- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, Maximum:1000 KB, Thumbnails: 600x600 pixels
- Currently 3025 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply[ Reply ]
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 74485
I'll remember you as a pretty good Prime Minister. Although you're a poshboy and therefore have little in common with me I've always thought you were the best man around at the time to do the job. It's a ridiculous job to do when you think about it.
Who is the next Prime Minister?
|>>|| No. 74489
>Who is the next Prime Minister?
The smart money is on Andrea Leadsom but I'm hearing that from biased sources. She did well in the Libor scandal (on the Treasury select committee) so at the very least the position of chancellor seems secure if she wants it.
Whoever comes in is fucked mind. The record for leaders who walked into the job rather then being elected in a general is less than stellar and I think Boris knows this. Well played, Cameron.
|>>|| No. 74492
Oh I couldn't agree more. The perversity of the current situation is that Cameron would absolutely be the best man for the job right now.
One of the women would be a much bolder move. Villiers?
|>>|| No. 74636
>...pretty good Prime Minister
Massive growth of inequality in the country, fucked public services, demonised immigrants and all this was subsequently blamed on the EU instead of the Tories. He then called a referendum no one really wanted in order to try and keep his own party under control and drove us all off the cliff with a stupid gamble he didn't need to take.
Doesn't sound particularly good to me. I can't actually think of a single positive thing he achieved whilst in power. He's just a classic soundbite politician with no substance.
I will concede that Dodgy Dave is the lesser of the evils compared to Bojo or Gove, but it's like choosing between prostate cancer and lung cancer.
|>>|| No. 74638
>I can't actually think of a single positive thing he achieved whilst in power. He's just a classic soundbite politician with no substance.
Gay marriage comes to mind.
|>>|| No. 74647
>>74638 That's not exactly something he championed. It's something that has been in the offing for years.
|>>|| No. 74648
Only if you fail to adjust for the battering the richest took in 2009-10. Otherwise it's been a pretty consistent increase.
|>>|| No. 74747
That yout post is irrelevant. You said inequality increased, it did not.
|>>|| No. 74758
He can't. He'll find the relevant data for year ending 2011, and the comparable data for year ending 2015, find the latter higher than the former, and resort to trying to present data from 2009 as representative as if the recession didn't happen.
|>>|| No. 74833
Nobody knows. The figure we do have is the number of rations given out. One person may turn up to collect for a family of four, and may come back a second time, in which case that one person will have generated eight rations. The Trussell Trust gave out 61468 in the first year of Cameron's administration and 1109309 in 2015/16, though they expanded considerably over that time, they're not the only operator of food banks, and food banks are not the only emergency food provision, so the trend may not be as it first appears from their numbers. Either way, it's fucking shameful that we're in that position in the first place.
|>>|| No. 74838
The current two major parties stand as one against the decision of over half of the demographic. What do?
|>>|| No. 74840
Thin the herd. Euthanise the daft ones who voted Leave. This should also ease the pressure on our public services overnight.
|>>|| No. 74841
The argument is distasteful, but I think it's necessary.
Increased use of food banks does not necessarily indicate an increase in poverty or inequality. There has been a huge increase in the number of food banks and public awareness of their existence, so increased use may indicate a latent need that had previously gone unserved.
For obvious political reasons, it is not in the interests of the Trussell Trust to provide statistically useful data on their client base.
|>>|| No. 74846
I feel there may be a bit of a turn approaching. Personally I know and have conversed with people from all classes and backgrounds from people on benefits in unfavourable areas to owners of European business' with sites across the continent. Something is going to give
|>>|| No. 75001
I know bams in my hometown who use food banks to get free booze.
They go to the food bank to get food and then will trade a greater value of food for a bottle of vodka or something with a less desperate bam.
While the increase use of food banks may well indicate a previously unserved latent need, one must also consider the possibility that the increased usage in the service is the result of a calculating underclass finding new and tackier ways to exploit the welfare state (i.e. bams bamming more efficiently)
|>>|| No. 75090
I consider myself to be left-wing, but so often do lefties neglect that people do things like this. I've read articles in the Guardian in which the writer will explain their shock about some desperate bastard playing the system, conning someone, or doing something immoral, as if they thought we had successfully eradicated bastardry. It seems the far-right end up wanting ethnic cleansing, whilst the far-left want ethic cleansing.
|>>|| No. 75093
I'm left wing, I joined neoconlads as an agent provocateur hopefully I can coax them into nuclear bombing the reegressives and SJW's off the fucking planet.
