run off to London). Otherwise, I'll probably vote Lib Dem, unless one of the local candidates for a different has a really good position.

However, I won't be.
So you'd vote Conservative so long as they had a racist (implicit support for the Spectator's columnist "Taki"; the "watermelon smiles" remark; condemning the Macpherson inquiry following Stephen Lawrence's murder...especially the possibility that "the law might be changed to allow prosecution for racist language and behaviour"), anti-gay (supported Section 28) liar (sacked from the Times for falsifying quotes) standing for them?

Odd.

The UK has, what, 60 or so million people? Genetic inbreeding isn't really an issue in a population group of that size.
I can tell you've never been to Somerset.

So you'd vote Conservative so long as they had a racist (implicit support for the Spectator's columnist "Taki"; the "watermelon smiles" remark; condemning the Macpherson inquiry following Stephen Lawrence's murder...especially the possibility that "the law might be changed to allow prosecution for racist language and behaviour"), anti-gay (supported Section 28) liar (sacked from the Times for falsifying quotes) standing for them?

Odd.


You missed off the "Piccaninnies" remark mate.:)

Boris, as I'm sure I've said many a time, is perhaps my second favourite politician, after Mr. Hague.

I can tell you've never been to Somerset.

Or Suffolk....every time I've been to, or dealt with anything from, Suffolk, it has invariably had a bad result.

The English Democrats.

I want to see a federalised Britain, or - even better - an independent England, Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland. The United Kingdom is an anachronism which must be swept away; the era of the nationality is beginning and we must set in motion the radical change which will see the demise of the nation-state in favour of the framework for a left-revolutionary society based on communitarianism.

VOTE BORIS!!!! The man has principles, charisma, and crucially, he isn’t red Ken.
I refer you to IV’s points:

...a racist (implicit support for the Spectator’s columnist “Taki”; the “watermelon smiles” remark; condemning the Macpherson inquiry following Stephen Lawrence’s murder...especially the possibility that “the law might be changed to allow prosecution for racist language and behaviour”), anti-gay (supported Section 28) liar (sacked from the Times for falsifying quotes)

Principles he has all right, damn shoddy principles.

Yes folks, Boris is funny on HIGNFY, but, remember, he’s a Tory. Poll tax, Section 28, privatisation, inherent racism/homophobia/sexism/old boys club, etc.

An elitist twat with a goofy grin is still very much an elitist twat.

I thought Boris went to Oxford anyway? Why they fuck would he bother with Edinburgh?:confused:
Because it’s a privileged, highly thought of Uni, stuffed to the rafters with upper-class toffs?

I refer you to IV’s points:



Principles he has all right, damn shoddy principles.

Yes folks, Boris is funny on HIGNFY, but, remember, he’s a Tory. Poll tax, Section 28, privatisation, inherent racism/homophobia/sexism/old boys club, etc.

An elitist twat with a goofy grin is still very much an elitist twat.


Because it’s a privileged, highly thought of Uni, stuffed to the rafters with upper-class toffs?


It is? Bugger me, you learn something new everyday? I genuinely hadn't heard of it...:confused:

Ho hum.

As for Boris, I'd dispute every charge levelled at him; firstly, how many MP's don't follow the party line on issues such as Poll Tax?


Secondly, as anachronistic as "picaninnies" and "watermelon smiles" might appear (personally I find them refreshingly honest, if slightly misjudged), they might simply reflect a somewhat bumbling character, rather than the calculating racist you seem to infer from them.

It is? Bugger me, you learn something new everyday? I genuinely hadn’t heard of it...:confused:
Seriously?

You genuinely haven’t even heard of Edinburgh Uni; one of the UK’s ancient and most well thought of universities?

I find that somewhat hard to believe.

As for Boris, I’d dispute every charge levelled at him; firstly, how many MP’s don’t follow the party line on issues such as Poll Tax?
All those who never go anywhere but the back-benches.

Unlike Mr. Johnson.

Secondly, as anachronistic as “picaninnies” and “watermelon smiles” might appear (personally I find them refreshingly honest, if slightly misjudged), they might simply reflect a somewhat bumbling character, rather than the calculating racist you seem to infer from them.
What, exactly, is “refreshingly honest” about referring to black people as “picaninnies” and “watermelon smiles”?

Ignoring your block-headed racism for a moment, would it not be rather foolish to elect a man who who makes Bernard Manning seem positively eloquent mayor of the most culturally diverse city in the UK?

Inbreeding was maybe an issue back when communities consisted of a couple of hundred people, but that's not the case anymore.

The UK has, what, 60 or so million people? Genetic inbreeding isn't really an issue in a population group of that size.

We can talk about the good and bad aspects of immigration in the UK, but a larger gene pool isn't a relevant issue.

You start with expelling immigrants, then those of French, German, non-UK descent, then all people who don't fall under "white - British", the all who are of the wrong sexuality, of the wrong religion, of the wrong county, of the wrong city, of the wrong side of the river, of the wrong family.

You see why genetic inbreeding can quickly become an issue?

Yes this is an extreme example.
The people who advocate expulsion of immigrants are extreme people.
I left out the thought of expelling those with the wrong colour hair or eyes because I thought "no... that's ridiculous" but I just thought of Germany under the Nazis.

You put extreme people in power, you get extreme results.

The English Democrats.

I want to see a federalised Britain, or - even better - an independent England, Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland. The United Kingdom is an anachronism which must be swept away; the era of the nationality is beginning and we must set in motion the radical change which will see the demise of the nation-state in favour of the framework for a left-revolutionary society based on communitarianism.

Independance = good... this is true. But do you mean independance or isolation?

And is communitarianism just communism with "itarian" shoved in the middle? That's not me shouting you down, I actually am just curious, I've never heard that word used before...

And is communitarianism just communism with “itarian” shoved in the middle? That’s not me shouting you down, I actually am just curious, I’ve never heard that word used before...
In a word, no.

Very generally, it’s an opposition to individualism, in its modern form championed by John Rawls in A Theory of Justice and Robert Nozick in Anarchy, State & Utopia, with an emphasis on the interests (and very possibly rights) of the community over the individual.

See here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communitarianism) for an overview, and here (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/communitarianism/) for a more in-depth, philosophical study.

Seriously?

You genuinely haven’t even heard of Edinburgh Uni; one of the UK’s ancient and most well thought of universities?

I find that somewhat hard to believe.


All those who never go anywhere but the back-benches.

Unlike Mr. Johnson.


What, exactly, is “refreshingly honest” about referring to black people as “picaninnies” and “watermelon smiles”?

Ignoring your block-headed racism for a moment, would it not be rather foolish to elect a man who who makes Bernard Manning seem positively eloquent mayor of the most culturally diverse city in the UK?

I can honestly say I hadn't....:(

As for Boris, its quite patently obvious the man is no racist; Dane Snooty and his pals take pains to distance themselves from anything remotely open to allegations of racism, yet they clasp Boris close to their bosom.

And yes, he'd be an excellent Mayor. Not only is he actually the best credible candidate for the job, but he'd also wind up ethnic community leaders and the commision for racial equality no end.:D

In a word, no.

Very generally, it’s an opposition to individualism, in its modern form championed by John Rawls in A Theory of Justice and Robert Nozick in Anarchy, State & Utopia, with an emphasis on the interests (and very possibly rights) of the community over the individual.

See here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communitarianism) for an overview, and here (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/communitarianism/) for a more in-depth, philosophical study.

Thank you, I'm going to go and have a good read up now.
(And thanks for giving me a quick description so I have a basic idea if I end up being too lazy to actually read through the links, too many people just say "here, read through this 1000 page document *creepy grin*")

I can honestly say I hadn’t....:(
You have heard of Edinburgh, right? :p

And yes, he’d be an excellent Mayor. Not only is he actually the best credible candidate for the job, but he’d also wind up ethnic community leaders and the commision for racial equality no end.:D
Again, what good is this in any way? Annoying community leaders is good because...? Calling black people “picaninnies” is refreshing because...?

Anyhoo, what, apart from guffaw, would Johnson actually do?

Thank you, I’m going to go and have a good read up now.
No probs.

Incidentally, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (http://plato.stanford.edu/), the second link I pointed you to, is probably the best resource for philosophical and political theory on the web, IMO.

Ctrl+D, y’all.

Because [Edinburgh Uni is] a privileged, highly thought of Uni, stuffed to the rafters with upper-class toffs?

Urm. I dunno if Boris went to Edinburgh for a second degree, but he damn well did go to Oxford. A friend of my Dad's was there at the same time and knew him well.

That said, yes, Edinburgh Uni is indeed full of Yas. I remember living in a student flat there when I was small and Dad worked as a caretaker for the uni - you could hear them coming back from the pubs, it went like this:

"Hahaha! Ya! HAHAHAH! Oh ya!" And variations on that theme to be honest.

Anyhoo, what, apart from guffaw, would Johnson actually do?

Er. Fuck all, but at least he wouldn't fucking suck up to homophobic anti-women Muslim cleric bastards. That really was bloody sickening.

Independance = good... this is true. But do you mean independance or isolation?

And is communitarianism just communism with "itarian" shoved in the middle?

I mean independance. :) I'm not an isolationist, if anything I think that nations need to work together properly, but I also think that they should retain their independance. I know, it's somewhat counter-intuitive, but in my head it makes sense.

Chumblywumbly has it on the head with regards to communitarianism. :) I suppose you could call me an Anarcho-Communitarianist-Nationalist :p

We managed to offload most of the upper class twits when Prince William went to St Andrews and they all started going there. Also, you don't really see any around the school of business because they all do History of Art degrees.

@Atopiana - was that Pollock Halls? All the yas live there in first year because its catered, and God forbid they have to make their own food...

I think that Boris made the mistake of assuming that the Rector post up here is just some pointless figurehead post as it is at other unis, whereas here we actually want someone to represent the student body. Also, I don't believe Boris was ever at Edinburgh, I think he was just passing through when he saw the job ad.

Oh, he was 'employed' there, OK. Makes more sense.

As for the halls, no, it was Sciennes (I think - I still can't spell it!). Near the Meadows, and just down from South Clark Street.

Oh, he was 'employed' there, OK. Makes more sense.

As for the halls, no, it was Sciennes (I think - I still can't spell it!). Near the Meadows, and just down from South Clark Street.

I currently live in Sciennes halls, and you couldn't find a bigger bunch of commoners ever, but perhaps that's because it's now 90% Edinburgh College of Art students here now.

Sorry for posting off topic, but the issue in my opinion is too trivial to warrant a new thread.
I just wanted to know what "Blitish" means. If anything.
I saw it a long time ago in The Benny Hill Show (he fixed the letter R in a "BUY BRITISH" sign, it was translated as "buy trash"). Also in a Monty Python episode, but there it was due to all R and L letters being switched. ("whore freet in Blitish Channer" :))
I looked for its meaning over the internet and even consulted a dictionary(.com) but all I found was japanese/chinese misspronounciations of "British". Does it simply mean "fake British" or something like that?
Thanks in advance.

Sorry for posting off topic, but the issue in my opinion is too trivial to warrant a new thread.
I just wanted to know what "Blitish" means. If anything.
I saw it long time ago in a Benny Hill Show (he fixed the letter R in a "BUY BRITISH" sign, it was translated as "buy trash"). Also in a Monty Python episode, but there it was due to all R and L letters being switched. ("whore freet in Blitish Channer" :))
I looked for its meaning over the internet and even consulted a dictionary(.com) but all I found was japanese/chinese misspronounciations of "British". Does it simply mean "fake British" or something like that?
Thanks in advance.

Yes, it's a poor joke on pronunciation.

I am not voting at all - as much as I condone participatory elections, my vote is an utter waste of my time given the majority in my area is over 10, 000 and unlikely to ever change. I'd have to organise a postal vote as well - never going to happen.

