Britain - The Official Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ross
  • 13,460 comments
  • 771,118 views

How will you vote in the 2024 UK General Election?

  • Conservative Party

    Votes: 2 6.9%

  • Green Party

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Labour Party

    Votes: 14 48.3%

  • Liberal Democrats

    Votes: 2 6.9%

  • Other (Wales/Scotland/Northern Ireland)

    Votes: 1 3.4%

  • Other Independents

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Other Parties

    Votes: 2 6.9%

  • Spoiled Ballot

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Will Not/Cannot Vote

    Votes: 8 27.6%
  • Total voters
    29
  • Poll closed .
Anyone know what the Bush family cost the US government? 2 former presidents, and 1 senator sure don't do without secret service protection.
 
ExigeEvan
Anyone know what the Bush family cost the US government? 2 former presidents, and 1 senator sure don't do without secret service protection.
Click to expand...

Or all the former Presidents, for that matter. Carter and Clinton are still alive.
 
Liquid
I've never quite understood why the Royal Family always do so well in popularity polls. Especially after watching the most recent state opening of Parliament, I knew I was completely done. All so submissive and pompous.
Click to expand...
That's parliament for you. MPs and the Lords thinking that they're royalty...
 
prisonermonkeys
I'm going to take a page from Adam Hills' books and suggest the Coalition of United Northern Territories in Syria.
Click to expand...
I thought he was calling them "cystISIS"?
 
Famine
So to the important point... can we agree on a name to call them?

Personally I favour "Da'esh", which is both the contraction of the Arabic version of their name before translation into English and a name they find so offensive (due to homophony) that they have been known to flog people caught using the name in "their" areas. Plus it lends a whole load less credence to the concept that they're a legitimate "state".

Though I refer to their combatants as "Isissies".
Click to expand...
Highly motivated, angry Sunnis is what I call them.
 
ExigeEvan
Anyone know what the Bush family cost the US government? 2 former presidents, and 1 senator sure don't do without secret service protection.
Click to expand...

It cost american taxpayers billions. however when fiscal reality finally kicks in these individual would be saying good-bye to those perks.
 
So, the Labour leadership contest is coming to an end in 30 minutes from now, and the results are to be announced on Saturday. It is looking likely that Jeremy Corbyn, the most left-wing candidate up for the role, is going to win. Many commentators - including Tony Blair and Alastair Campbell - have warned that a Corbyn win will wreck the Labour party... that remains to be seen.
 
Whereas Bliar, Campbell and the rest didn't sabotage the Labour party and set it back about 15 years themselves? Rubbish.
 
Liquid
Whereas Bliar, Campbell and the rest didn't sabotage the Labour party and set it back about 15 years themselves? Rubbish.
Click to expand...
Tony Blair took your nation down the garden path of a war of choice, not necessity. IMO, you (we) are nowhere near done paying for it.
 
Liquid
But did 82% of people vote not for the Labour party in 2001?
Click to expand...
It's nearer to 76% - though of those 76% who didn't vote for the Labour party's candidates, 41.6% didn't vote for anybody's, with 24.4% voting for somebody other than the Labour party's candidates.
 
Liquid
But did 82% of people vote not for the Labour party in 2001?
Click to expand...
10.7 million people voted Labour in 2001, which was about 18% of the UK population at the time.

Also, as you suggest above, support for the war in Iraq set about Tony Blair's demise - it was massively unpopular in the UK, especially among Labour and Liberal voters. As someone who voted Labour myself in 2001 - and who marched in London against the war in Iraq with close to 1 million other people - I can safely say that the number of people who both voted Labour and supported the war in Iraq is considerably less than 18% of the general population... probably in single figures in terms of %.
 
haitch40
We all live within the state and thus we share the burden.
Click to expand...

This is true to a certain extent. But like I said elsewhere, the state is becoming obsolete except as a means of generating taxation and manufactured consent for the wars and social engineering projects. ISIS, not a state either, know this and are targeting the heads of influential global organizations and interest groups. But ordinary citizens still get to pay for it in taxation and as collateral damage.

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/eco...ttack-koch-brothers-buffett-bloomberg-n424386
 
Dotini
This is true to a certain extent. But like I said elsewhere, the state is becoming obsolete except as a means of generating taxation and manufactured consent for the wars and social engineering projects. ISIS, not a state either, know this and are targeting the heads of influential global organizations and interest groups. But ordinary citizens still get to pay for it in taxation and as collateral damage.

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/eco...ttack-koch-brothers-buffett-bloomberg-n424386
Click to expand...
Using IS as an example of being not a state is terrible. It is clear that the aim is to establish a state, they just haven't got that far yet. Hence their name is, Islamic State.
 
Last edited:
Famine
It's nearer to 76% - though of those 76% who didn't vote for the Labour party's candidates, 41.6% didn't vote for anybody's, with 24.4% voting for somebody other than the Labour party's candidates.
Click to expand...
IMO, I've always thought they whole "only X% of people voted for them" statistic is misleading. We go though the same thing here in Canada with a multi-party system. If you don't vote, you don't count, so using non-voters as part of your database is about as misleading as it gets. % of people who actually bothered to vote is all that should matter with total voter turnout being a completely separate issue.
 
Johnnypenso
IMO, I've always thought they whole "only X% of people voted for them" statistic is misleading.
Click to expand...
It would be if it wasn't clearly highlighted and the statement includes the number that voted and voted against them. It's still not unfair though to point out that the leading party's representation was achieved with less than a quarter of voters' approval, but more than two thirds of the parliamentary seats, thanks to the First Past The Post system we have.

What is misleading is news outlets' insistence on ignoring the number of people who spoiled their ballots.
 
haitch40
And if I put money on him 4 months ago I would have got 500/1. I could have been made if I dumped my £2000 of savings on him.

Corbyn will either make or break the Labour party. Which he does is yet to be seen. I can't wait till PMQs though.
Click to expand...

Hate to rub it in but you could have still got 200/1 not very long ago at all. Anyway, if it's any form of compensation, his election guarantees the Conservatives will win the next General Election. See what odds you get on that - but don't put your savings on it. That would be bad. :scared:
 
Tired Tyres
his election guarantees the Conservatives will win the next General Election.
Click to expand...
Evidence?

The PS in France held an open leadership election similar to what Labour did. Result was the first socialist government in 20 years.
80% of the people who were not members or union members voted for him.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34223157

And to please @Famine they announced the spoiled ballots which was 200 and something.
 
Last edited:
Just the fact that Labour had to reinvent itself as New Labour (Tory Wet party really) in order to get elected. Otherwise it was 1974 since they won one prior to that.
 
Tired Tyres
Just the fact that Labour had to reinvent itself as New Labour (Tory Wet party really) in order to get elected. Otherwise it was 1974 since they won one prior to that.
Click to expand...
Yes, and?

Times can move the other way you know. Look again at France.
 
haitch40
Evidence?
Click to expand...
Corbyn is fiscally left. So is the Labour party by ideology and tradition. The populace isn't.

It's not an accident that the Labour party wandered to the right under Blair/Mandelson. It joined all of the major national parties in being fiscally right and socially controlling except the Green party:

uk2015.png

The general population is of the mindset that taxation is bad but public services are good (particularly the NHS and the BBC), while they should be free to do what they like but there should be laws against things that they don't. This puts them in the same quadrant as the major parties.

Corbyn's ideology is some way to the left of that - and a little downwards too, round about the Plaid Cymru zone. That moves him and by extension the party under his leadership away from the majority of voters.


Still, if his manifesto for 2020 is nothing but "Put Tony Blair on trial for war crimes", I'd vote Labour.
 

Latest Posts

Back