(A good day to you Sir!)
|>>|| No. 75101
>the far-right end up wanting ethnic cleansing, whilst the far-left want ethic cleansing
Wow, so profound and eloquent.
|>>|| No. 75134
Who are all these nobodies? How can they be better than Corbyn?
Also, is Corbyn a Scottish name?
|>>|| No. 75135
Crabb has been on the Tory radar for a while, Leadsom came to prominence in the Leave campaign, you'd have seen her in the debates and things if you paid any attention. May, Gove and Fox you should know.
|>>|| No. 75137
So we've got Theresa May, Michael Gove, Liam Fox, Stephen Crabb, and that other one. An interesting field to say the least.
|>>|| No. 75138
Why is Liam Fox running? He was so incompetent Cameron didn't even want to use him as a political meat shield unlike most of his cabinet.
|>>|| No. 75141
>Why is Liam Fox running?
It would appear that the Fox is not a learning animal.
|>>|| No. 75188
No wonder he doesn't like experts. Apparently he thought the best expert on how to process sexual offenders through the justice system was an armed robber.
|>>|| No. 75196
Here's Gove showing off his experience in education:
|>>|| No. 75197
|>>|| No. 75199
Only if you use dogs. You're still allowed to use traps, guns, gas or a crushing electoral defeat.
|>>|| No. 75200
Theresa May's always seemed like a right bitch to me WAHEY ISN'T THAAT RIGHT LADS
|>>|| No. 75202
Stephen Crabb is out. Just when people were remembering to mention that he was in the running. Rude.
|>>|| No. 75203
So we're left with Theresa May, Michael Gove, and that other one. If I'm remembering my rules correctly, the next ballot would be on Thursday, which will give us the two names that will be put to the country.
|>>|| No. 75204
I really didn't want that poundshop Russel Crowe with downs in charge of anything. Gay conversion therapy, what a fucking idiot.
|>>|| No. 75209
Going to take a guess that the issue is his links to groups that support gay conversion therapy.
|>>|| No. 75217
How about I fuck you in the arse until you're gay and then we'll discuss it?
|>>|| No. 75223
I, for one, welcome Darth May as our overlord.
Not really, I'm fucking shitting myself. V for Vendetta here we come!
|>>|| No. 75225
Only have issue with the 1998 and 2015 ones, but then I forget my fellow young people are fucked in the head who think chickens should be able to marry horses and give birth to Ford Mondeos
|>>|| No. 75226
Who were those daft cunts who said it couldn't happen here. Probably still sailing in Egypt.
|>>|| No. 75229
You don't think 2008 was ridiculous, insane, tyrannical and unenforceable?
|>>|| No. 75233
>my fellow young people are fucked in the head who think chickens should be able to marry horses and give birth to Ford Mondeos
That's a weird way of saying "gay people should be able to start a family".
|>>|| No. 75236
>my fellow young people are fucked in the head who think chickens should be able to marry horses and give birth to Ford Mondeos
Show me a man who doesn't want to see a chicken impregnate a horse with an aging model of Ford, and I'll show you a damn liar.
I know you're out of the running, Crabb, but there's no need to get so low as to try to start cunt-offs on .gs. Maybe just kill yourself instead?
|>>|| No. 75238
I bet he's not even really Crabb. He's probably just Whyte-Fish with Crabb flavoring.
|>>|| No. 75260
Our next PM will be a woman. Since the formation of the UK, Theresa May will be only our second female head of government in 215 years. I hope she won't be as bad as the first, but fear she'll be even worse.
|>>|| No. 75261
How come it's always the Tories who deliver progress whereas Labour stick with someone male and pale?
|>>|| No. 75263
Jesus Christ, I thought things were bad already but Theresa May as PM? I share your fear, mate.
|>>|| No. 75265
Despite the decent non-white contingent, none of them stood, and when it came to women the options were Yvette Cooper (who split her vote with Andy Burnham) and that other one.
|>>|| No. 75266
There's a weird political effect where quite often conservative parties are able to get away with relatively liberal actions, and vice-versa. It basically stems from any process that requires winning over some members of the opposite faction - whether this be voters or MPs. See: Tories pushing through the gay marriage bill, New Labour going to war in Iraq, Reagan negotiating with Gorbachev, etc.