If I was asked to cast the crucial vote, one that would determine the next election then I guess I'd have to go with Mr. Brown and his Labour Gang as I cannot take anyone else remotely seriously.

Despite Gordon Brown being a much better improvement than Tony Blair as prime minister, both in terms of crisis management, policy, personality and in vision, I still cannot bring myself to vote for the Labour Party.

The Conservatives are in a shambles and their leader, David Cameron, is a spineless and out of touch arrogant opportunist, much like Tony Blair. The fact that Cameron used to be a advertising consultant/PR executive says it all about him and his politics.

The Liberal Democratic Party has a leader no one has heard of (Menzis Campbell) and they don't seem to have any engaging policies.

For me the number one issue at the moment is crime and the big, big problem Britain has with street gangs, gun violence and violent feral youths, most of whom have been out of work their entire lives and make their money via theft and drug dealing.

Britain is in the grip of a massive crime wave and a near break down of what should have been a stable and functioning society.

For this very reason, I am going to vote (if they stand in my locality) for the British National Party and I do hope that their though and harsh policies on crime and criminality will become accepted policy and eventually law.

The BNP are one of the few, if only parties left in Britain that actually have half decent policies and regardless of what some people say about them, they cannot be any worse then what we have now.

You know I was with you almost all of the way until I read:

'Britain is in the grip of a massive crime wave and a near break down of what should have been a stable and functioning society'

And I have to say really? I haven't noticed that at all. Can you provide figures that show this is true or is this based on whatever 'media' sources you use.

Does Britain have some violent people? Yeah sure, but are things really any worse than say 20 years ago, or perhaps 50 years ago? I don't think so, and I have not seen anything to make me think so.

What about you lot, is Britain more crime riddled or more violent than is was in the 80's, 70's, 60' or 50's?

What about you lot, is Britain more crime riddled or more violent than is was in the 80's, 70's, 60' or 50's?
I can't comment from experience on the 50's or 60's, and I was too young to notice in the 70's, but I do not believe that it is currently any worse than it was in the 80's. The figures for overall crime (http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/Page54.asp) would seem to bear this out although the same source also shows that 'violent (http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/Page66.asp)' crime is rising. However, since it also seems to have 2 separate figures for violent crimes in 1999/2000 I'm not sure how credible it is.

My own interpretation of the reported 'massive crime wave' is that it is a construct of the media. Whereas in years gone by we relied on newspapers and a daily news bulletin from either the BBC or a part of the ITN we today get news 24 hours a day across multiple TV channels. There is a market for news stories that plays upon the population's seemingly endless appetite for misery, and so media coverage of crime has stepped up to meet that demand. I don't believe that there's significantly more crime, just that we hear significantly more about it.

It's actually very difficult to get accurate data for crime figures (or indeed almost any other type of statistic) that relates to Britain as a whole, partially because the vast majority of Government surveys only deal with England and Wales. I had assumed until today, somewhat naively it would seem, that this was a consequence of our devolution but I am informed by people a lot older and wiser than I that it's always been that way.

I am forced to conclude that when the Government speaks of 'Britain' it really means 'England and Wales'. No wonder so many of my fellow Scots get so irate about the whole thing.

Ohh I forgot to answer the OP.
Labour for me. Whether old or new.

A vote for Labour is a vote for totalitarian taxation nuts!
A vote for the Conservatives is a vote for insanity!
A vote for UKIP is a vote for racist nuts!
A vote for... well, actually, that's all who's standing in my constituency, aside from one independent candidate who wants to put a slide in the field nearby.

And, as per usual, I shall completely annihilate my ballot paper in a demonstration of my utter disgust for this sham of a democracy we live in (remember to wave to your Queen!).

Crime rises and falls in connection with the gap between rich and poor; the wider the gap the higher the crime rate.

'Anti-Crime' policies attack the symptom, and do not prevent the illness.

Er. Fuck all, but at least he wouldn’t fucking suck up to homophobic anti-women Muslim cleric bastards. That really was bloody sickening.
Livingstone did that?

Well, he’s not the only one. Back at Westminster, all the parties were falling over themselves to champion the MCB and other self-imposed ‘leaders of the community’.

I don't understand why you left the fourth largest party in the Commons off the poll, but included three with no seats, one with one seat, and three parties smaller than it.

I currently live in Sciennes halls, and you couldn't find a bigger bunch of commoners ever, but perhaps that's because it's now 90% Edinburgh College of Art students here now.

And vets - like, all the vets. Again, not too oriented towards the public school crowd as I hear its actually quite hard work. Although this is turning into a bit of a derailment.

If I felt that the Lib Dems were organised towards one set of policies I'd probably give them a vote but they seem too divided and incoherent. I would instead be voting for Labour as they remain the only party actually capable of running the country despite their many shortcomings. And I like Gordon Brown.

I gonna vote conesrvative becuase i have kept a close eye on teh partyconferences and what they propose to do and the conservatives amke teh most sense. The labour ideas which gorden brown have put foward wont exactly go through because of the fact that tony blair have already stopped those sort of laws being passed, when he was in power and this affected the uk constituion. and any way did we even vote gordon brown in any way.

I would like u to tell me an example of that plz

and wasnt the conservatives motto ladt time vote blair get brown?

No, but then we didn't vote Tony Blair in either - we voted in Labour. Its up to the party to choose a leader, not the electorate.

The answer to your question is you should have wathced the conference you fool, and secondly what is a democracy.


Listen to what the people want and that is one thing he has not done main example 75% of the britsh public want a refurendum on the EU constitiution, it may be called a treaty but it is 98% the same stuff contained as the proposed constitution , which all forgien ministers are saying but teh ass gordon brown wants to sign our freedom away, atleast cameron says he will let us have a vote.

I gonna vote conesrvative becuase i have kept a close eye on teh partyconferences and what they propose to do and the conservatives amke teh most sense. The labour ideas which gorden brown have put foward wont exactly go through because of the fact that tony blair have already stopped those sort of laws being passed, when he was in power and this affected the uk constituion. and any way did we even vote gordon brown in any way.

*points* look look a Tory!:eek:

i find out waht party has the best to offer if bnp sounded good i would vote for them but in the end it waht u think at teh end of the day who ahs the better polices

maybe a referendum will be a gd idea, and i agree with raising the inheritance tax threshold but other than that the tories dont have a clue i mean they support boris jonson ffs, i would hate it if he ran the best city in the world, london, that has benefited so much from livingstone, i mean im fine with a nother mayor but so long as it isnt that retarded pece of racist (or just very foolish) asshole

Labour, the only sane choice.

Listen to what the people want and that is one thing he has not done main example 75% of the britsh public want a refurendum on the EU constitiution, it may be called a treaty but it is 98% the same stuff contained as the proposed constitution , which all forgien ministers are saying but teh ass gordon brown wants to sign our freedom away, atleast cameron says he will let us have a vote.

I don't recall being personally consulted on any other decisions made by parliament either. Probably because I elected a MP to do that for me. The government is not required to give you a referendum on any issue. I'd also be very amused to find out how many people in the UK actually understand what the EU constitution is proposing before they decided that they oppose it, or if they just think "Well, the Sun says its bad so it must be."

The really sickening thing is this:

Neue Arbeits Partai, aka the War Criminal Party, with a cabinet made up of war criminals, is a better bet for running the country than HM Opposition, who are a bunch of spineless lily-livered anti-Conservative arseholes and the fucking Liberal Dim-o-craps who couldn't organise a pissup in a brewery since they got rid of Chucky Bum... arrrgh!!

I have read the proposed constutution and i have seen it, and yes i ahve seen the sun campgain , but here is an example for u have elected an mp ok , say for example the whole of your area wanted teh death penalty back, he would have to do what the majority of the area wanted, but he wont becasuse he thinks it is morally wrong it proves politicans only do what htey want when they are in power not waht the people want.

very true Manfigurut and especially cosmopoles, even though it is a democracy the average joe doesnt no as much as an MP does,

i find out waht party has the best to offer if bnp sounded good i would vote for them but in the end it waht u think at teh end of the day who ahs the better polices
"Best policies" and "BNP" are mutially exclusive terms.

In reply to the 'if everyone wants the death penalty' thread i agree with hte MP and i u dont like it then dont vote for him
if u want MP that for deaht penalty then vote for him
that what MPs are for

politicans only do what htey want when they are in power not waht the people want.

NO! Shokk! TEH HORRAR! You bloody fool, that's what they're fucking for! The whole idea of representative democracy is that the politicians do what they think is right on our behalf, we have devolved our decision making to them so that they govern (or not) while we make the country work!

Arrgh! :headbang: Sodding AS politics students could tell you that!

the average joe doesnt no as much as an MP does

I think you'll find there are huge numbers of people who are far more qualified to be, say, the minister for defence than the current minister. MPs are not experts, that's the civil service's job! They think, and guide, and the Parties choose what to do (in theory) while the Cabinet and PM make final decisions subject to the 'checks and balances' of the Houses of Parliament...

"Best policies" and "BNP" are mutially exclusive terms.

Well, their Swiss-style armed citizens militia is quite amusing...

At least our joke party (SNP) which now thinks it runs the country are a lot less dangerous than a bunch of blackshirts ( BNP).
And i'll probably vote Labour again despite them pandering to the rich. I wish we had real choice though instead of these middle of the road labour libs and tories, all trying to copy each others policies.

I actually think that the SNP are pretty damn decent. At least in Scotland you have a form of PR as opposed to us poor fuckers in England with no parliament of our own and a FPTP system for Westminster that returns broken parliaments time after time after time.

Oh, and you do have a choice - SSP, for example - we've got Dark Blue (Tory), Mid Blue (Neue Arbeitspartai), and Light Blue (LibDim). What joy!

EDIT:

The BNP are not blackshirts - fascists - they're nazis. There is a significant difference and I feel that it is a very great shame that the potentially radical ideology of fascism has been essentially destroyed by its association with nazism. I speak here as an Anarchist!

I have read the proposed constutution and i have seen it, and yes i ahve seen the sun campgain ,

Really? You read a 160,000 word document renowned for such complex legal terminology that some specialists even find it difficult to understand? Where were you when you read it, on the back of your flying pig?

but here is an example for u have elected an mp ok , say for example the whole of your area wanted teh death penalty back, he would have to do what the majority of the area wanted, but he wont becasuse he thinks it is morally wrong it proves politicans only do what htey want when they are in power not waht the people want.

That depends on wether the death penalty was an issue at the time of the election. If it was then the MP was presumably elected on issues considered more important to the electorate regardless of his views on the death penalty in which case his constituents will have to live with their original decision.. If it was not an issue at the time of the election then the MP will have to make his own choice between opposing the majority of his constituents and risking losing out at the next election or agreeing with his consituents. Either way its his decision.

Really? You read a 160,000 word document renowned for such complex legal terminology that some specialists even find it difficult to understand? Where were you when you read it, on the back of your flying pig?

No, I believe him. Why, it was only yesterday that the moon went blue (thus: :eek: - the man in the moon was most shocked) and a tree near me showered the street with million-pound cheques.

atopiana i realise that MPs arent all knowing but they do know more than the average joe about politics, its their job for christs sake, i didnt say they no more than civil servants and im sure a general knows more than teh secretary for defence, Ed Balls, but thats isnt what i said dont put words in my mouth i said average jo, not civil servants!!!

atopiana i realise that MPs arent all knowing but they do know more than the average joe about politics, its their job for christs sake, i didnt say they no more than civil servants and im sure a general knows more than teh secretary for defence, Ed Balls, but thats isnt what i said dont put words in my mouth i said average jo, not civil servants!!!

