One week to go, who are you planning on voting for?

[ECA]

Who doesn't love Boris?

Future PM in 10-20 years.

 

[yaruar]

Who doesn't love Boris?

Future PM in 10-20 years.

You've got to love boris as a person, but wtf has he actually done for london apart from scrapping essential local infrastructure projects like the greenwich bridge?

 

[Furr]

You've got to love boris as a person, but wtf has he actually done for london apart from scrapping essential local infrastructure projects like the greenwich bridge?

Pretty sure that building shiny new things in London in the current climate isn't an option, the only realistic path in the short to medium term is to protect core services and mitigate increased costs to residents as a result of massively decreased tax receipts from the private sector.

 

[Raven]

But doesn't money grow on trees?

 

[Zenith.UK]

I simply don't think Con and LibDem would allow a Labour minority government, especially if they polled 3rd in terms of vote share. That would run to a no-confidence vote of the Queens speech, and a re-run of the general election.

I remember reading that 325 is not the amount needed for a majority. It's actually 319. The 7 Unionist MPs from Northern Ireland won't take their seats because they won't pledge allegiance to the Queen. 325-7=318. 319 would mean no other party could defeat them UNLESS those Unionist MPs took their seats.

 

[Scouse]

But doesn't money grow on trees?

It would do if we ditched capitalism and went back to the stick.

It's tried and tested and doesn't steal wealth off you if you don't use it straight away

 

[Gumbo]

I'm pretty sure that Unionist mp's are more than happy to pledge allegiance to The Queen.

 

[Zenith.UK]

I'm pretty sure that Unionist mp's are more than happy to pledge allegiance to The Queen.

No, they're not.
Oath of Allegiance (United Kingdom) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Pfy]

I think the immigration amnesty should be like that macintyre thing (not sure it was his show) where they tell criminals they're on a quiz show then arrest them.

They should say that all the illeagal immigrants should come to place X for there shiny new visas or whatever and then lock them up and ship them out ...

Couldn't possibly fail!

Oh and just because someone is now allowed to stay in the country legally doesn't mean they're suddenyl going to think, "Super, I can finally pay my taxes!".

A vote for the Lib Dems is a waste of time as we'll just have to sit here and endure 4 more years of shit and moaning from you same anti nuclear self righteous tree loving hippies.

Oh and yes, Nick Clegg has made promises, right, because he's a new SUPER-BREED politician that doesn't lie and will 100% deliver his promises.

Saying that they're now so popular has nothing to do with the TV debates is retarded. It's all about the TV debates and surely people can see that he's just as slimey and maybe even a little bit more sleazy than any normal politician.

 

[JingleBells]

No, they're not.
Oath of Allegiance (United Kingdom) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Those aren't Unionists

 

[Pfy]

No, they're not.
Oath of Allegiance (United Kingdom) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unionists and Loyalists
People espousing unionist beliefs are sometimes referred to as Loyalists. The two words are sometimes used interchangeably, but the latter is more often associated with particularly hardline forms of Unionism. In some cases it has been associated with individual or groups who support or engage in violence. Most unionists do not describe themselves as loyalists.

[edit] Nationalists and Republicans
A similar distinction exists in relation to Irish nationalists. Mainstream nationalists, such as the supporters of the Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP) and the main parties in the Republic of Ireland, are generally referred to by that term. The more militant strand of nationalism, comprising groups such as Sinn Féin, has been known as republicanism. In the Republic of Ireland, the republican tradition has moderated and moved into the mainstream. Today the republican party, Fianna Fáil, has little in common with militant republicans other than certain ideological and historical perspectives.

 

[Athan]

I remember reading that 325 is not the amount needed for a majority. It's actually 319. The 7 Unionist MPs from Northern Ireland won't take their seats because they won't pledge allegiance to the Queen. 325-7=318. 319 would mean no other party could defeat them UNLESS those Unionist MPs took their seats.

Except if 7 MPs don't ever vote in the UK Parliament then it effectively has 643 seats instead of 650, and to get a majority in that you need 322 votes.

 

[Scouse]

surely people can see that he's just as slimey and maybe even a little bit more sleazy than any normal politician.

What do you base your assumption that he's more sleazy than a "normal" politician?

Apart from being a "normal" politician, he's probably just as sleazy as the rest. You really are being a bit of a Pfy here

 

[Pfy]

What do you base your assumption that he's more sleazy than a "normal" politician?

Apart from being a "normal" politician, he's probably just as sleazy as the rest. You really are being a bit of a Pfy here

And as always you're trying to be condescending. At least we can be thankful you didn't mention how clever or rich you supposedly are.

The fact that he turned a nice profit on his 2nd home as an MEP and the such probably have no bearing on your opinion because ... he was a nice guy on the TV. Oh no, sorry you actually just agree with his policies. Like allowing Brussels more power of Europe (and Britain) as a whole with of course a proimise that local matters will still be dealt with by a local government.

Surely if you believe he is as slimey and as sleazy as any other politician why would you so blindly beleive his promises for a referendum and that we would not join the Euro even though he has previously said that Britain SHOULD.

 

[Gumbo]

Those aren't Unionists

Don't worry, he'll get there eventually, and in a sense his point still stands as Republican mp's won't be swearing allegiance any time soon.

 

[Scouse]

And as always you're trying to be condescending.

Not trying to be condescending, it just comes naturally, sorry.

Seriously though. I've already answered most of what you raised in my long "I'm a twat" policy post.