In other words, by having a strong woman in charge the Tories aren't going to lose many of their core voters (aside from any extreme misogynists) but they stand to gain centre-ground voters whose negative stereotypes of the Tories may be softened by a leading woman. On the other hand, Labour having a female leader would only entrench the negative stereotype of them being the woolly liberal party with no real strength or bite.
|>>|| No. 75267
That's an interesting articulation of the phenomenon. Does it have a name?
It's just occurred to me that New Labour is basically just relying on it to an unhealthy degree, causing your core voters to either stop voting entirely or slowly abandon you.
|>>|| No. 75268
I don't think Leadsom has the persona nor the experience to effectively lead us out of the EU. In a more stable time then I wouldn't mind having her but I'm gunning for Theresa on this, she has the bollocks we've been lacking since Are Maggie left.
|>>|| No. 75281
I'm honestly sad she didn't win.
I wanted her to win so that when she lost horribly in 2020 I could laugh at all of those who said she was Labour's electable option.
Alas, Corby's going to get the blame for problems that started before Miliband was elected, let alone him.
|>>|| No. 75283
I noticed awhile ago, but it was confirmed very recently, that Blairites seem to be fundamentally incapable of learning from history.
|>>|| No. 75284
I think it's more that they don't understand historical context at all.
Gordon Brown was not James Callaghan, Miliband was not Michael Foot. Nor was Corbyn. But to look at a Blairite, they think all they have to do is make like Blair to win again.
This is just like the 80s. We're too left wing. Scotland, the North of England and Wales will keep loyally voting for us leaving us free to take Marginal seats by recapturing the centre ground. The SNP? Silly, don't you remember how they discredited themselves in 1979? Pah. Scotland will never vote for those clowns again. UKIP? The only people against the EU are the bloody Bennites...
Sometimes I have to wonder if even within his own context Blair was a lucky charlatan who gets credit for the hard work of others and continued to move towards the right even when it was unnecessary. (Given that by the time he took power in 1997 the Conservatives had completely discredited themselves thanks to Black Wednesday and Maastricht, and given John Smith was a clear PM in waiting before his untimely death.)
|>>|| No. 75285
>John Smith was a clear PM in waiting before his untimely death.
The true tragedy to be honest. Blair and Brown has tainted the main left wing party for at least the next 10 years ensuring we have more Tory bollocks, all for pandering to middle-class wankers who only vote left wing to make themselves feel slightly better about their little taste of privilege.
|>>|| No. 75286
So apparently the Tories will be choosing between Theresa May, for whom Google Images suggests "Esther McVey in leather", and Andrea Leadsom, one third of Vote Leave's Kraftwerk tribute band.
What a time to be alive.
|>>|| No. 75287
I feel like we're mirroring the US now in terms of having two shit choices for our next leader.
|>>|| No. 75289
Why can't we have a country where everyone just leaves you alone?
|>>|| No. 75290
I'm in, even though it will inevitably be thrown into chaos by the sheer amount of cunt offs that happen on a weekly/daily basis and will become some kind of Waterworld scenario.
|>>|| No. 75316
>He then called a referendum no one really wanted
The referendum was part of the Tory party manifesto. Conservatives won the election. What do you mean by 'no one really wanted' ?
|>>|| No. 75319
>What do you mean by 'no one really wanted' ?
I think he means that no one really wanted it.
|>>|| No. 75321
What like those milleninazis and middle class alfalfa sprout eating Guardian nobends who were in London last weekend having a cunt off because they don't agree with democracy?
No wonder the retreating ice-shelves love muslamism so much. Both agree democracy is wrong and totalitarian rule is sacrosanct, whilst not understanding the idiocy of their hypocrisy both ends.