I'm talking about the average joe as well. I mentioned civil servants because, in reality, it's these people who run things from behind the scenes. If you grab the average person:

From this article: (http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/communicate/blog/teacher/0000008365.shtml) "According to The Observer, the average British person will spend 12 years of his/her life on the sofa, spends around £800 [about US $1475] a year on gambling, has 14 very close friends, will live to be 75 (if they’re men) or 79 (if they’re women), will eat 35,000 biscuits during his/her lifetime, watches TV for two-and-a-half hours a day and is online for just a little bit longer. We are 160 cm (women) or 178 cm (men) tall, have an IQ of 100, spend 45 hours a year on hold on the phone, and we are each kept awake by our partners’ annoying behaviour for 51 minutes every night (that means we miss a total of 38 nights’ sleep a year). A final statistic: the average British person spends £1,134 (about US $ 2,000) every year on holidays."

So, we have someone who has an IQ of 100. That's the national average IQ for Britain, and I guaran-fucking-tee you that this average person will do a better job of things in any position you care to name. The lawyers and jobsworths who litter political parties care only for their own positions and retaining power; the job they do is a secondary concern.

Fun fact: Your average MP will get a 'briefing' which is a single side of A4 in bullet points.
Fun fact 2: 'Politics' is not the same as 'being the figurehead for Work and Pensions'. Politics is the game of getting power and staying there.

[QUOTE=Atopiana;13099449]I actually think that the SNP are pretty damn decent. At least in Scotland you have a form of PR as opposed to us poor fuckers in England with no parliament of our own and a FPTP system for Westminster that returns broken parliaments time after time after time.

Oh, and you do have a choice - SSP, for example - we've got Dark Blue (Tory), Mid Blue (Neue Arbeitspartai), and Light Blue (LibDim). What joy!


I argree on the voting system the only problem is you will almost always have a coalition or minority Government as we have now because no one will work with the SNP.

I have read the proposed constutution and i have seen it, and yes i ahve seen the sun campgain , but here is an example for u have elected an mp ok , say for example the whole of your area wanted teh death penalty back, he would have to do what the majority of the area wanted, but he wont becasuse he thinks it is morally wrong it proves politicans only do what htey want when they are in power not waht the people want.

People vote for those politicians who share the most of their views (most of the time.) If you want to death penalty back, vote for someone who foams at the mouth.
And the death penalty IS morally wrong, there's no degree of opinion there, to take someones life, for whatever crime, is a step into the dark ages. Especially when there is such a thing as false imprisonment, which is bad enough.
False execution? "Sorry mate, we thought you were guilty... but don't worry, we'll bring you back as a zombie, eh?"

I argree on the voting system the only problem is you will almost always have a coalition or minority Government as we have now because no one will work with the SNP.

Doesn't matter. It works for most other countries, why shouldn't it work for you?

If you want to death penalty back, vote for someone who foams at the mouth.

Like Maggie Thatcher or John "There is no BSE" Gummer...

Atopiana i disagree with lots of what u ahve 2 say, especially that hte average joe can run the country better than an MP Im not a dreamer and i realise that not all MPs work for the good of the country solely but that doesnt mean they would fuck the country over just to remain in power we're not all American u no

I gonna vote conesrvative becuase i have kept a close eye on teh partyconferences and what they propose to do and the conservatives amke teh most sense. The labour ideas which gorden brown have put foward wont exactly go through because of the fact that tony blair have already stopped those sort of laws being passed, when he was in power and this affected the uk constituion. and any way did we even vote gordon brown in any way.

The Conservative's proposals make roughly the same amount of sense as your post.

look ok hte govermetn was better under maggie thatcher the unions where runnign the coutry infaltion was up she stopped all that, and when brown came to power infaltion goes up taxes go, jesues christ where does labour get there money from the unions. I wish she was still incharge we need a strong leader not a fat man who speaks otu of his ass and not upholds the manifestio they where elected in for.

Teriyakene I agree with ur view on the deaht penalty that is exactly my view, i think it encourages peeople to kill people in the long term if the society we live in kill people for doing something wrong, if its legal to murder someone, then our children who grow up in this country are more likely to commit crime look at america they have death penalty adn they have like 13,000 gun homicides per year

Imjin u want 2 talk about how labour has ran the economy?

Only the longest period of sustained economic growth since the industrial revolution ffs

and u want 2 talk bout inflation? that is rely low it never goes above 3% (except for a while about a yr ago)

Atlest labour dont put interest rates up to 15%!!!!!!!!

Maybe that y inflation was low

Atopiana i disagree with lots of what u ahve 2 say, especially that hte average joe can run the country better than an MP Im not a dreamer and i realise that not all MPs work for the good of the country solely but that doesnt mean they would fuck the country over just to remain in power we're not all American u no

Disagree all you like, you're still wrong and naive. Politicians would kill their mothers if it kept them in power. Those very few who have scruples, and care, and are honest, and they do exist, either never reach high office or do so (comprimising their values on the way) and then usually resign. e.g. Robin Cook. You will also note that the majority of politicians, once they cannot retain power and have careers that are ended, they start speaking the truth.

Imjin is a lost cause. Ho hum.

ok answer em this how come the housing market has gone basicallymad and people find it harder to get ont eh property ladder now than when labour came to power. I aint gonna agrue any more becasue i cant be fucked why dotn we have a dictatorship or let the queen rule for fuck sake

The housing markets bad now, maybe you want 2 go back to when margaret thatcher was in power when property prices were also through the roof it was on andre marrs history of britain that a shoe box apartment in 1989 cost a lot of money (dont no exactly but enough to make it outstanding) cause it was near harrods. Maybe u might also want 2 remember the late 80s and early 90s when the housing market crashed and people with homes suddenly found themselves rather screwed

ok answer em this how come the housing market has gone basicallymad and people find it harder to get ont eh property ladder now than when labour came to power. I aint gonna agrue any more becasue i cant be fucked why dotn we have a dictatorship or let the queen rule for fuck sake

the housing market has gone "basicallymad" largely due to huge extra demand from an expanding buy-to-let sector, which itself rose from economic prosperity and low(ish) interest rates encouraging borrowing. that, and dirty stinking banks encouraging people to borrow beyond their means (consumer debt higher than ever...)

if you want to blame this solely on Labour, go ahead. its just pretty stupid.


i had a friend who was round my place one time shortly before an election. when he said he planned to vote UKIP, i asked why. his best reason was because "of the immigrants and assylum seekers" and because "the high street looked better before Labour came to power"
:rolleyes:
it was after that that i gave up on the idea of pursuing a career in politics. people are too stupid.



lets not also forget that the only time in a century the national housing market fell (well, collapsed) was, of course, during Thatcher's evil reign.

ye atopiana u think an average joe can run the country so well

then plz accept this saying from an average joe

UP YOURS !!!

I have to admit major was a tosser but thathcer made the country as it is today she freed the markets which lead to britains econmomic growth to being the 4 richest antion in the world.


If u ahte here u where peopbaly in a union they runinee the country, they whre raicher than teh middle class and living like kings, where normal people struggled to make a living.

4th i think u mean 5th

dont get all ur info from dre

Disagree all you like, you're still wrong and naive. Politicians would kill their mothers if it kept them in power. Those very few who have scruples, and care, and are honest, and they do exist, either never reach high office or do so (comprimising their values on the way) and then usually resign. e.g. Robin Cook. You will also note that the majority of politicians, once they cannot retain power and have careers that are ended, they start speaking the truth.

Politicians are humans too, any "average joe" who came to power would soon become corrupted by said power, the problem with government is that those who wish to govern are not suited to it, simply because they aim for power, even with the most honourable of intentions, and when you aim for power you are more open to be corrupted by it. Even those who have power thrust upon them are corrupted by it. The fact is that in order to have any kind of leadership we have to trust in the belief that the politicians ideals will come before, or at least along with, their own desire for power.


ok answer em this how come the housing market has gone basicallymad and people find it harder to get ont eh property ladder now than when labour came to power. I aint gonna agrue any more becasue i cant be fucked why dotn we have a dictatorship or let the queen rule for fuck sake

Monarchy and dictatorship are synonyms (pretty much) and to let the queen rule would be foolish... I'm sure she's a very intelligent woman and has a lot of important and humanitarian views, but she is a figurehead, not a ruler.


I have to admit major was a tosser but thathcer made the country as it is today she freed the markets which lead to britains econmomic growth to being the 4 richest antion in teh world.

I quite liked John Major... and I'm pretty sure teh richest antion will always be someone other than Britain, simply because we aren't an imperial antion anymore, let America hang on to the reigns of imperialism while they have it, and then let it die (imperialism that is) and let our antion be ruled by the Formicidae as a whole, as it should always have been!! (then we can have many queens ^^)


EDITINGTON:
If u ahte here u where peopbaly in a union they runinee the country, they whre raicher than teh middle class and living like kings, where normal people struggled to make a living.

I'm starting to feel really bad for mocking your spelling now... there's no fun or honour in mocking the retarded...

look ok hte govermetn was better under maggie thatcher the unions where runnign the coutry infaltion was up she stopped all that, and when brown came to power infaltion goes up taxes go, jesues christ where does labour get there money from the unions. I wish she was still incharge we need a strong leader not a fat man who speaks otu of his ass and not upholds the manifestio they where elected in for.

What are you talking about? Inflation is stable and has been for years now.

I have to admit major was a tosser but thathcer made the country as it is today she freed the markets which lead to britains econmomic growth to being the 4 richest antion in the world.


If u ahte here u where peopbaly in a union they runinee the country, they whre raicher than teh middle class and living like kings, where normal people struggled to make a living.

Christ thats difficult to read

I aint gonna agrue any more becasue i will get destroyed by logic and facts as opposed to random far-right invective

Fixed.

ye atopiana u think an average joe can run the country so well

then plz accept this saying from an average joe

UP YOURS !!!

I don't think they'd do spectacularly well, merely that the average person could run it better than pillocks like that Opus Dei woman whose name I have surgically forgotten. You, I see, have accepted defeat in this argument. Thank you and goodnight.

Politicians are humans too, any "average joe" who came to power would soon become corrupted by said power

Never said otherwise. :p You're talking to an anarchist remember, all government is bad, power corrupts, and people should not be allowed to have power over others.

The fact is that in order to have any kind of leadership we have to trust in the belief that the politicians ideals will come before, or at least along with, their own desire for power.

Trust in belief? Haha, oh dear... I'd rather sneer and mock, it's more productive and makes one feel better. The last politician whose ideals came before his desire for power was Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera, or possibly Gabrielle D'Annunzio.

Never said otherwise. :p You're talking to an anarchist remember, all government is bad, power corrupts, and people should not be allowed to have power over others.

Fair enough, I accept that, but surely total anarchy is just as bad as government? I like to think that I'm pretty [the word that goes here has vanished from my mind so I shall say Spluurgh][it might be open actually... but I don't think so] in my political thinking, but the idea of an anarchist state scares me, and I'm not afraid to admit that, I don't like the idea of someone bigger than me tearing my head off just because they can and there's nothing telling them otherwise...

Trust in belief? Haha, oh dear... I'd rather sneer and mock, it's more productive and makes one feel better. The last politician whose ideals came before his desire for power was Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera, or possibly Gabrielle D'Annunzio.

Yeah... I don't know why I said that... I put my faith [can't think of a better word for what I mean here] in proof and facts before blind belief but it seemed to make sense when I was posting it...

Me sayin up yours was not giving up but merely a result of u being an absolute idiot which i now can understand y, u just admitting ur an anarchist jesus christ plz tell me u were jking?:sniper:

Me sayin up yours was not giving up but merely a result of u being an absolute idiot which i now can understand y, u just admitting ur an anarchist jesus christ plz tell me u were jking?:sniper:

Imjin is an absolute idiot... Atopiana does at least have a point, and I suppose in terms of absolute reality he's right, although I don't believe the average person could run this country myself... he is at least right that they couldn't do a much worse job... and yeah, the anarchism is kinda worrying, but a good deal of sense about it (I just think that actually having a government has a lot more sense, no matter how shit they are)

...the idea of an anarchist state scares me

Oxymoron. You can't have an anarchist state, because a state operates along the lines of coercion and the abuse of power structures set up to control people.