The fact that I exposed myself by being honest that I've earned a good income and know that people who are better off laugh at the less fortunate wasn't me "lording it over" you or showing off - it was me showing you that, despite Lib Dem policies being distinctly financially inconvenient to myself I still support them - because I believe that they are the correct ones.

Rich people, in general, don't give a fuck about the poor (whatever they say). They never will. The ONLY party which aims to do something about this is the Lib Dems.

I don't actually like Clegg. I don't think he's some messiah. I just posted a defence of their policies - because, intellectually, they appeal to me. It was certainly nothing to do with the TV debates - as I only watched the first one and found it boring and only covered stuff I already knew.

I've also posted that I don't think it really matters who wins the election - as global capitalism is never going to be reformed by a vote in England.

In my post I was deliberately trying to stir some emotion to see how people reacted when the facts were presented exactly how I see them - it just seems that you reacted badly to it and completely missed the point

 

[rynnor]

Rich people, in general, don't give a fuck about the poor (whatever they say). They never will. The ONLY party which aims to do something about this is the Lib Dems.

We dont have any poor people in this country - real poverty is about not having enough to eat or anyplace to live which you can all get for free.

All we are left with in this country is relative poverty - i.e. counting yourself as poor because your car isnt brand new, you cant afford designer clothes etc. etc.

These are the aspirational differences between people - if a government ever suceeded in removing those why would anyone bother to work in this country?

Thats why wealth re-distribution is wrong and its not generally targetting the mega-rich because they have good accountants - its the middle classes who pay.

If that seems fair then the definition of fair has changed beyond recognition.

Edit - Oh and what about Bill Gates? Isnt he rich?

 

[Scouse]

We dont have any poor people in this country

Maybe I'm going to be condescending again, but that's one of the most blinkered things I've ever heard.

Open your eyes rynnor.

 

[rynnor]

Maybe I'm going to be condescending again, but that's one of the most blinkered things I've ever heard.

Open your eyes rynnor.

I think youd find that most of the worlds population would call even the least well off in the UK rich - all things are relative but poverty really means you lack the basics to survive which no-one in the UK does.

 

[Scouse]

I think youd find that most of the worlds population would call even the least well off in the UK rich - all things are relative but poverty really means you lack the basics to survive which no-one in the UK does.

Really? A guy in an South American tribe in a jungle somewhere, who lives with his family, who enjoys hunting for that evening's food with his mates is poorer than a homeless guy, on the streets of some shitty northern city, with huge mental problems, no family and nobody to help him?

 

[DaGaffer]

Really? A guy in an South American tribe in a jungle somewhere, who lives with his family, who enjoys hunting for that evening's food with his mates is poorer than a homeless guy, on the streets of some shitty northern city, with huge mental problems, no family and nobody to help him?

In OECD terms, yes.

 

[Scouse]

In OECD terms, yes.

I thought my post was very clear. It appears not. I think your answer's a bit cheap Gaff

Either way - is the homeless guy I mentioned not poor? Rynnor said there's no real poverty in England. If sleeping out on the streets (which many thousands do) isn't poor, then what the fuck is?

 

[rynnor]

If sleeping out on the streets (which many thousands do) isn't poor, then what the fuck is?

Its mental illness, dysfunctional families etc. etc. - I didnt say the UK was perfect but the fact remains that we dont have real poverty.

Do you see kids scavenging for a living on the local landfill site, kids dressed in rags living in shanty towns because I dont.

Its tough for socialists because without 'the poor' they have no real reason to exist thats why they try to perpetuate the myth of poverty in the UK.

 

[Wazzerphuk]

No poor people, you're right:

Number of homeless in London leaps 15% | Society | guardian.co.uk

One quick search proves you're talking UTTER SHIT.

 

[rynnor]

No poor people, you're right:

Number of homeless in London leaps 15% | Society | guardian.co.uk

One quick search proves you're talking UTTER SHIT.

Lol - you really are no genius - if you think homelessness is just down to poverty how come most people without jobs do not end up on the streets?

 

[DaGaffer]

I thought my post was very clear. It appears not. I think your answer's a bit cheap Gaff

Either way - is the homeless guy I mentioned not poor? Rynnor said there's no real poverty in England. If sleeping out on the streets (which many thousands do) isn't poor, then what the fuck is?

It was a slightly flippant answer, but I get what Rynnor's talking about. There are degrees of poverty and the worst-off Brit in some shithole sink estate still has a better quality of life than your average Bangladeshi. We don't have child labour, and being skint here isn't the one-step-away-from-starving-to-death variety. Not to say that there aren't problems in the UK, of course there are; but a great deal of homelessness for instance is to do with failures in social and healthcare rather than out and out poverty.

 

[ST^]

No poor people, you're right:

Number of homeless in London leaps 15% | Society | guardian.co.uk

One quick search proves you're talking UTTER SHIT.

4,672 "rough sleepers" is like 0.06% of the population in London. 15% increase on a low number is still a low number.

 

[DocWolfe]

The majority of homeless people in London are homeless out of choice. There's lots of opportunities for people to move away from being homeless if they wanted.

 

[Scouse]

One quick search proves you're talking UTTER SHIT.

I wanted to say that, but I've already been called condescending in this thread. But just for good measure, throw a "fucking" in that equation somewhere too

But it is amusing that the conservative voters are coming out in force now (and I used to be one of them). I particularly like the fact that it's the homeless people's fault and that, just because they're not all starving to death, they're not really poor.

I think you lot have proved my point nicely. Even people who aren't rich don't give a fuck about the poor

 

[megadave]

I'm voting for Labour, not because i like Labour or Gordon Brown, but because my local Labour MP is actually good. That and to vote against Tories.