General election

[beastmode]

Just managed to get my self in a debate about the greens on Facebook (on an airsoft group). I honestly can't believe any airsofter would even think about voting green. I pointed out all their other policies such as scraping the military and legalising drugs.

[AK47frizzle]

ONLY NIGEL CAN STOP THE AIDS RIDDEN IMMIGRANTS, VOTE UKIP, VOTE NIGEL.

 

Jokes aside, from what i know so far, greens are being shat on, Ed and Clegg are useless, nigel is a racist fart and SNP seem to have a bit of a high ground; most of my friends seem to favour them.

 

I can't help but think Nicola's face resemles a troll face because of her chin...

 

That said, i can't vote anyway so whatever goes i guess.

[AirsoftTed]

I must say, and this isn't directed at just one person - Since when did a politicians looks effect how they were as a politician? All the stick I seem to see her getting is about being ugly. When was the last time a politician was good looking? David Cameron looks like a testicle with eyes and hair, Clegg looks like a badly aged middle aged woman who's cut her hair short and been reborn a naturist.

 

 

Tony Blair was considered a good looking politician for christs sake, surely thats saying something!

 

No one is going to go into the polling booth and think "fwar I wouldn't mind a go of that, lets stick them in parliment and see where things go from where"

 

firstly because they're all ugly c*nts anyway, but secondly what they look like has no relevance at all.

[Ian_Gere]

IMO politics is basically about economics - where the money comes from and what it is spent on. Unfortunately there has been no new schools of thought to emerge and gain significant traction since the late 70's. What this means is that those who will be holding our collective purse strings were educated to believe that "the market" is to be considered as something akin to divinity and somehow the fact (with a capital F, underscored, and highlighted) that markets have always required laws to restrict behaviour which free markets encourage (and the free-er the market, the more they encourage such behaviours) in order to function as markets not monopolies and/or cartels is somehow of less significance than the fact that greed trumps altruism more often than not, hence pure communism, with a 100% directed economy, is not practicable. However of more direct significance to our current voting choice is what has happened since Monetarism became the hymn sheet from which all western governments began to sing...

 

The idea that freeing up 'wealth creators' to do what they do best is beneficial to the entire economy is known as 'trickle-down', since the theory goes that when the wealthy have more money they spend it into the economy and this creates jobs in service industries and some manufacturing, which then creates jobs in all primary, secondary, and tertiary industries as the wages are spent into the economy, etc., i.e. the money trickles down from the top of the pyramid to the bottom. However the truth is that this has not happened. The experiment has had 35 years. The evidence is in. It has not worked. We can argue ad nauseam over why trickle down doesn't work, but what is not up for debate is that it doesn't. Personally I suspect that the fact that property prices in desirable locations have rocketed beyond all reasonable expectation in the last 35 years has a lot to do with it, but i suspect that of more significance is that it is a huge mistake to imagine that any national economy can be managed at national level, but our international organisations which, in theory, could manage global economic policies are run by the very people who have a great deal to lose were such policies altered (and it hardly matters what kind of alterations we may consider - if you're sitting pretty as things are, any change is bad, especially any change after which the consequences cannot be entirely predicted).

 

So I find myself looking at Cameron, Osborne and Duncan-Smith and what do I find? They learned their trade sucking on the monetarist Thatcherite bitter tit. And then I find myself looking at Labour and wondering how the fuck the Milibands and Ed Balls got to the top? Well, they weren't Brown and Blair and I spose after Iraq the Labour Party knew that they had to put someone up who had nowt to do with that. Clegg? Betrayed his left leaning party for the promise of power and the referendum he got was a joke. So not only a traitor to the ideals he was supposed to be representing, but an idiot. Farage is basically a career politician - he knows full well that nothing he says will ever be put to the test, but so long as he keeps saying them, he will have a job and/or fees for appearing on telly. The Green Party are far better dealing with local issues and global policies than national government - IMO they just don't have anyone unpleasant enough to deal with the likes of ISIS...

 

So I feel that nobody deserves my vote based on their policies for national government. At a local level, Lillian Greenwood (Lab) seems to have been no worse than any of 'em and much better than a lot so I feel that supporting her personally would not be something my conscience would haunt me with later. However my vote does have national consequences. It comes down to this then: I know the Tories will continue with monetarism and that it will continue to make the gap between the rich and poor increase. I know that the Lib Dems cannot be trusted and the one person amongst them who seems to actually understand that a massive shift in economic policy is needed, Vince Cable, does not have enough clout amongst them to drag the Party with him. That leaves Labour as the only party who could have the power and inclination to make changes (not that I expect the changes to be anywhere near as drastic as I would like)...