Anarchist society on the other hand, whilst a hopelessly utopian dream in many respects (not that that invalidates anarchism! more on that in a bit), is generally agreed to operate on the principle of mutualism; of co-operation rather than coercion. Many things that people do now are in fact anarchistic, from local amateur football clubs to allotmenteers sharing and helping each other. When you behave in a pleasant and decent manner towards your fellow humans, you are behaving in an anarchist manner.

Now, whilst utopias are by definition impossible to attain, this does not mean that attempting to get there is worthless or bad. Rather, by attempting to improve people's quality of life and to make the world a pleasant place to exist in we are acting not only morally but sensibly; it does not benefit me to kick you to death for example.

The main problem people have with the notion of anarchism is the mistaken idea that anything goes - incorrect. Freedom to act comes hand in hand with responsibility; freedom is not license. Kropotkin's Mutual Aid is worth a read, as is Alexander Berkman's ABC of Anarchism. Anything by Colin Ward is good too.

Anarchists in general are not the bomb-throwers of old; propaganda of the deed was tried and it failed (although it did produce some interesting figures such as Ravachol, and claimed high profile victims such as McKinley). True, many anarchists (and 'anarchists') still throw bricks and wear all black, but that is not the point of Anarchism as philosophy. In reality, the majority of these people are posers, and - in the case of the Black Block - often agents provocateurs.

Ideally speaking, no-one in an Anarchist society would kick your head in for fun - unless they were a psychopath, in which case they're just as likely to do that now, in this capitalist society with its police force and so on. :) Mutualism, you see? You help me, I help you, I paint your house and you weed my garden; the village/town/district/commune/whatever clubs together and runs a railway... hell, people run small railways (eg. the Derwent Valley Light Railway) in their spare time anyway; how anarchistic is that?

Of course, in the current climate, an anarchist society - or anything even remotely approaching one - is a long way off. This is not an insurmountable obstacle, and one that can be dealt with simply through a long process of rational discussion with people - propaganda by word, in effect. Rather than impose the 'paradise' with a revolutionary vanguard, paradise is created by people choosing to behave in a different manner. :) That's the theory, at any rate! :p

Final point: States, that is to say governments, inflict more suffering daily on more people than any anarchist bomb-thrower could ever hope to achieve... I believe the toll in Iraq is now over 2.5 million dead Iraqis between 1990-2007? Or look at Burma, or the people that the PRC executes, or the homosexuals that Iran hangs, or the several hundred people that die in police custody in Britain every year... and so on.

Must not be a Libertarian Party up there in the cold, socialist North. And Atopiana is absolutely right. There's nothing at all scary about an anarchist; in fact, just about everything looks better. There are only mutually beneficial contracts, State-sanctioned coercion ceases to exist, and armed hoods are no longer allowed to extort our money at the point of a gun. The only thing I'll miss is the line at the Post Office.

The only thing to fear about anarchism is the transition, which is admittedly an extremely tricky issue. If you have any ideas, I'd love to hear them--but in the interim, I vote for smaller government. Best to make the State as livable as possible while we're stuck beneath its horny fingers.

If you're interested in reading/hearing more about market anarchist philosophy, look up Stefan Molyneux and FreeDomain radio.

http://www.freedomainradio.com/

You mean rampant laissez faire capitalist arse-wankery? No, thank fuck. Social democracy works, insofar as any of the current bag of crap can be said to work, and Libertarianism can take a running jump...

atopiana i agree with u o nthat social democracy works but u said u were anaarchist?

Labour are bastards and Conservatives are idiots and bastards.

EDIT: This sounded a bit flamy, so I will clarify - I don't think I can vote because I none of the parties seem to have anything to offer.

y r labour bastards

i put it 2 u

and U SIR ARE A BASTARD!!!!

atopiana i agree with u o nthat social democracy works but u said u were anaarchist?

Just because I adhere to a particular political philosophy does not prevent me from acknowledging things that are true, e.g. that social democracy works, for a given value of 'success', in the context of 20th-21st Century global capitalism.

Dogmatism, you see, is never useful (except when dealing with the heretic, the traitor, and the xenos. Obviously).

As for why Labour are bastards, well, how's this for a bag of bastardy:

Illegal and immoral war in Iraq which has made war criminals out of our superb armed forces, not to mention stained every last one of us with the blood of people who should not have died as and when they did. That do you?

OK OK OK I agree the war in iraq was wrong but dont blame labour blame tony blair, it was him who had gangbang sex with george bush not the labour party, can u imagine john prescott in a gimp suit?


but i do agree with u iraq and afghanistan war is wrong (although u didnt say afghanistan was wrong)

but other than that anything else?

Oxymoron. You can't have an anarchist state, because a state operates along the lines of coercion and the abuse of power structures set up to control people.

...You know what I meant... *poke*


[snipped for brevity of post]

Very well, I take back my reservations, but the transition to anarchy would be... well... anarchy, that much I find hard to doubt.


Must not be a Libertarian Party up there in the cold, socialist North.

Nope, thank... someone... and it's really not as socialist as it should be....


but other than that anything else?

How about the state of education in our noble little country?


can u imagine john prescott in a gimp suit?

...why did you have to say that? Why?

y r labour bastards

i put it 2 u

and U SIR ARE A BASTARD!!!!

And now we see no small part of the reason (well, actually, I just dislike Labour voters) I vote Tory.

Would it have been excessive of us to have expected either correct spelling or, for that matter, composition of sentence, from Mr. Mediocre above?

Incidentally, I can only applaud Mr. Osborne, Mr. Cameron and Mr. Hague for their performance thus far in Brighton. Having long been a critic of Blameron, and his proxy Osborne, find myself mightily impressed by the proposed amendment to inheritance tax, stamp duty and the taxation of non-domicile workers. Granted, I would have had them propose significant reductions to income tax; indeed, the average household pays 50% more in tax now as opposed to a decade previously, and had more stringent controls proposed for immigration, however, given the centrism of the day, I cannot complain.

OK OK OK I agree the war in iraq was wrong but dont blame labour blame tony blair, it was him who had gangbang sex with george bush not the labour party, can u imagine john prescott in a gimp suit?


but i do agree with u iraq and afghanistan war is wrong (although u didnt say afghanistan was wrong)

but other than that anything else?

Yes;

-irrational hunting ban.
-claiming that any debate upon immigration was "racist", then conceding they had not the slightest notion how many migrants are currently in the UK.
-100 tax increases, for negligable increases in the quality of public services.
-a plethora of measures empowering the state to ride roughshod over civil liberties.
-playing political football with education to the extent that qualifications have been devalued by an artificial "improvement" in results, whilst purging it of academia on favour of deference, genuflection and spoon feeding.
-a decade of rampant, unashamed centrism and demagoguery.
-a de-humanising of public services into soulless, beaurocratic nightmares.
-a disregard for juvenile delinquency until such a point at which we have a a generation of inveterate, feckless petty criminals of no use to society.
-a lessening of prison sentences, all made for financial reasons, which releases incorrigable murderers, rapists and criminals upon the streets repeatedly.

Shall I continue oh ye who seems unable to write?

-irrational hunting ban.

Stick a fox on a horse and let him chase you with all of his friends and a pack of hunting dogs and tell me it's humane...

I agree with the rest of your points though.

Stick a fox on a horse and let him chase you with all of his friends and a pack of hunting dogs and tell me it's humane...

I agree with the rest of your points though.

All environmental and economic reason suggested that the hunting ban was misguided, and it is precisely that. It is nothing short of a government pandering to sensibilties of the Metropolitan Guardian reader set, and imposing their sensibilities upon a tradition that, whilst also being of great environmental, economic and social value, also posed no danger to the state.

All environmental and economic reason suggested that the hunting ban was misguided, and it is precisely that. It is nothing short of a government pandering to sensibilties of the Metropolitan Guardian reader set, and imposing their sensibilities upon a tradition that, whilst also being of great environmental, economic and social value, also posed no danger to the state.

How has the environment or economy suffered from a lack of slaughtering animals?
How does hunting and killing have any social value?
And I've never read the guardian in my life...

How has the environment or economy suffered from a lack of slaughtering animals?
How does hunting and killing have any social value?
And I've never read the guardian in my life...

Environment; fox hunting was an excellent form of pest control. It was cheap and efficient.

Economy; Having never left the city, neither you nor any of the other thoroughly urbanised anti-hunting fruitloops have the slightest notion of the role played by hunting in rural economies. What with it being a cherished, long established and popular tradition, it was the basis of the profitability of a good many estates and farms. The removal of this source of income not only removes tax revenue from the government, but also necessitates the conversion of land previously devoted to the hunt into farmland, or housing. Both of these erode the social, aesthetic and environmental fabric of the countryside; not that that is of any concern to you though.:rolleyes:

Socially, hunting remains a popular pastime. You may not enjoy it, may never have experianced it, or may simply oppose it because you feel for the poor fwuffy amnimals, however, you have no more right to imposed this sensibility upon the nation at large than hunters have the right, if they felt chavs deserved to be hunted, to hunt the depraved bastards down.

Environment; fox hunting was an excellent form of pest control. It was cheap and efficient.

So... is there now a fox epidemic?


Economy; Having never left the city, neither you nor any of the other thoroughly urbanised anti-hunting fruitloops have the slightest notion of the role played by hunting in rural economies. What with it being a cherished, long established and popular tradition, it was the basis of the profitability of a good many estates and farms. The removal of this source of income not only removes tax revenue from the government, but also necessitates the conversion of land previously devoted to the hunt into farmland, or housing. Both of these erode the social, aesthetic and environmental fabric of the countryside; not that that is of any concern to you though.:rolleyes:

I admit to living in a city, but I am not the type to confuse a cow with a box, I spend most of my time that I can spare in the country, on the moors, around the peaks if I am able to take to time of work to spend time in them. I am not an urbanised fruitloop. I understand them being dangerous to livestock, I appreciate that at times it is important to protect said livestock, I don't see why it needs to be a sport revelling in cruelty.


Socially, hunting remains a popular pastime. You may not enjoy it, may never have experianced it, or may simply oppose it because you feel for the poor fwuffy amnimals, however, you have no more right to imposed this sensibility upon the nation at large than hunters have the right, if they felt chavs deserved to be hunted, to hunt the depraved bastards down.

Yes I feel for the "poor fwuffy amnimals" not because I believe they are defenseless, not because I believe they should be cherished and dressed up in floppy costumes but because to spend a day chasing after an individual, or small group, on horseback with dogs with the intention of ripping the individual to shreds disgusts me. Like I said before, if the fox was on horseback with hounds baying for your blood it would be immensely unpleasant for you. I know that fwuffy amnimals do not perceive the world as we do and that nature itself is often cruel and unforgiving, but you would not have a fellow human torn apart by dogs would you? Why should any other creature be treated this way?

There are always other ways, ok, maybe they wouldn't earn you so much money, maybe they wouldn't be as fun, but they would make you more worthy of the title of human.

...Maybe it would've been better if we'd somehow given foxes a way to comprehend human thinking and machinery, and given them guns to fight back with... It could've been fun for both sides?

And no, as much as I would love to see them decimated, chavs shouldn't be hunted either... they might not actually be human, but they are sentient beasts.

I have no more sympathy for fox hunting than I do for badger baiting or bull fighting.

So... is there now a fox epidemic?




I admit to living in a city, but I am not the type to confuse a cow with a box, I spend most of my time that I can spare in the country, on the moors, around the peaks if I am able to take to time of work to spend time in them. I am not an urbanised fruitloop. I understand them being dangerous to livestock, I appreciate that at times it is important to protect said livestock, I don't see why it needs to be a sport revelling in cruelty.