Without prejudice, you're a stupid cunt.
|>>|| No. 75328
>you're a stupid cunt
Says the lad who thinks that everyone who votes for a party's candidate agrees with every word of their manifesto.
|>>|| No. 75434
Just how, theoretically, does a post-Brexit Conservative party elect Jacqui Smith to the leadership?
|>>|| No. 75475
I'm so thankful the Tory party have decided I can't be bothered with having an elected PM. I feel so looked after.
|>>|| No. 75476
We never have elected.PMs and never have.
How do people have such a fundamental misunderstanding of how parliamentary systems work? You voted for your MP and trust their decisions and their allegiances, which is to Thersea May as the first minister in government if they're Tory or if they're not you chose somebody who doesn't.
|>>|| No. 75477
People overwhelmingly vote for the man or woman saying they're going to be PM in general elections, to pretend otherwise is transparently disingenuous.
|>>|| No. 75479
But that's not the case and not how it works at all. We've always voted for a constituency MP and the system is in no way broken and in need of an election
If you don't understand the rules it's not mine not anybody else's problem. People don't vote directly for ministers and talk about reshuffles or whatever. It's part of the system. I know loads of people with the faintest interest who always talk about their struggle voting for a good local MP but a bad party.
Have you any evidence that people vote for a PM or are you just saying what you think is right ?.
|>>|| No. 75481
The Swiss Army have a saying. If the map and the territory disagree, go with the territory.
|>>|| No. 75492
We've never had an elected PM.
Now we have cunts who campaigned for fixed term parliaments trying to have snap elections. They're in Parliament, they should know full well we live in a parliamentary democracy.
|>>|| No. 75493
>Now we have cunts who campaigned for fixed term parliaments trying to have snap elections.
I know, right? It's almost as if "fixed term parliaments" means something different to them than it does to the average random idiot on the Internet.
|>>|| No. 75496
Fundamentally, you can't have an issue with Theresa May being an 'unelected PM' without having an issue with the entire parliamentary democracy we have. If you want PMship to become some Americanised personality cult then that's up to you but I don't want us to be having any of that.
Though I must admit the irony of Leave campaigners criticising the EU for being similarly undemocratic in this regard would have been amusing if so many people hadn't actually bought into it.
|>>|| No. 75502
>Fundamentally, you can't have an issue with Theresa May being an 'unelected PM' without having an issue with the entire parliamentary democracy we have
|>>|| No. 75503
>Fundamentally, you can't have an issue with Theresa May being an 'unelected PM' without having an issue with the entire parliamentary democracy we have.
I refer you back to >>75481.
|>>|| No. 75506
>If you want PMship to become some Americanised personality cult then that's up to you but I don't want us to be having any of that.
Madisonian democracy is actually far better positioned to balance the competing interests of various groups in society than parliamentary democracy. I used to think "wow, America would be really fucked under the Westminster system". Now I think "wow, we are really fucked under the Westminster system".
|>>|| No. 75507
Terrible platitude, make a proper point or move on.
What does this prove? How does one survey of 3000 British people asking whether or not they know their MP correlate to how many people vote solely for the PM?
If that was the case, surely people would just vote for one of two like in America, as they want the least worst candidate. If that was also the case, MPs wouldn't suck dick for local photo OPs like they do, as it'd be pointless when they could spend time fucking bills they don't like up in Westminster instead of being active in their community. If that was also the case, MPs like Carswell, Carmichael, and like the would never keep their seats.
Local MPs play a massive factor, to pretend they don't is absolutely ridiculous. If you vote for a PM (which you don't, because you can't) then you're wasting your time.
There's a reason so many MPs cite strong local roots and/or serve as councillors for a good 5-10 years before making their run, it's because you need the local profile.
If people overwhelmingly voted for the PM candidate and nothing else LPHQ and CCHQ could just parachute in loyalists because local say wouldn't matter.