 

For me then it's either vote with hope, or don't vote. People died for our right to have our minor influence on how our lives are controlled, so I can't in good conscience not exercise it. Besides, even though I am very tempted by the idea that if the majority of people spoiled their ballot paper, it would be a massive vote of no confidence and things would have to change, the truth is that the idea is so naive. Tory supporters always vote. Those with something to lose always do whatever they can to keep it. It doesn't matter than millions of them don't actually have anything they would lose were our government's policies more socially democratic, they just have a massive debt and a 'lifestyle', but they think they do... It wouldn't even matter if the majority of ballot papers were spoiled - British Governments are not formed by those who have a majority of cast votes, just the most. It wouldn't matter if 95% of ballot papers were spoiled, if some party had 3% they would be the government and the majority of people would be pleased that there was a government in place. This is Britain - even our poorest are better off than the majority of the world's population: we are not about to see a revolution!

[Sitting Duck]

I must say, and this isn't directed at just one person - Since when did a politicians looks effect how they were as a politician? All the stick I seem to see her getting is about being ugly. When was the last time a politician was good looking? David Cameron looks like a testicle with eyes and hair, Clegg looks like a badly aged middle aged woman who's cut her hair short and been reborn a naturist.

 

 

Tony Blair was considered a good looking politician for christs sake, surely thats saying something!

 

No one is going to go into the polling booth and think "fwar I wouldn't mind a go of that, lets stick them in parliment and see where things go from where"

 

firstly because they're all ugly c*nts anyway, but secondly what they look like has no relevance at all.

 

Kinock was an ugly ginger bastid - he stood no f*ckin chance

Maggie was no oil painting but deffo easier on the eyes than Neil

[EvilMonkee]

Ah the old fallacy that the economy can be controlled, the public do like eating that one up don't they Ian! We must catch up some time mate, you going to the next Bolsh Bash in Aug? A lift is on offer as always....

[AK47frizzle]

Ahaha Nigel farage quits as Ukip leader with only 2 seats. Serves you right you old racist hag.

 

Green also have 2 seats, Lel.

[Zak Da Mack]

In other scary news, the tories have a majority, with no one to stop them...

[EvilMonkee]

He quit as leader, didnt say anything about not standing again for party leadership........

[Monty]

Here's to another 5 years of the conservatives royally f*cking us over.

 

Genuinely appalled by the British public, feel like we live in a country full of idiots.

 

Better luck next time, eh?

[beastmode]

No as I expressed before I'm happy with that result. The only party I can trust with the economy is the conservatives as they have proven they can do it. Labour would of just destroyed it with their excessive spending. Now enough politics let's get back to shooting each other with toy guns.

[Zak Da Mack]

Could argue that they have proved that they are not helping the economy.

Backdoor privatisation

Selling business off cheap to their mates
Falling living standards only disguised by the small amount of GDP growth we've been having (which I argue to be part of the natural cycle, not the tories helping it in any way possible)

Almost 1 million relying on food banks last year (which is expected to increase)

Benefits cut for the people who CAN'T work and now live in almost absolute poverty
Tax avoiders and hedge funders not paying which could lead to millions of pounds worth in extra government revenue which we really need

Oh, and a massive increase in government borrowing

 

So it might look like they are helping the economy by fixing the deficit, but there is a lot more underlying damage being done which could restrict our potential growth and may take a long time to correct, if it ever is corrected.

 

So yeah, f*** the tories

 

EDIT: Now that they have the majority, the libdems can't restrict them from doing anything they want. I seriously do not want to think about what this country will be like in 5 years time.

[Ian_Gere]

Rich people have/will not spent/d their rising wealth into the economy, nor do they deliberately invest the bulk of their wealth in British companies; what they do do is offer more for desirable property* and invest in funds which look for high returns from foreign companies' shares (because low overheads like wages and decent working conditions produce higher profits) and offset the risk by investing in primarily US based hedge funds. Poor people on the other hand do spend the bulk of their money into the domestic economy. In fact the poorer the person is, the more you can be certain that whatever increase in income they receive, from whatever source, it will be spent directly into the UK's retail market. The Tories plan £12 Billion of benefit cuts = taking £12 Billion out of the UK retail market.