Yes I feel for the "poor fwuffy amnimals" not because I believe they are defenseless, not because I believe they should be cherished and dressed up in floppy costumes but because to spend a day chasing after an individual, or small group, on horseback with dogs with the intention of ripping the individual to shreds disgusts me. Like I said before, if the fox was on horseback with hounds baying for your blood it would be immensely unpleasant for you. I know that fwuffy amnimals do not perceive the world as we do and that nature itself is often cruel and unforgiving, but you would not have a fellow human torn apart by dogs would you? Why should any other creature be treated this way?

There are always other ways, ok, maybe they wouldn't earn you so much money, maybe they wouldn't be as fun, but they would make you more worthy of the title of human.

...Maybe it would've been better if we'd somehow given foxes a way to comprehend human thinking and machinery, and given them guns to fight back with... It could've been fun for both sides?

And no, as much as I would love to see them decimated, chavs shouldn't be hunted either... they might not actually be human, but they are sentient beasts.

Foxes are animals. We hunt animals for food or pleasure; I happen to quite enjoy the odd shoot.

As for why fox hunting is perfectly acceptable; I don't care for the intricacies of animal rights goons. The issue is that you have no right to impose your sensibilities upon others, when their activities do not directly disadvantage you, and unless you are a well disguised member of a hitherto hidden hive conciousness of foxes, you have no cause for redress or complaint.

unless you are a well disguised member of a hitherto hidden hive conciousness of foxes, you have no cause for redress or complaint.

Actually that's exactly what I am...

That may be a lie.

Since it is infact true that I honestly have no right to dictate what you do or do not do (whether I agree with these things or not) I suppose I'll give up on the arguing... especially since you've given me no points I can argue on.

I still wish we could've given the foxes guns though...

Oh, and on the killing for food thing... technically I'm a veggie... but that's actually for economical reasons - I actually love the taste of meat (though sometimes I get a bit queasy when I look down at chicken wings and see fluffy chicks staring up at me......)

-irrational hunting ban.
-a plethora of measures empowering the state to ride roughshod over civil liberties.
-playing political football with education to the extent that qualifications have been devalued by an artificial “improvement” in results, whilst purging it of academia on favour of deference, genuflection and spoon feeding.
-a de-humanising of public services into soulless, beaurocratic nightmares.
Yup, yup, yup, yup aaaaaand yup.

I heartily agree.

I just don’t agree (shockingly :p) that the Tories are a good alternative.

-a disregard for juvenile delinquency until such a point at which we have a a generation of inveterate, feckless petty criminals of no use to society.
A ‘generation of criminals’ is quite some exaggeration, but I do agree Labour have fluffed up their policies towards da yoof. Idiotic ASBOs, lip-service to ‘respect’ for the community while demonising teenagers, the focusing of the education system on creating workers for the economy as opposed to actually educating teenagers; all these cardboard-thin schemes and more.


Stick a fox on a horse and let him chase you with all of his friends and a pack of hunting dogs and tell me it’s humane...
It’s not that fox hunting is or isn’t a humane activity, it’s the hypocrisy of the ban. Most other blood sports (IIRC, rabbit coursing was also banned) are affected, and if Labour was really looking out for animal welfare, then why weren’t fishing, shooting, ferreting, etc., banned also?

Because, generally, those who are involved with fox hunting are from rural, usually wealthy backgrounds; dye-in-the-wool Tories with no chance of voting for Labour. Those who partake in fishing and the like are more likely to vote Labour; the middle and lower classes. Moreover, people in urban Labour seats will vehemently oppose fox hunting, but not care too much about fishing, etc.

And there’s the rub of it. Fox hunting was never banned for animal welfare reasons.

Livingstone did that?

I know he invited Yusuf al-Qaradawi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yusuf_al-Qaradawi) round. Here's (http://www.private-eye.co.uk/covers.php?showme=1137)the PE cover mentioning it.



Well, he’s not the only one. Back at Westminster, all the parties were falling over themselves to champion the MCB and other self-imposed ‘leaders of the community’.

Quite


I don't understand why you left the fourth largest party in the Commons off the poll, but included three with no seats, one with one seat, and three parties smaller than it.


Narrow-minded Anglocentrism?

i find out waht party has the best to offer if bnp sounded good i would vote for them but in the end it waht u think at teh end of the day who ahs the better polices


I guessing, "Education, Education, Education," didn't sway you?

If you're interested in reading/hearing more about market anarchist philosophy, look up Stefan Molyneux and FreeDomain radio.

http://www.freedomainradio.com/


Wasn't he the one who argued feminism was bad for women because it meant that they paid taxes? ( a while since I listened, but I wasn't ever impressed with him )

All environmental and economic reason suggested that the hunting ban was misguided, and it is precisely that. It is nothing short of a government pandering to sensibilties of the Metropolitan Guardian reader set,


It wasn't pandering to the Metropolitan Guardian reading set. There was no need to, those lot would never vote Tory and banning the hunt wouldn't really sway more to Labour than already would vote Labour.

It was fairly obvious, from the amount of time it was put up for vote. Blair never really cared about fox hunting. His back benchers did and it was a bone to throw to them to help keep them in check.

If the leadership actually did care about fox hunting it would have been forced through the lords much earlier then when it was.


Though I am a Guardian reader (as well as a Sun, Mail, Telegraph and even sometimes the Express. Never the Independent though, I have some standards), and against the ban.

I always felt that it animal welfare was the reasoning behind it, there are more egregious examples that should be done away with first.

I won't be voting. Can't stand any of the parties, can't stand the electoral system of the United Kingdom.

indeed, the average household pays 50% more in tax now as opposed to a decade previously, and had more stringent controls proposed for immigration, however, given the centrism of the day, I cannot complain.[/QUOTE]


what u fail to mention, my misguided little tory, is that the average household does pay more money in tax (stealth included) by about £5,600 more than in 1997...

The average hosehold also makes an average of £6,200 more than in 1997


I got these figures from the msn homepage on a news bulletin.

I have to admit major was a tosser but thathcer made the country as it is today she freed the markets which lead to britains econmomic growth to being the 4 richest antion in the world.


If u ahte here u where peopbaly in a union they runinee the country, they whre raicher than teh middle class and living like kings, where normal people struggled to make a living.

While I hate to admit it that Thatcher woman did improve on some things, she also runined a hell of lot. By privatising the trains she did a hell of a lot of damage, she stole our milk! She changed the physche of the country to belive that might was right, nope she was/is a dragon, and I know more than one party that will occour when she comes to her timely death.

Labour are bastards and Conservatives are idiots and bastards.

EDIT: This sounded a bit flamy, so I will clarify - I don't think I can vote because I none of the parties seem to have anything to offer.

The problem with that stance is it helps nobody. In effect you are putting your hands up and saying 'okay you win'.

You have no voice, and that is truely shamefull.

OK OK OK I agree the war in iraq was wrong but dont blame labour blame tony blair, it was him who had gangbang sex with george bush not the labour party, can u imagine john prescott in a gimp suit?


but i do agree with u iraq and afghanistan war is wrong (although u didnt say afghanistan was wrong)

but other than that anything else?

Annnnnd Tony Blair was the leader of which party?

And now we see no small part of the reason (well, actually, I just dislike Labour voters) I vote Tory.

Would it have been excessive of us to have expected either correct spelling or, for that matter, composition of sentence, from Mr. Mediocre above?

Tory? Booo Hisss!

Maybe I'm missing something, but I was of the impression that the hunting ban has:

- spared a fair few foxes a hideous death at the hands of bloodthirsty yahoos,
- done nowt to prevent said yahoos from having jolly jaunts in the country anyway, and
- given them something else to complain about, an essential component of any true Brit's existence.

Looks like a rare Labour success to me.

Honestly, the sooner people realise that the 'metropolitan Guardian-reading set' / Guardianistas / whatever jaw-shatteringly stupid term you wish to come up with have virtually no influence whatsoever (on account of being a vanishingly small minority of ultra-passive well-meaning fluffies), the better. Sheesh.

Mail- and Sun-readers rule this country: that's why we're so fucked up.

Maybe I’m missing something, but I was of the impression that the hunting ban has:

- spared a fair few foxes a hideous death at the hands of bloodthirsty yahoos,
- done nowt to prevent said yahoos from having jolly jaunts in the country anyway, and
- given them something else to complain about, an essential component of any true Brit’s existence.

Looks like a rare Labour success to me.

My comments above (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13100706&postcount=154).

Givent he lies (Labour) and spinelessness of main parties (and I'm not neo-nazi enough to consider the thugs that make up the BNP) I'm guessing I will have to go with the make em all sh*t their pants vote.

The idea is simple - you vote for the most extreme loser you can find. Something liket he fluffy bunny party or some other mad cap indi protest candidate without a hope in hell of winning. Wen whoever gets in does so by a tight margin to a freak they will know that a single wrong step would have them out.

If by same chance some raving looney (damn sham about them) did get a seat it would say more than anything else ever would.

Vote: NOISE.

All I know is that the country is better today than it was in 1997 or any other time in the past thirty years for that matter, and that has nothing to do with the fact that the Xbox 360 is out now, it is totally based on everything except technology.

:headbang:Is it really better of crime has gone up immigration has goen out of control britain is loseing is soverign power to europe who we dont even decide who represent us, so many stealth taxes where we dotn see where the money is going , people not gettign inot jobs whicht hey can becasue of there skin coluor. Teenage gang culture has gone out of control, hug a hoodie was actually a labour idea in the 70,s ( look it up if u dotn belive) the bottom fallen out of the housing market, new buyers are at an all time low. oyu think we are rich becaseu of labour wrong becasue that can all change brown kept taking out loans and moving the around, traditonal brithgs industry has not been protected e.g royal royce gone to germany becaseu eu said so, and th eday before soaid brown would help them stay in the uk. the coutnry was better off in the war jesues besides the debt to pay to america after but, peopel like churchill would turn in his grave if he saw waht has happedn to teh country he swore to defend its values. I want a party who has some balls.:headbang:

My comments above (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13100706&postcount=154).
My honest view of the hunting ban - hilaaarious japery put to one side - is that its proponents were, by and large, well-intentioned (if naive). The excessive time devoted to it, however, was a colossal waste.

I still don't think it's done any real harm. There's legislation out there that's far more deserving of a kicking.

:headbang:Is it really better of crime has gone up immigration has goen out of control britain is loseing is soverign power to europe who we dont even decide who represent us, so many stealth taxes where we dotn see where the money is going , people not gettign inot jobs whicht hey can becasue of there skin coluor. Teenage gang culture has gone out of control, hug a hoodie was actually a labour idea in the 70,s ( look it up if u dotn belive) the bottom fallen out of the housing market, new buyers are at an all time low. oyu think we are rich becaseu of labour wrong becasue that can all change brown kept taking out loans and moving the around, traditonal brithgs industry has not been protected e.g royal royce gone to germany becaseu eu said so, and th eday before soaid brown would help them stay in the uk. the coutnry was better off in the war jesues besides the debt to pay to america after but, peopel like churchill would turn in his grave if he saw waht has happedn to teh country he swore to defend its values. I want a party who has some balls.:headbang:


Heheh you are funny! Really you shouldn't believe all that you read in the news paper.

hello are u thick thick our something just beacue i knwo this doese not mean i get it form the papers jesues try takignn politics for a levels then at uni , for fuck sake and when some of your family waork for the civil service soem people jeuses:headbang: For example israial the nations around there figth for that land and the news and govermetns and papers say the land was given to them, that reading it form teh papers when actually, jewdasim came form there then a so called pecaefull religon forced them out, so techniqually plaistine belongs to the jews not the muslims whicht eh news and medai think it does, so u can shut up

Heheh you are funny! Really you shouldn't believe all that you read in the news paper.

Especially when the newspaper he's reading is either

a) The Daily Mail
b) The Daily Telegraph.

