• 🇬🇧󠁿 🇸🇪 🇿🇦 🇮🇪 🇬🇭 🇩🇪 🇪🇺
    European & African
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • EADD Moderators: Pissed_and_messed | Shinji Ikari

General Election 2015

Which party would you cast your vote for?

  • Conservative

    Votes: 2 4.2%

  • Labour

    Votes: 8 16.7%

  • Lib Dems

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Greens

    Votes: 14 29.2%

  • UKIP

    Votes: 3 6.3%

  • BNP

    Votes: 2 4.2%

  • SNP

    Votes: 6 12.5%

  • Plaid Cymru

    Votes: 2 4.2%

  • None of the above (feel free to post in thread)

    Votes: 11 22.9%
  • Total voters
    48
  • Poll closed .
couldnt agree more we are gonna get fucked up the arse for the next 5 years, unless youve got a few 100k in the bank its time to bend over. get ready for it boys and girls its coming. And they re gonna do much worse this time around. this nations full of gullable idiots. who wont know whats hit em soon enough.
Rant over im pissed that people dont see beyond the propaganda bullshit
 
Sammy G said:
Take it down from the mast, Scottish traitors
The flag we.republicans claim
It can never belong to Free Staters
You brought on it nothing but shame
Click to expand...
Oh you murdered our brave Liam and Riory
You slaughtered young Richard and and Joe
You were set up by the sun and the Tories
You are upholding the word of the foe

But seriously tth Scots mps should absent themselves from Westminster set up a national parliament in the barrowlands and Felix and his mates can form a flying Column and take to the hills.
 
pinkpapaver said:
what I don't understand is how so many lib dem seats converted to tory? It's like the ones who voted lib dem the last time decided to cut the middle man out or something.
Click to expand...
Five years ago, Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems faced a choice: Form a coalition with the Conservative party, or let them try and form one with Labour. It's not a decision I envy anyone having to make. The voters wanted Lib Dems in government, making a difference; the reality of the situation was that any difference they might make would be at best severely limited.

They made the wrong choice, in hindsight. It should have been obvious what they were letting themselves in for. They had their arms twisted so far up behind their backs by their Tory puppetmasters, they weren't able to minimise the damage enough. (The Lib Dems only reneged on their manifesto promise about the tuition fee increase at the point of a pretty nasty weapon. If they had blocked it, you can bet they would have been made to suffer.)

The full extent of the Liberal Democrats' mitigatory efforts against the worst ideas the Tories could dream up probably will only really come to light during a pure Conservative government, when they can't easily point to anyone else and say "it was them wot did it" when they introduce the seriously unpopular measures they are planning.

And come the next election, the same thing probably will happen to the SNP -- unless something really interesting happens in the meantime. Personally, I intend to consume sufficient quantities of already-illegal drugs to remain in a state of blissful not-botheredness, relying on the Inverse Square Law and the two hundred kilometres that separate the Houses of Parliament from myself.

Oh, and Rupert Murdoch does not sell newspapers to readers: He sells newspaper readers to advertisers. There's a difference.
 
StoneHappyMonday said:
Times Newspaper Group

Revenue from sales - 51%

Revenue from advertising - 44%
Click to expand...
Those probably are the carefully-manipulated figures; the ones where profit and cost centres get moved about by selling things to a different company you also own at either extortionate profits or losses, so as to keep all your departments in the lowest possible tax bands. (Look at how a certain coffee house chain has all its profits swallowed up because their branches have to pay royalties on the copyrighted logos on their storefronts, cups, serviettes &c.) I'd be prepared to bet much of the money that comes in from advertisers is swallowed up in "overheads"; and they might even have a subsidiary company responsible for buying back unsold papers that is adding to the sales figures.

It's certainly possible to turn a profit giving away free newspapers. Just like Murdoch to want to get paid both ends, though. Don't be under any illusion that you aren't the real product being sold.
StoneHappyMonday said:
You also seem to keep banging on about some mythical Tory/Labour coalition as if this is or was ever a possibility outside of world wartime. It isn't.
Click to expand...
No, it would never have lasted a full term, which is precisely the point. The two parties now are just too similar.

Anyway, it is war. Them against us ..... only if you want to play at war of attrition, it usually helps if your enemy actually have more to lose than you do.
 
In a way we're choosing to argue over semantics. What I originally said was "Murdoch sells newspapers". This covers both selling newspapers to readers and selling newspaper space for advertising revenue. FWIW, those figures aren't manipulated in the way you imply. It was actually the first time in fourteen years News International have made more from sales. And they do seem keen to move away from being dependent on advertising - this gives even more free reign for Murdoch to behave editorially how he wants (like allowing the Scottish Sun to briefly tell their readers to vote SNP for example) without having to tow a line so as not to upset an advertiser.