 

But the British public do not know this. In fact the UK electorate know very little about economics and how any of the issues at stake in any election are affected by the way our financial systems work. Hey ho, the truth is we are in a global economic system which still has a long way to fall before we can start to recover from the effects of the massive de facto secret devaluation of the $US started under Reagan (by simply printing/electronically creating trillions of $US with no regard to what the US domestic economy could back with real assets/potential GDP, in order to bring about the fall of the Soviet Union). Since there is nothing anyone in Westminster can actually do about this, it's a shitty time to be 'in power' as there is no way to fool all the people all the time and there is nothing like pretending to be effective when you can never be honest about what's really going on to get you busted as insincere. This Tory machine has another 10 years to run, at which point we will see another massive swing to Labour when people storm the polling stations with the thought foremost in their minds, "I don't care what the issues are, I'm not standing for another five minutes of these lying Tory bastards, let alone five years..." The only thing which can upset that prediction is if the British people forgive the Lib Dems faster than I anticipate and the left of centre vote is diluted in 2025.

 

Fortunately a majority of 12/13 depending on how the last seat to declare goes is a piss poor majority and may prove harder to manage than the coalition. With any luck Cameron/Osborne will censor themselves in the hope of being able to trust some of their former partners more than they can trust some of their own right wing back benchers.

 

*And the reason this does not show up in headline inflation is because the Treasury simply leave property prices out of the published figures.

[Monty]

EDIT: Now that they have the majority, the libdems can't restrict them from doing anything they want. I seriously do not want to think about what this country will be like in 5 years time.

 

I'm looking forward to the tories eliminating poverty, by allowing all the hungry people to die.

[EvilMonkee]

Poor people dying? Where will I get my Maid from? Oh, yeh un checked immigration from the Rest of the World (incl Jockistan)...That's ok then, carry on!

[Sitting Duck]

I seriously do not want to think about what this country will be like in 5 years time.

 

Probably more SNP in Parliment - they didn't get every seat

 

As for other leaders resigning - they just following the example set after the Scottish vote

 

I'm done - like I said most of UK wouldn't want the goverment we got - The public UK or Scottish are thick as $hit

A bit of a shock to all the so called experts - jeez should of put a bet on I reckon - would be the most I got out Cameron for a while

 

Seriously - it's done and I'm going back to more serious stuff like peee peee peeoww with my toy guns

[EvilMonkee]

Only 5 more years of listening to the Jocks whinging, fantastic......

[Ian_Gere]

In the grand scheme of things "Jock" is not as offensive as some racial epithets, but it has been used elsewhere in contentious negative contexts, so let's just leave it out, lads, OK?

[EvilMonkee]

Nah cos it winds up Jambo88 ;p

[ImTriggerHappy]

Nah cos it winds up Jambo88 ;p

He does bite a bit doesn't he. ☺

[AirsoftTed]

To be fair it winds me up aswell, I just don't bite. It's like calling a Protestant an Orange man or a Catholic a Fenian. It's not the word that's always offensive, its the intent behind it and the context it's usually used in. Whenver I've been called a Fenian it's never been in the context of "Oh, what a wonderful Fenian man you are, be safe on your travels and I hope you don't burn in hell at any point" .

 

Nor is Jock usually used in a complimentary context. It's used to be demeaning for the most part. It's the same amount of letters and syllables as Scot, why use it? And Jockistan is just going out of your way, Scotland is shorter - so why bother?

[ImTriggerHappy]

I have known a few Scottish lads who have had Jock as a nickname it was never meant derogatory or taken that way. Some people can make or take anything badly I suppose so is probably best left.

[Jambo88]

Nah cos it winds up Jambo88 ;p

god yeah GRRRRRR some wee prick has called me a jock I'm totally wound up.

[EvilMonkee]

Well I am a Paddy, get called Paddy at work and it doesn't bother me at all.....

 

Jockistan is a joke but I think comparing the place to some god forsaken hell hole ran by absolute nutters (especially in the light of the election) kinda fits.

[Jambo88]

Well I am a Paddy, get called Paddy at work and it doesn't bother me at all.....

 

Jockistan is a joke but I think comparing the place to some god forsaken hell hole ran by absolute nutters (especially in the light of the election) kinda fits.

Its not our fault a conservatives got in.