As Mock the Week said, 'many Daily mail readers now think there are over 6.4 billion immigrants in the UK' :D

hello are u thick thick our something just beacue i knwo this doese not mean i get it form the papers jesues try takignn politics for a levels then at uni , for fuck sake and when some of your family waork for the civil service soem people jeuses:headbang:
Please. For your sake, for ours, for the Queen's, God's, Grotbag's, J. R. Hartley's and, above all, your beloved country's: please read what you've written before you hit 'submit reply'.

Thanks, ducky.

hello are u thick thick our something just beacue i knwo this doese not mean i get it form the papers jesues try takignn politics for a levels then at uni , for fuck sake and when some of your family waork for the civil service soem people jeuses:headbang:

Yes Immigration has certainly gone out of control, and are stealing jobs! Why didn't we see this before? Its the Polish polish conspiracy all over again! :rolleyes:

Especially when the newspaper he's reading is either

a) The Daily Mail
b) The Daily Telegraph.

As Mock the Week said, 'many Daily mail readers now think there are over 6.4 billion immigrants in the UK' :D
I don't think (s)he's reading the Telegraph...

I don't think (s)he's reading the Telegraph...

True. The Telegraph is to high brow. :p

He'd also be talking more about America as well.

hello are u thick thick our something just beacue i knwo this doese not mean i get it form the papers jesues try takignn politics for a levels then at uni , for fuck sake and when some of your family waork for the civil service soem people jeuses:headbang: For example israial the nations around there figth for that land and the news and govermetns and papers say the land was given to them, that reading it form teh papers when actually, jewdasim came form there then a so called pecaefull religon forced them out, so techniqually plaistine belongs to the jews not the muslims whicht eh news and medai think it does, so u can shut up

How the hell did you make it through (or into university) with spelling like that.

Very well, I take back my reservations, but the transition to anarchy would be... well... anarchy, that much I find hard to doubt.

Ur, what you meant to say there is that the transition to anarchy would be chaos and disorder. :p

Incorrect! That implies overnight change - when the best bet is simply the slow road of progress, by convincing people (one by one if necessary) that the current way of doing things is unworkable, and that a new society is possible, and can be brought about by simple changes in behaviour.

You don't have to burn down the Houses of Parliament and kill CEOs to have a revolution. ;)

hello are u thick thick our something just beacue i knwo this doese not mean i get it form the papers jesues try takignn politics for a levels then at uni

You're at university? Oh dear. It seems to me that perhaps the Labour party's 50% Plan was misguided if it's letting dribbling simpletons like you into higher education. I mean, is it really that hard to spell correctly? Must you abuse punctuation so? I also find it hard to believe that you took politics at 'A' level... although on second thoughts, no, you probably did, your grasp of politics is poor enough to be the product of the godawful 'education' system we have. Your teacher(s) probably didn't know anything other than the contents of the textbooks.

Regards the hunting ban: I was for it because it annoyed the toffs. Couldn't give two hoots about the bloody foxes, there's enough of them in the cities anyway! :p

On Afghanistan - a botched job, but not illegal or immoral in the same way as Iraq is - just saddening to realise how badly we have botched it.

:headbang:Is it really better of crime has gone up
Really? I can't really say that is universally the case - violent crime has risen (in a few areas) but most other forms of crime has fallen. Screaming about a crime wave is exaggerated, populist nonsense: there are different types of crime, and different causes in different areas. Crime and crime rates are long term and can't be judged against one government alone.

immigration has goen out of control
Oh noes! We have mechanisms to reject immigrants based on a points system, similar to many other countries. That's good enough for me, so long as illegal immigrants are deported and the system is enforced.

britain is loseing is soverign power to europe
I'm all for EU reform, but I have no problem with some power resting at a pan-Europe level to help solve pan-European problems and boost the European economy.

who we dont even decide who represent us,
Odd. I vaguely remember a general election a few years ago.

so many stealth taxes where we dotn see where the money is going ,
A criticism that could likely be made of any governnment, even if this one is particulary guilty on that front.

people not gettign inot jobs whicht hey can becasue of there skin coluor.
Exaggeration. Positive discrimination is much more complex than that. But don't expect the Mail to put it that way.

Teenage gang culture has gone out of control,
My dad says the same of when he was young.

hug a hoodie was actually a labour idea in the 70,s ( look it up if u dotn belive)
Ah, so that's an acceptable excuse for the Tories, is it?

the bottom fallen out of the housing market, new buyers are at an all time low.
I'm all for lower house prices when I leave my halls.

oyu think we are rich becaseu of labour wrong becasue that can all change brown kept taking out loans and moving the around, traditonal brithgs industry has not been protected e.g royal royce gone to germany becaseu eu said so, and th eday before soaid brown would help them stay in the uk.
Oh, and when did British industry flee exactly? Blair and Brown are only copying the policy of Thatcher and the Tories in this regard. Neither parties have done anything for British industry.

the coutnry was better off in the war jesues besides the debt to pay to america after but, peopel like churchill would turn in his grave if he saw waht has happedn to teh country he swore to defend its values.
*sniff*

I want a party who has some balls.:headbang:
I want a party that isn't interested in 'who can bst curry with Middle England'. Doesn't mean I'm going to get it.

i type to fast that why i make mistakes but you can see what i am getting at. regarding the papers i read i read all of tehm where i work not sayign where that is we have all the major papers delivered i sit and read through them all. Papers are politically biased to a party so the arnt the best source for information you just need to read between the lines and inturprit what you think they are getting at.

i type to fast that why i make mistakes but you can see what i am getting at. regarding the papers i read i read all of tehm where i work not sayign where that is we have all the major papers delivered i sit and read through them all. Papers are politically biased to a party so the arnt the best source for information you just need to read between the lines and inturprit what you think they are getting at.

Well then slow the hell down and coherently put across your point

thanks for the advice but u know waht i was trying to say though in that massive thing i wrote

oh my god imjin u dont no what u r on about i must say

industry left because EU said so ... Im no farmer but I smell bullshit a mile off, maybe they moved because it was too expensive to operate here, not because EU says so.

And what r u on about - Labour anti-industry, and Thatchers was hte industries guardian angel BAH! Don't make me laugh that slut was the one that bought ships from Japan becuase they were cheaper rather than from Scotland who were in desperate need of jobs, maybe u should look that up.

and what r u on about hug a hoodie labours idea ... Did they even have hoodies in the 70s, anyway that may be true I dont no, even if it is, cameron is the prik that decided to say it, i dont think he got his influence from before he was born by the party he is running against.

And jobs being taken by colour of skin? that y r unemployment rate is one of the lowest amongst Europe, compare out 5 something percent to france and Germanies double digit unemployment.

And maybe ur right bout schools not being able to teach (i personally think they do) but judging from ur hand writing AND ur a uni graduate im struggling to think - what uni did u go to cause i sure as hell aint going there!

i type to fast that why i make mistakes but you can see what i am getting at. regarding the papers i read i read all of tehm where i work not sayign where that is we have all the major papers delivered i sit and read through them all. Papers are politically biased to a party so the arnt the best source for information you just need to read between the lines and inturprit what you think they are getting at.

Well a find a relatively central paper then, like The Times, or The Guardian.

Alternatively, just sit in a dark room with a cardboard box over your head.

And maybe ur right bout schools not being able to teach (i personally think they do) but judging from ur hand writing AND ur a uni graduate im struggling to think - what uni did u go to cause i sure as hell aint going there!

Pot meet Kettle

Pot meet Kettle

QFT

And how many times!

the housing market is strong a main factor in y our economy is 5th and so strong, u no u cant have it both ways u love thatcher so much house prices were also VERY high during here rein and u no what

they also crashed soon after

Imjin, you're attempting to persuade us of your views, yes? Then write for us, not for yourself, else don't be surprised when we dismiss you so lightly.

House prices - the bottom hasn't fallen out of the market, that's them thar crazy talk, fella. Quite the reverse is true at the moment; however, I wouldn't be surprised to see a 'correction'. Which would be a good thing, frankly, as house prices are far too high. That said, I'd be hit hard, having recently purchased a house; plus, I'm not sure how the economy as a whole would deal with a problem in housing, given how dependent it is on the sector.

Well a find a relatively central paper then, like The Times, or The Guardian.

Alternatively, just sit in a dark room with a cardboard box over your head.
I'm fond of The Grauniad but the British centre is probably better represented by the FT or Independent. As for The Times... well, winter's coming and you may run out of firewood.

hello are u thick thick our something just beacue i knwo this doese not mean i get it form the papers jesues try takignn politics for a levels then at uni , for fuck sake and when some of your family waork for the civil service soem people jeuses:headbang: For example israial the nations around there figth for that land and the news and govermetns and papers say the land was given to them, that reading it form teh papers when actually, jewdasim came form there then a so called pecaefull religon forced them out, so techniqually plaistine belongs to the jews not the muslims whicht eh news and medai think it does, so u can shut up

Wow keep ya hair on my fine dyslexic friend(loosing it don't help with ya speiling, I know) Can you show many any other sources for what you claim, about violence, immigrants etc... other than the national press?

Very true dashanzi in ur regard to the times, but i thought the houses were so expensive because there simply isn't enough and that won't change any time soon.

ok fair enough i respect other peoples veiws but rome and italian allies i know oyur a labour person, but regarding royals royce did you know that they where building a testing facility in this country which would make more jobs any way, and then The EU pop up saying that oh look Germany has more money to lien into our pockets, oh they can go there, thats the story there was even a signed letter that it was gonna be built in the midlands, i dont mind trading with Europe and out soucing industry ofr cheaper value, but when one of the major world powers gets told waht to do by potliacians, who may i remind you are failed ones form this country are telling us what to.

I aint gonna post any more after this becasuse i cant be fucked.

why odtn we all go back to a monarchy ow much easier would that be.( this is not waht i think, even though we should keep the queen,no one repley to that becsause i cant be fucked to argue with it and it is not part of the post)

ok fair enough i respect other peoples veiws but rome and italian allies i know oyur a labour person, but regarding royals royce did you know that they where building a testing facility in this country which would make more jobs any way, and then The EU pop up saying that oh look Germany has more money to lien into our pockets, oh they can go there, thats the story there was even a signed letter that it was gonna be built in the midlands, i dont mind trading with Europe and out soucing industry ofr cheaper value, but when one of the major world powers gets told waht to do by potliacians, who may i remind you are failed ones form this country are telling us what to.

I aint gonna post any more after this becasuse i cant be fucked.

why odtn we all go back to a monarchy ow much easier would that be.( this is not waht i think, even though we should keep the queen,no one repley to that becsause i cant be fucked to argue with it and it is not part of the post)

y did u repeat it 3 times, is it because u were so impressed that u didnt make any spelling mistakes this time (or as many as before) that u felt the need to show us u r not a mongified retard spas monkey?

who eats muffins

Imjin - write slower. Take the time to spell correctly and for the love of the gods, use punctuation. It'll make it a) easier to read what you're saying and b) harder for people to mock you for being a pillock.

Regarding the bias of papers and journalists; well duh, no shit Sheer-luck. The trick is to recognise the bias and look for the facts and the truth in between the lines. Also, sometimes the bias is right and no-one has a monopoly on Truth. Just look at the Katyn Forest Massacres...

Hey people, don't rag on Government and Politics. It isn't a bad subject, especially if you have good teachers.

However, it seems stupidity is not bounded by subject.

Rome and Italian allies and Imjin, please work on your spelling and grammar. I will quite simply not bother with responding if reading your posts makes me wince.

Imjin, I highly doubt your claim of Politics at University. The evidence seen from this thread doesn't point to the sort of literacy and information about current affairs that would be a consequence. I'm better informed and better-writing, and I'm only on my AS's so far.

Now, to the subject at hand. The current British system is, in a word, fscked. Labour and the Conservatives are both the same old, and are basically the same. I have high hopes for a serious Lib Dem gain, and a very weak government, forcing interesting things to be happen.

