Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
So you'd be happy for your vote to be withdrawn I'm assuming?
Yes very good - however I meant that there have been many questions over Mr Robinson's activities down the years, yet he has still been elected - I am saying that in most seats the winner is known in advance, thus Tony Blair's son being lined up for a Coventry seat.
The conservative party wins more votes than Labour, but comes second, the Liberal Democrats would have more seats if PR was introduced, my point is that for the majority of us, we do not have any influence on who is elected ~ so where is trhe democracy ?
Voting is pointless.....
Mainly due the fact that even if you do effect a change of MP.....its just swapping one ex-public school boy with a silver spoon in his mouth for another....they just wear different colour ties....
....Ideology died in the 1980's.....
Now, we have a "choice" of 3 parties of bland over-privileged political class yes-men who have never had a proper job or lived in the real world since the day they were born (into the lap of luxury).
Tories, Labour, Lib Dems.....Same set of lying rich bastards with different colour ties.:jerkit:
You can t really make people's blood boil though can you? Like you can t force your opinion on others. There are lots of things that make my blood boil that you would probably not have a problem with. Everyone is different, for now at least
You could if you sent them into spaceProblem is a lot of people are very happy to complain about inequality in so many walks of life but not the biggest one which is written into the constitution-I don't understand it.
perhaps because there are other things that we have more chance of changing?
So you'd be happy for your vote to be withdrawn I'm assuming?
I just think there's much more important issues in the country at the moment. Lots of problems, none of which are caused by the monarchy.
Like what, the faltering economy which the Royals have leeched off for all time?
Who's paying for Kate's private hospital?<p>
Visit Buckingham palace on any afternoon & see how many tourists are there. Then you will see how bad they are for the economy.
I think I would be a bit more sympathetic to the republican cause if it wasn't always the looney left that keeps banging on about it. It just seems to me to be another chance to destroy a symbol of a country they hate so much.
Of course we'd be so much better off with someone like Arthur Scargill in charge. :thinking about:
Or maybe Bob Crowe, couple of fine left wing characters there.
Left wing politics arent perfect, granted.
<p>
Visit Buckingham palace on any afternoon & see how many tourists are there. Then you will see how bad they are for the economy.
I think I would be a bit more sympathetic to the republican cause if it wasn't always the looney left that keeps banging on about it. It just seems to me to be another chance to destroy a symbol of a country they hate so much.
More nonsense Coundon. Republicans want Britons to do better than having the head of state chosen for them by birth-to insinuate that we must hate the country is an insult.
There is of course no evidence we would do better.
Given your obvious socialist stance (ignoring of course your private education) I would guess you pefer this society to the United States with its complete disregard for public welfare.
100% British God Save the Queen
<p>
Visit Buckingham palace on any afternoon & see how many tourists are there. Then you will see how bad they are for the economy.
I think I would be a bit more sympathetic to the republican cause if it wasn't always the looney left that keeps banging on about it. It just seems to me to be another chance to destroy a symbol of a country they hate so much.
The question I'm going to ask in retaliation is this: If there was no monarchy, would those same tourists be there?
Before you answer, think about this, people still visit the 'Forbidden Kingdom' in China (Chinese Buckingham) and people still visit the 'Winter Palace' in Russia, do they have monarchs? Furthermore, do those tourists visit Buckingham to see the Royals? No, therefore, your argument is flawed.
Yes the same tourists would be there -- that particular argument does not hold water.
I been to London a few times - visiting the wife's daughter and also for sight-seeing trips. I've never once bothered with Buckingham Palace. Do you know why? Because there are far too many other sights to see and things to do in London. The foreign visitors do exactly the same. They don't just come for the bloody sponging monarchy. So the argument "They bring in tourism" is a load of bolloocks!
Just stuck the news on and parliament is on. My god. What a bunch of idiots this country is ran by. There all as bad as each other. Arguing like school children. It's pathetic. They all deserve to be thrown out.
Torres, Labour, Lib Dem; none of them deserve there pay packet or roles.
Just stuck the news on and parliament is on. My god. What a bunch of idiots this country is ran by. There all as bad as each other. Arguing like school children. It's pathetic. They all deserve to be thrown out.
Torres, Labour, Lib Dem; none of them deserve there pay packet or roles.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?