Also, please don't cite an unconnected study and use that as reasoning as to why your over belief is right.
|>>|| No. 75509
>Terrible platitude, make a proper point or move on
For the thinking-impaired, he's suggesting that the rules don't matter if most people are ignoring them.
|>>|| No. 75510
Well if you really think that, why not move stateside instead? That's the whole point of different countries being governed in different ways, if you don't like it then you're perfectly free to go off and enjoy a system that you perceive as better.
|>>|| No. 75511
But they do, and people aren't. People are well aware of the way parliamentary democracy works, this isn't some big shock that's come out of nowhere from some obscure subtext of a piece of dusty legislation.
|>>|| No. 75512
The leadership factor certainly has an effect at the local level, which is why the other lot seem desperate to ditch theirs. Without a change, you can see the boys at CCHQ whipping up a "nice guy but" template for candidates to use.
You see the same thing over the other side of the water. Democrats were winning seats and getting close in places they had no business doing so in 2008, in part because they had someone popular at the top of the ticket. Many of those gains were overturned when they came up in midterm elections to the House in 2010 and to the Senate in 2014, when Obama's approval was net negative. In the US. the separation is clear, whereas here the executive is effectively in the legislature, which means that this effect goes from being mere coattails to people actually voting based on the leadership.
|>>|| No. 75513
How can it be simultaneously true that a) 78% of people don't know who their MP is and b) local MPs are hugely important to their own electoral success? It's absolutely integral to the argument. The vast majority of people are voting for a party, not an MP.
>If people overwhelmingly voted for the PM candidate and nothing else LPHQ and CCHQ could just parachute in loyalists because local say wouldn't matter.
The use of local candidates is a recent trend, largely instituted to shore up constituency party support in the face of declining party membership. The prospect of selection is used as a carrot to encourage local campaigners and councillors. In the 1970s, less than 25% of MPs had a local connection.
|>>|| No. 75514
You're both right.
Infact most of the contradictory posts here are still making generally good points.
Yes, a large number of voters, hopefully the majority, are voting for their local candidates.
But at the same time, a significant number of voters only know or care about the party leaders, either out of ignorance or apathy.
And as >>75479 said, there are many people who want to vote according to the merits of their local candidates, but are influenced by party leaders and party policies.
|>>|| No. 75515
No, lad. It doesn't matter that people aren't voting for the PM, because people do, in fact, act like it. Our resident doorstepper will confirm this for you. They won't know the local member, but they'll happily confirm they're voting Labour because reasons, or that they want to vote Labour but don't like Corbyn. 30 years ago they'll have said they don't like Thatcher. A few years before they might have said they were voting SDP because they didn't like Foot.
An election isn't a referendum on leadership, but people will treat it as such anyway. Politicians on both sides know this, hence the period when Tories fielded candidates under the label "David Cameron's Conservatives".
|>>|| No. 75516
These two things aren't related no matter how much you try to connect them.
Have you got anything to suggest this is, you know, actually the case. Other than an unconnected study?
Leadership plays a part, but so does localism. I challenege you to find an MP in a swingseat who isn't prancing around and trying to get in the local paper for just about everything.
Sadly I work with the cretins. They'll attack our company one minute and join us for a photoshoot the next. It's how it goes. It does matter to local people. So much more goes on than people simply going 'I like that leader best'.
|>>|| No. 75518
>These two things aren't related no matter how much you try to connect them.
Explain it to me like I'm a slow child. How can someone decide to vote for an MP when they don't know who that MP is? On what basis are that 78% choosing which box to tick?
|>>|| No. 75519
>Well if you really think that, why not move stateside instead? That's the whole point of different countries being governed in different ways, if you don't like it then you're perfectly free to go off and enjoy a system that you perceive as better.
No m8... That really isn't "the point". There wasn't some UN meeting where every sovereign state agreed to pursue different means of governance to best offer the widest choice possible to the citizinconsumer.
At best you could say "an advantage of".
And I am moving, though not to the states.
|>>|| No. 75526
One of your links seems irrelevant and the other two are actually the same original source; the results of which are highly suspect given the online nature of the multiple choice survey. Bit of a constipated shit really.
>two thirds can't even name the PM [and don't know what a general election is]. What does this mean?