It is not that either party has something new and innovative. The Tories are a shade more right wing, but they both suck. Give me a good liberal party to vote for.

oh come on universeverse i dont have as bad spelling as imjin

i have attened primary school

u doin politics at as level as am i

where abouts u doing it maybe i no u

oh come on universeverse i dont have as bad spelling as imjin

i have attened primary school

u doin politics at as level as am i

where abouts u doing it maybe i no u

You really really do spell as badly and handle the rules of grammer as badly as him.

I'm far from perfect myself but the two of you are just ridiculous

Hey people, don't rag on Government and Politics. It isn't a bad subject, especially if you have good teachers.

I did it at AS and A2. I had shit teachers for AS, but thanks to the brilliance of my Dad (teacher, and doctorate holder), survived. The Gov't & Pol syllabus is alright, but the framework of 'education' nowadays means that it is unfortunately rather impeded by the albatross of Government imposed stupidities.

You have to have brilliant teachers at School, or be bloody clever yourself, to really be given an education; otherwise you are merely being spoon-fed answers to jump through the hoops of exams which prepare you to be a cog in a machine rather than an intellectual. Which is a very great shame indeed.

oh come on universeverse i dont have as bad spelling as imjin

That's true. You don't. However, your standard of writing is still bloody bad.

Thanku atopiana im 2 used to typing on xfire where u dont have time to talk like an english man should but u can still understand me even if u think 'thats not how u spell 'u' its 'you' u bloody fool!'

but regarding royals royce did you know that they where building a testing facility in this country which would make more jobs any way, and then The EU pop up saying that oh look Germany has more money to lien into our pockets, oh they can go there, thats the story there was even a signed letter that it was gonna be built in the midlands, i dont mind trading with Europe and out soucing industry ofr cheaper value, but when one of the major world powers gets told waht to do by potliacians, who may i remind you are failed ones form this country are telling us what to.

Why are you surprised that a German car maker which was offered a grant by the German government chose to build their test facility in Germany?

I'm a life long Tory, but there's no way in hell I'd vote for Cameron. Brown has proven he can handle the pressure and has integrity.

I did it at AS and A2. I had shit teachers for AS, but thanks to the brilliance of my Dad (teacher, and doctorate holder), survived. The Gov't & Pol syllabus is alright, but the framework of 'education' nowadays means that it is unfortunately rather impeded by the albatross of Government imposed stupidities.

You have to have brilliant teachers at School, or be bloody clever yourself, to really be given an education; otherwise you are merely being spoon-fed answers to jump through the hoops of exams which prepare you to be a cog in a machine rather than an intellectual. Which is a very great shame indeed.

I know, it's shameful. Fortunately, I have some fairly good teachers, and I'm said to be quite smart, so I'm doing okay. What, was that typical English understatement? It probably helps that I am aiming to be a fairly intellectual person (professor, thank you very much).

A well run class is really good when there's plenty of time to argue, especially with those of different opinions. Great fun. But as always, a badly run class screws things up.

n1 howarduphone i respect u for choosing what u think is best for ur country instefd of ur party

Yes;

-claiming that any debate upon immigration was "racist", then conceding they had not the slightest notion how many migrants are currently in the UK.
-a plethora of measures empowering the state to ride roughshod over civil liberties.
-playing political football with education to the extent that qualifications have been devalued by an artificial "improvement" in results, whilst purging it of academia on favour of deference, genuflection and spoon feeding.
-a decade of rampant, unashamed centrism and demagoguery.
-a de-humanising of public services into soulless, beaurocratic nightmares.
-a disregard for juvenile delinquency until such a point at which we have a a generation of inveterate, feckless petty criminals of no use to society.
-a lessening of prison sentences, all made for financial reasons, which releases incorrigable murderers, rapists and criminals upon the streets repeatedly.
1. Nice. What they actually said was they have only a rough idea of how many illegal immigrants are currently in the UK. By the very nature of the immigrants (ie. they're illegal, and therefore are not recorded in any way), that's hardly a sodding surprise, is it?

2. And I assume that your life is markedly worse for that, isn't it?

3. Completely unlike any other party would. I have yet to hear any convincing policy that would change that in any way.

4. Centrism is no bad thing when previously the country had experienced almost 20 years of the hard (in various senses of the word) right. And demagoguery? That's been present in politics for decades, and accusing Labour of it is perhaps just wilful blindness on your part to the fact that every politician is guilty of it.

5. Speaking from experience are you? No, didn't think so, seeing as that's utter rubbish spouted by a populist press.

6. A generation, unless I'm very much mistaken, of which you are part. Or could it be that again it's just utter rubbish spouted by the press.

7. That would be the reason for the rise in the prison population by around 30% (20,000) since 1997, and a fall in crime of around 40%...

Goddamn hard facts! They always get in the way of a solid argument, don't they?

so techniqually plaistine belongs to the jews not the muslims whicht eh news and medai think it does, so u can shut up
I honestly thought you meant plasticine there...

That'd make the situation in the Middle East much more interesting.

lol

Actually, as much as I hate to say it, TBC has a point with the civil liberties stuff. Mind you, both of our beloved major parties are fairly guilty of that, so they both suck, but it really is quite scary how much they can do.

Recent piece on that I wrote for Politics, http://b.armory.com/~xyzzy/privacy

I agree with what u said universeverse about the right to not have the government look at what u r doing unless they havev a gd reason to do it, but i suppose different peoples opinions on 'gd reason' differs

I agree with what u said universeverse about the right to not have the government look at what u r doing unless they havev a gd reason to do it, but i suppose different peoples opinions on 'gd reason' differs

Seriously, please please please work on your spelling and grammar.

I agree with what you said UNIverseVERSE about the right not to have the government look at what you are doing unless they have a good reason to do it, but I suppose different people's opinions on 'good reason' differs.

That's what it should have looked like, and I haven't even bothered to repunctuate it better.

That aside, thank you for agreeing with me.

:headbang:Is it really better of crime has gone up immigration has goen out of control britain is loseing is soverign power to europe who we dont even decide who represent us, so many stealth taxes where we dotn see where the money is going , people not gettign inot jobs whicht hey can becasue of there skin coluor. Teenage gang culture has gone out of control, hug a hoodie was actually a labour idea in the 70,s ( look it up if u dotn belive) the bottom fallen out of the housing market, new buyers are at an all time low. oyu think we are rich becaseu of labour wrong becasue that can all change brown kept taking out loans and moving the around, traditonal brithgs industry has not been protected e.g royal royce gone to germany becaseu eu said so, and th eday before soaid brown would help them stay in the uk. the coutnry was better off in the war jesues besides the debt to pay to america after but, peopel like churchill would turn in his grave if he saw waht has happedn to teh country he swore to defend its values. I want a party who has some balls.:headbang:

Do you even live in the world?
Industry can take care of itself - poor business management is in no way the fault of the government.

I have no idea what words you're saying around jobs and skin colour, but I'll assume it's along the lines of "damned immigrants stealing our jobs, stealing our women!!" to which I point out that jobs are given to the most skilled applicant, sometimes the applicant who is best in interviews, but mostly it's the skills. Yes, often people who are non Aryan do gain jobs, this is because they have SKILLS

You choose who represents you through a strange ritual known as voting (vo-ting two syllables, four letters.)

I'm aware that I'm not replying in order of your points, I'm tired and in a very lazy mood so I'm just writing as I read and I'm reading in an incoherent manner.

Crime has gone a direction, yes, this direction is down... violent crime is up, this is true, crime in total is down. Crime figures are the result of the people who commit the crimes. The Labour government is not going around mugging people, shooting people, etc.

The Labour government is crap. So you score one point.

Sovereign power is not being lost in Britain - we are not governed by the French or the Germans. Being a part of a large international community means making concessions - sometimes, when people play together they have to agree on the rules in order to play nicely, otherwise they argue and fight over unimportant things and then when they fight over the important things bad, scary things happen... y'know... like in 1914, like in 1939... Having to deal with rules agreed upon by people who don't live in the same village as you is not as bad as you think. We're not going to wake up in chains at any point because of these rules.

I don't actually know why I'm bothering with writing all this... I really enjoy discussing things with equals but when I'm forced to speak in such a way it makes me dislike myself.

You pay taxes so that you don't have to micromanage and you don't have to worry about national spending - you pay taxes so you can go to the doctors without a credit card, you pay taxes so you have maintained roads to drive on, you pay taxes to pay toward your own pension.

What right do you have to speak for Winston Churchill? Yes he was right wing, yes he did some stupid things, yes he looked terrifyingly like every baby who has ever been born, but he was no idiot and he was a great man. I can't claim to imagine he would love the state of Britain today if he was still alive but he would realise that it is still being run as well as it ever was.

And no, Britain was not better off in the war, being bombed every night is not my idea of a good life. I can't be bothered to go into further detail over this point, it's just too blatantly obvious.

EDIT:
hello are u thick thick our something just beacue i knwo this doese not mean i get it form the papers jesues try takignn politics for a levels then at uni , for fuck sake and when some of your family waork for the civil service soem people jeuses:headbang: For example israial the nations around there figth for that land and the news and govermetns and papers say the land was given to them, that reading it form teh papers when actually, jewdasim came form there then a so called pecaefull religon forced them out, so techniqually plaistine belongs to the jews not the muslims whicht eh news and medai think it does, so u can shut up

You've taken politics at a-level and university and believe that the bnp are worthy of anything other than mockery?
You've taken politics at a-level and university and can't spell the word "some" I understand the effects of dyslexia and related conditions, but I'm fairly certain you're just stupid rather than a sufferer.

Land belongs to no man. We will all die and the land will be inhabited by others, if we believe we own any part of this world we are fooling ourselves. Israel belongs to the earth. Palestine belongs to the earth.
Religion and peace are totally divorced from one another, and the whole point of the conflict is that it's the "Holy land" of so many religions it's insane, and no one group is willing to coexist with the others, nono, it's OURS, noone else can live here because their god has a stupid moustache!!
It's all so fucking stupid.

EDIT MKII:
i type to fast that why i make mistakes but you can see what i am getting at. regarding the papers i read i read all of tehm where i work not sayign where that is we have all the major papers delivered i sit and read through them all.

Touch-typing is easy, why not learn it? I haven't looked at my keyboard all night and I've probably made 4, maybe 5 typoes.... and don't you have to do work at work?


Yeah... erm... long day, apologies if I sprayed on anyone...

Tory? Booo Hisss!

Hell, I'm even a happy Tory today. I've been to a funeral with an open bar, got chatting to another awesome Drama student, returned home and found that David Cameron appears to have remembered he is, in fact, a Conservative. His ad lib(ish) speech at conference outlined some excellent proposals.

And I've got uni on saturday!:)

I agree with what u said universeverse about the right to not have the government look at what u r doing unless they havev a gd reason to do it, but i suppose different peoples opinions on 'gd reason' differs

Whereas you seem to have found a consensus regarding your SPAG. It's atrocious.

Indeed, I can't resist; if the likes of you taking joke A levels is the result of New Labour's education reforms, I rest my case.

Hell, I'm even a happy Tory today. I've been to a funeral with an open bar, got chatting to another awesome Drama student, returned home and found that David Cameron appears to have remembered he is, in fact, a Conservative. His ad lib(ish) speech at conference outlined some excellent proposals.

And I've got uni on saturday!:)

Cameron's doomed, regardless of when the election is. Doomed! AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA! DOOMED!

*ahem*

Sorry. But it's true.

I have no idea what words you're saying around jobs and skin colour, but I'll assume it's along the lines of "damned immigrants stealing our jobs, stealing our women!!" to which I point out that jobs are given to the most skilled applicant, sometimes the applicant who is best in interviews, but mostly it's the skills. Yes, often people who are non Aryan do gain jobs, this is because they have SKILLS


heh, reminds me of something Marcus Brigstoke said one time. its not that immigrants coming over and stealing our jobs, its immigrants are coming over and DOING our fucking jobs :p

ie. jobs british people can't be arsed to do properly, fucking 'jobsworths' and the like.

hello are u thick thick our something just beacue i knwo this doese not mean i get it form the papers jesues try takignn politics for a levels then at uni

i took economics and politics at uni. and i'm happily socialist, thank you.

also, i don't type like a monkey.

also, i don't type like a monkey.