And I'm sorry Julie but the point of a Labour/Tory coalition is that it would never happen, ever. It is an ideological impossibility. Even though the two main parties are indeed barely distinguishable through ideology, a Lab/Con coalition threatens the whole facade of our supposedly democratic system. We have to maintain an image of difference to encourage people to vote, and voting is what gives political legitimacy.
 
We all know the system is unfair. This is how unfair.

Number of votes required by each party to elect One M.P

UKIP - 3,881,129

GREENS - 1,157,613

LIB DEMS - 301,986

PLAID CYMRU - 60,564

UUP - 57,467

SINN FEIN - 44,058

LABOUR - 40,290

CONSERVATIVES - 34,244

SDLP - 33,269

SNP - 25,972

DUP - 23,032

These are just the parties who managed to get an elected MP. It should be noted that the ALLIANCE party and the TRADE UNION & SOCIALIST COALITION also polled 61,556 and 36,327 votes respectively without getting any M.P's.

The mean figure for attaining an MP based on votes cast would be 47,211.
 
Last edited:
OK, I'll grant you that one. Big businesses are good at hiding where their money comes from anyway.

Supposing that a Tory-Labour coalition (which, you're right, would blur the distinction between shit and shite too much; gotta maintain those artificial distinctions where there aren't enough real ones. Girls Like Us™ know all about that) didn't happen, the next most likely scenario would have been a Conservative minority government that also would have been unlikely to last the full term.

Either way, an early general election would have inevitably followed, and probably not been good news for the Tories. My main point is that Clegg and Co, whether for entirely selfish reasons (MORE POWER!!!!!) or altruistic ones (not wanting to let the voters down, and believing they could punch above their weight) made the mistake of getting themselves into a relationship they should have known would be an abusive one, and -- most probably because of their own political persuasions -- underestimated the tendency for victim-blaming.

Still, about the only thing for it now is to wait for the Tories to piss off one person too many.

EDIT: First Past The Post is broken for anything more than two candidates, as can be seen elsewhere in the Internet. Unfortunately, it's the old story about too many people having benefitted from an unfair system for too long.

If vested interests hadn't scuttled the Alternative Vote in the 2011 referendum (hint: Next time, don't ask. Put it in your manifesto and just bloody do it. Remember, more people voted for someone else than voted for you -- that's how FTPT works -- and forgiveness is easier to obtain than permission), we could easily have extended it to full-on Single Transferrable Voting by merging the present constituencies into "mega-constituencies" returning multiple MPs -- also greatly increasing the probability that anyone could claim an elected representative who does actually represent them, as opposed to the present situation where many people are "represented" by an MP who is diametrically opposed to them on many issues.
 
Last edited:
StoneHappyMonday said:
In a way we're choosing to argue over semantics. What I originally said was "Murdoch sells newspapers". This covers both selling newspapers to readers and selling newspaper space for advertising revenue. FWIW, those figures aren't manipulated in the way you imply. It was actually the first time in fourteen years News International have made more from sales. And they do seem keen to move away from being dependent on advertising - this gives even more free reign for Murdoch to behave editorially how he wants (like allowing the Scottish Sun to briefly tell their readers to vote SNP for example) without having to tow a line so as not to upset an advertiser.

And I'm sorry Julie but the point of a Labour/Tory coalition is that it would never happen, ever. It is an ideological impossibility. Even though the two main parties are indeed barely distinguishable through ideology, a Lab/Con coalition threatens the whole facade of our supposedly democratic system. We have to maintain an image of difference to encourage people to vote, and voting is what gives political legitimacy.
Click to expand...

I agree, it would never happen and Labour would be punished so badly if it did. Can you imagine Prime Minister's questions... this was half the problem with the lib dems if you watch the PMQ's you can hardly distinguish them from the Tories, they're on the side of the sneering cunts and thus had no hope in hell of getting back in. They have literally destroyed themselves and they know it.
 
^ That's hilarious. :D (x 2)

I forgot to mention reason number 3. The Labour Party didn't have merchandise like this:

lgReCQw.jpg
 
aftershocknrock said:
Sorry SHM but there has already been a labour/tory coalition of sorts in Scotland http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-18008844 there is no ethics with these cunts, when they need to look after thier own corupt interests. People are well aware that labour/cons are one and the same.
Click to expand...

With respect we're talking on a National level, not which party can clean up most dog shit. There's a massive difference.

EDIT Don't get me wrong, that's a particularly scummy example you point out all the same.
 
Last edited:
pinkpapaver;13031001 did anyone notice sam cam's dress? It was virtually all blue with a yellow back. Interesting symbolism maybe.[/QUOTE said:
like a horse wrapped in the upholstery stolen from a bus.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top