It means that the userbase of the site VoucherCodesPro is not representative of the electorate.
|>>|| No. 75527
I linked the libdem one and the study from it, but kept the lib dem one because the first paragraph is quite interesting
>What do MPs want from voters? Well, knowing the name of their man in Westminster would be a start. What do voters want from their MPs? To come from the area they represent is the single most important requirement – 80% want that, far more than wanting more female (50%) or more working class MPs (58%).
I'm not really interested in having as source off with you, one is a renowned think tank, one is a mainstream party and one is a university.
The point is the 22% is aboslutely codswallop and localism has a huge role to play.
I'm not having this argument with people who don't want to listen though.
This all started because somebody wanted a teary because 'le evil tories won't call a general election at a time when the country, markets and business needs stability and when they have a mandate to carry out their term on the manifesto they were elected on.'
I say this as somebody who worked in Labour politics. I also used to work for an MP and let me tell you, we get hundreds and hundreds of contacts from people in the area each week, I guarantee that more than 22% of people know their MP and I can guarantee having my old boss get behind them and save a park, save a hospital ward and bring some jobs to the area saved him from a disastrous defeat when he really ought to have gone out.
If you have a problem with the tories completing the term they were elected for, outlined in legislation the British people give a government to enact, then hate on the system, but until this point, I didn't note anybody here overly concerned.
|>>|| No. 75528
>outlined in legislation the British people give a government to enact
Should read 'give a government a mandate to enact', my bad.
|>>|| No. 75538
But they don't really have a mandate do they? Even if you employ the usual mental gymnastics to ignore the ground truth in favour of what some arbitrary rules say, you cannot deny that the circumstances have fundamentally changed. The referendum result overrules their election mandate and if a majority of MPs returned at a subsequent election are against leaving, then that mandate overrules the referendum result (this democracy lark is fun, isn't it?).
|>>|| No. 75549
>The referendum result overrules their election mandate
By implementing the result of the very thing they proposed?
|>>|| No. 75550
You may have noticed that, contrary to the government's manifesto position, we voted to leave.
|>>|| No. 75551
The government's manifesto position was to grant a referendum. They did so.
|>>|| No. 75552
>The government's manifesto position was to grant a referendum
... in which we would vote to remain. Upon which much of the rest of the manifesto was predicated.
|>>|| No. 75555
So I've joined the Red Team and try and cast a vote that'll attempt to sort this shit out. I do believe in Wor Corbyn, however I won't pay £25 to vote for him. The whole thing stinks of a cash grab in a desperate situation.
Where's the lad voting for Britfagistan?
|>>|| No. 75556
Yes, they do, they won the most seats under FPTP system and can command a majority. Under our rules, that's a mandate because it's not about total votes cast but how many MPs are returned on their side from local areas.
You're just ignoring my original point though. I don't care about arguing about whether or not their mandate is just, the point is people don't vote for the PM as if that's the only thing that matters, localism is huge. So please, please stop pretending that they do and using this to have a whine/support the whine that May is being evil for not calling a general election.
|>>|| No. 75558
There you go ignoring the reality in favour of some arbitrary rules again.
|>>|| No. 75565
They're pretty shit. While I can respect that some people might favour FPTP over some other proposed systems, if you were going to invent a voting system for democratic purposes, FPTP would be at the bottom of the list, and this is so obvious that you can know with certainty that anyone who disagrees is definitely a liar, or hates democracy.
|>>|| No. 75570
Mathematical criteria and what makes a practical democracy are wildly different things. What makes the selection of criteria non arbitrary?
|>>|| No. 75572
Skim the linked article, at least. Selection of criteria may well be arbitrary, but FPTP is not the optimal solution for any set of criteria. The sole "advantage" of FPTP is that it favours a two-party system at the expense of minor parties. If you have any other priorities, then there is a better system available.
Here is a concise explanation of why FPTP is complete bobbins:
|>>|| No. 75574
I don't need to watch cheap youtube videos by tearful Labour supporters to tell me things I already know.
|>>|| No. 75584
Order of business: Paint "FUCK OFF" on the cliffs of Dover, challenge Putin to a game of whiff-whaff for control of the Crimea, ring up Xi Jinping and ask for a 47 with egg fried rice.
|>>|| No. 75585
This is a mess. Why Boris? Although Osborne fucking off is good.
|>>|| No. 75601
Gove is out. Say hello to your new Secretary of State for Justice:
|>>|| No. 75611
Nah, besides, she's just conservative. It's a common mental defect.
|>>|| No. 75612
>haha everybody who doesn't subscribe to my political views is mentally deficient. Haha ! All these retard Oxbridge grads. I'm sooo much smarter than them.