Don't worry, soon we'll get Macbeth...

Indeed, I can't resist; if the likes of you taking joke A levels is the result of New Labour's education reforms, I rest my case.

Barely literate people doing A-levels is nothing new. Try reading your average medic or science grad's efforts. ;)

Trust me, I occasionally have to do copy editing and I am amazed at what I find sometime.

The blessed Chris Quote

Whereas you seem to have found a consensus regarding your SPAG. It's atrocious.

Indeed, I can't resist; if the likes of you taking joke A levels is the result of New Labour's education reforms, I rest my case.

Forgive me i dont know how to quote on this forum, i would appreciate someone telling me. The blessed chris what r u on about, u think im a failure at AS because on forums I spell 'are' with a single letter, 'r'??? atleast when i spell everything comes out how i meant it and i dont use punctuation very much because its not an essay it a fucking forum no one is grading it and u can easily understand what im saying, dont get me wrong i wouldnt spell like this on a bit of home work.

Barely literate people doing A-levels is nothing new. Try reading your average medic or science grad's efforts. ;)

Trust me, I occasionally have to do copy editing and I am amazed at what I find sometime.

I fidn tht vry insultign

The blessed Chris Quote

Whereas you seem to have found a consensus regarding your SPAG. It's atrocious.

Indeed, I can't resist; if the likes of you taking joke A levels is the result of New Labour's education reforms, I rest my case.

Forgive me i dont know how to quote on this forum, i would appreciate someone telling me. The blessed chris what r u on about, u think im a failure at AS because on forums I spell 'are' with a single letter, 'r'??? atleast when i spell everything comes out how i meant it and i dont use punctuation very much because its not an essay it a fucking forum no one is grading it and u can easily understand what im saying, dont get me wrong i wouldnt spell like this on a bit of home work.

Show some courtesy to other posters and make their lives easier by using correct spelling and grammar. It helps if you want your points to be taken seriously

OK then, in future I shall

but I think if you went back and looked at my posts you would realise that I'm not spelling like a complete spastic here, the only thing I'm guilty of is spelling words lke 'you' or 'are' with letters like 'u' or 'r',

I fidn tht vry insultign

You're obviously above average ;)

Forgive me i dont know how to quote on this forum, i would appreciate someone telling me.

like this:
.


Just put what you want to quote between the brackets, like so.


What I want to quote .

OK then, in future I shall

but I think if you went back and looked at my posts you would realise that I’m not spelling like a complete spastic here, the only thing I’m guilty of is spelling words lke ‘you’ or ‘are’ with letters like ‘u’ or ‘r’,
We all (well, most of us) know you aren’t mentally disabled. It’s the norm on a forum such as this for one to take the time to spell and punctuate (kinda) properly; after all, we ain’t no filthy chatroom! :p

EDIT> Levee's got better advice for quoting.

OK then, in future I shall

but I think if you went back and looked at my posts you would realise that I'm not spelling like a complete spastic here, the only thing I'm guilty of is spelling words lke 'you' or 'are' with letters like 'u' or 'r',

yeah, i thought you were legible :)

that other guy though.... (the Macbeth monkey...)

Hell, I'm even a happy Tory today. I've been to a funeral with an open bar, got chatting to another awesome Drama student, returned home and found that David Cameron appears to have remembered he is, in fact, a Conservative. His ad lib(ish) speech at conference outlined some excellent proposals.

And I've got uni on saturday!:)

Bwhahah excellent proposals? Heh I like you, you make me laugh.

I fidn tht vry insultign

Ohh yes please, can I have chips with mine?

[quote] Ohh yes please, can I have chips with mine [quote]

it doesnt work!

it doesnt work!

The second brackets have to be [/QUOTE] not [QUOTE]

Ya missed out the /

Ohh yes please, can I have chips with mine?

dgd

yes it woooorks!!!!!

WWWWWOOOOOOOOOOTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!

thanks by the way

thanks by the way

Good. For our next trick could you please consider using capital letters and punctuation? It's also recommended to avoid multi-posting.

Sorry to rag on you so much, but I like to be able to read the posts of those I'm debating with.

Back on topic again, TBC, it's quite unfair to compare all A level students to a few who cannot spell. There's plenty of us who are smart, academically minded, and literate. The worse the schooling system is, the harder it is to get that, but you can still make it with work.

Yes I appologise for spamming didn't mean to

i dont use punctuation very much because its not an essay it a fucking forum no one is grading it and u can easily understand what im saying, dont get me wrong i wouldnt spell like this on a bit of home work.

We're not being graded?
Shit.

Well, as I was saying, splgarmfloffle badge on the wurdel nee?

Good. For our next trick could you please consider using capital letters and punctuation? It's also recommended to avoid multi-posting.


boo capital letters!

*is lazy*

Bwhahah excellent proposals? Heh I like you, you make me laugh.

Did you listen to his speech? The notion of giving headteachers the capacity to expel a pupil without the tedious necessity of appeals and higher authorities, and of removing benefits for those offered a job, is an excellent one. As, for that matter, is providing tax breaks for families.

And; Rome and Italian allies. Take a look about you. We hardly post in classical style (apart from around Fass:D), however, we do do each other the decency of posting with punctuation, spelling and capital letters. If you want to write in chav styleeeeeee, feel free to go and log into your BeBo account.

Did you listen to his speech? The notion of giving headteachers the capacity to expel a pupil without the tedious necessity of appeals and higher authorities, and of removing benefits for those offered a job, is an excellent one. As, for that matter, is providing tax breaks for families.

...I think I just turned Tory... did he say anything really stupidly right wing? I wasn't able to listen to his speech so I don't know... WHY did you have to make good points?

I feel dirty.

Though maybe change expulsion to execution?

i didn't like Cameron's idea of doing away with inheritance tax for estates less than £1,000,000

the idea of reducing the tax for smaller estates, like increasing the zero tax band above 300k in light of rising house prices (but Labour is already planning this), and introducing a progressive tax thereafter, would be fine. but £1m is still a shitload of money. and those with over a million can find a million ways to dodge inheritance tax. really.

plus, only 6% (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6949753.stm) of the country pays inheritance tax anyway. this is just another way to make the rich richer, shrouded in a policy to help the poor. usual Tory bullshit.

Did you listen to his speech? The notion of giving headteachers the capacity to expel a pupil without the tedious necessity of appeals and higher authorities, and of removing benefits for those offered a job, is an excellent one. As, for that matter, is providing tax breaks for families.

And; Rome and Italian allies. Take a look about you. We hardly post in classical style (apart from around Fass:D), however, we do do each other the decency of posting with punctuation, spelling and capital letters. If you want to write in chav styleeeeeee, feel free to go and log into your BeBo account.

What listen to his speech....but...but... he's a Tory!

No, no I did not, so I guess I should have done my research before opening my big fat mouth huh!

However can I ask how long was his speech, how many proposals did he outline, and why have you mentioned only three?

i dont use punctuation very much because its not an essay it a fucking forum no one is grading it and u can easily understand what im saying, dont get me wrong i wouldnt spell like this on a bit of home work.

Fine, don't. I can't force you to. However, people will mock you for it.

I can read that, yes. It's painful*, but I can. How about the guys who aren't native English speakers?

Seriously, do everyone a favour, and take the time to spell, punctuate, and capitalise. It's common courtesy, and this isn't some instant medium like IRC - you have the time to think about what you're saying, and to proofread it so that you haven't made any errors. It also helps keep discussions a bit calmer.

So in closing, you don't have to, but you should be. Actually, you might have to, I haven't checked the rules threads recently.

*I have proofreader and typographer in my blood. trust me on this.

It's common courtesy, and this isn't some instant medium like IRC - you have the time to think about what you're saying, and to proofread it so that you haven't made any errors.

I actually don't get why people don't do that even on IRC... maybe it is just me but I'm pretty much incapable of text message language...

I actually don't get why people don't do that even on IRC... maybe it is just me but I'm pretty much incapable of text message language...

Ohh you poor sod, is it an age thing? Is it huh huh?:D

Ohh you poor sod, is it an age thing? Is it huh huh?:D

*weeps into your shoulder*
I'm 21!!
I grew up on the bbs systems... what is wrong with me that I cannot do this simple thing? This god-given right!!
*falls to knees and looks skyward in a wide, deserted street in the pouring rain while weeping uncontrollably*
*wonders where the street came from... and the rain*

*weeps into your shoulder*
I'm 21!!
I grew up on the bbs systems... what is wrong with me that I cannot do this simple thing? This god-given right!!
*falls to knees and looks skyward in a wide, deserted street in the pouring rain while weeping uncontrollably*
*wonders where the street came from... and the rain*

Bwhahahahah there there! 21 huh, I remember that!(just about)

I'm voting Lib Dem. Basically because I quite like the tri-party system we have, and I'd hate to see the British political scene slip completely into a US-esque political oligarchy of only tow major parties. So I'll be keeping them afloat.

I also greatly respect "Mighty" Menzies Campbell and his old-fashioned polite, informed and no-spin political discourse.

What listen to his speech....but...but... he's a Tory!

No, no I did not, so I guess I should have done my research before opening my big fat mouth huh!

However can I ask how long was his speech, how many proposals did he outline, and why have you mentioned only three?

I only watched the highlights in honesty; I was at a funeral in the day, with a free bar!:)

He did, as ever, circumvent the issue of income tax other than offering a tax break for married couples, however, he did pledge to make Afghanistan the focus of foreign policy. This would suggest, given how overstretched the armed forces are, that he proposes withdrawal from Iraq.

Oh, crucially, he did pledge to create a fund for those whose pensions Brown either stole or was unable, or unwilling, to save. I must confess this did impress me mightily.

He also made the speech without a cue; I am aware he will rehearsed it to high heaven, and it is a gimmick, but still, Cameron has actually almost won me over at conference:eek:

He did, as ever, circumvent the issue of income tax other than offering a tax break for married couples, however, he did pledge to make Afghanistan the focus of foreign policy. This would suggest, given how overstretched the armed forces are, that he proposes withdrawal from Iraq.


Not a huge fan of this

i didn't like Cameron's idea of doing away with inheritance tax for estates less than £1,000,000

the idea of reducing the tax for smaller estates, like increasing the zero tax band above 300k in light of rising house prices (but Labour is already planning this), and introducing a progressive tax thereafter, would be fine. but £1m is still a shitload of money. and those with over a million can find a million ways to dodge inheritance tax. really.

plus, only 6% (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6949753.stm) of the country pays inheritance tax anyway. this is just another way to make the rich richer, shrouded in a policy to help the poor. usual Tory bullshit.

It does away with, I quote "a tax on thrift and enterprise". It is an excellent, reponsible policy, and, in light of what I still consider a superficial prosperity under Labour, those who voted with their wallets in 1997 might just do so again seeking to protect what they have earned.

Not a huge fan of this

I am. The family unit deserves recognition in tax; divorce is ludicrously easy at present, and a crucial contributor to juvenile delinquency, falling academic standards (I don't give a fuck what Labour claims, examinations are far easier now than before, and thus the results all but worthless).

I am. The family unit deserves recognition in tax; divorce is ludicrously easy at present, and a crucial contributor to juvenile delinquency, falling academic standards (I don't give a fuck what Labour claims, examinations are far easier now than before, and thus the results all but worthless).

I find it a bit silly to think that couples will be happy together when tax breaks are offered, or will fake it at least, and that those that do will have happy healthy families.

I understand that he's trying to sway those that are living together outside of marriage but I find this highly unneccessary