(A good day to you Sir!)
|>>|| No. 75613
Ow, I'm sorry if I offended you!
But, in all sincerity, I seriously have to question the mental abilities of someone who thinks British institutions are fundamentally okay, and is in tendency averse to reform. (Either that, or they're looking out for themselves of course.)
|>>|| No. 75628
Working around your verboten greentext shittery, isn't going to Oxbridge really more a sign of money/connections/having gone to the right public school rather than actually being intelligent? I know a guy who went to Oxford, he's in his 50s now and lives in a bedsit. Truly the elite of society.
|>>|| No. 75629
Often I think it's a mix, they probably get somewhat denser the wealthier they get too.
For instance I will never accept that Jacob Rees-Mogg got into Oxford on merit. He should be one of those strange people who shamble around a town centre making people uncomfortable and being ridiculed by school children.
|>>|| No. 75632
You seem to think you have access to some fundamental truth here when the reality is allot of very smart people who spend their entire lives studying these topics aren't too sure either. Do British institutions need to change, well maybe but a conservative approach to that would be organic which doesn't seem particularly mental to me.
At least no more than anyone else who disagrees with me, fruitcakes the lot of you!
Being intelligent doesn't necessarily mean you're functional in all areas. I hold multiple degrees but while I could tell you some interesting facts about the reproductive anatomy of snails if you ask me to talk to a pretty girl I'm fucked.
Jacob Rees-Mogg is weird but I've no doubt he got into Oxford because he is a bright lad who (and this is very important) is dedicated to his own learning. By all means he is a strange one but the Oxbridge crowd usually is and that doesn't mean what he says is automatically wrong.
Actually an interesting thing: I didn't get into Oxford despite knowing a big wig in admissions. Had I of been born at the start of the 1800s the situation would've been entirely different. I won't be bitter on the internet about it. I will just go on thinking Oxbridge people are soulless box ticking androids incapable of original thought.
|>>|| No. 75634
Jacob Rees Mogg has admitted that he didnt get into Oxford on merit, is he driven by envy and greed?
|>>|| No. 75636
>Do British institutions need to change, well maybe but a conservative approach to that would be organic which doesn't seem particularly mental to me.
Well some of us are tired of the whims of the Privy Council. Like the Dragons, we're sick of being told "they're coming, trust me".
>the reality is allot of very smart people who spend their entire lives studying these topics aren't too sure either
Well, uh, sure. But that doesn't exclude others from making judgments.
|>>|| No. 75684
Well seeing as industry and business are essentially the root cause of climate change, yet bear most of the burden of limiting it, it never made much sense for Government policy to treat them in isolation from each other.
It helps that Greg Clark is most definitely not a climate change sceptic, he comes across as very passionate about the issue and I can see him keeping it near the top of his list of priorities.
His approach to limiting climate change is also very positive, his quotes in the past have been strongly in favour of promoting things which save money and create jobs in the long term. In the past decade our climate change policies have involved paying windfarms massive amounts of money to not produce electricity.
|>>|| No. 75709
Why stop there? The department for business should amalgamate with the department for education. After all what is education if not preparing people for work? And we can roll transport into it too because people use transport to get to school and work, and let's not forget sticking the home office in the same building too, because it doesn't make any sense for ministers to be talking about jobs, education and transport without involving how many people are migrating in and out of the regions of the country to make use of them. The Treasury, environment, international trade and development, foreign office, they're all related too. In fact all these departments are related to each other, the current system makes no sense. There should just be one department. And we could call it the department for business.
|>>|| No. 75713
>What's the issue?
p'akis in p'aki shops bumpng up a 10p bag to a 20p bag and all you get is a foam shrimp 2 gobstoppers a couple of haribos and chin pubes
(A good day to you Sir!)
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]