Useless poll. Clearly old people claiming they would go to war is a lie. Loads of them can barely manage tescos never mind tske up arms in battle. They are just saying bollocks so they can justify YOUNG people going away and dying in war which has always been the case, or they still think dads army will come back as a thing.

 

As an old person - in comparison - think i can speak the truth without being ageist. Friends and family my age for the most part just physically COULDNT go to battle so its a nonsense question. Speaking for myself, if fascists took over the uk i would support a resistance, in a hypothetical answer to a question that wasnt asked and is far more likely than a callup for a 3rd world war - which is the real implication.

 

And no young people shouldnt be forced to serve. My dad was in the raf for 22 years and it was a choice. I chose not to join and 4 weeks pissing about running round airfields, pratting around cleaning and standing in line, and learning how to kill people wouldnt have helped me in any way.

My Dad was voluntarily in the RAF and I was born on a RAF base. I was told that I could have any job I wanted growing up, but not in the military :lol:

 

I’m very strongly against national service. It’s an environment that some but not all flourish in and that kind of environment can do real harm to some people and their mental wellbeing. Because of what is potentially involved (going to war) I believe that it should be a personal choice for you to make. If you want to opt in, then by all means. If you don’t, then you go live your life. I know people that have enlisted or considered enlisting in the medical corps because the training is phenom and after a few years you can join the NHS with zero debts and an unbeatable CV

Obviously what needs to happen now is for another opinion poll to be released showing that the majority of people are against National Service.

 

Wait a minute...does this mean?

 

Can I...?

 

 

Will I...?

 

Of course I can!

 

It's time for by bi-monthly posting of...the clip!

 

And this time, it couldn't be any more pertinent!

 

 

I'm opposed to the idea of National Service, but then again I'm a namby-pamby pacifist who would shrink the army and navy to one bloke with a peashooter and a remote-control boat if I ever got the chance.

Westminster voting intention:

 

CON: 41% (-1)

LAB: 40% (+3)

LDEM: 9% (-)

UKIP: 3% (-)

GRN: 2% (-1)

 

via @YouGov, 03 - 04 Jul

Chgs. w/ 26 Jun

 

Labour closing the gap, looking pretty much neck-and-neck with the Tories still - and IMO - unlikely to change that much before the end of the year (unless there are any black swans etc.)

Alternatively,

 

Con 38 (-3)

Lab 40 (+2)

LibD 10 (+3)

 

Survation

 

Changes from 21 June

Westminster voting intention:

 

CON: 41% (-1)

LAB: 40% (+3)

LDEM: 9% (-)

UKIP: 3% (-)

GRN: 2% (-1)

 

via @YouGov, 03 - 04 Jul

Chgs. w/ 26 Jun

 

Labour closing the gap, looking pretty much neck-and-neck with the Tories still - and IMO - unlikely to change that much before the end of the year (unless there are any black swans etc.)

 

Black swans? :huh:

 

Alternatively,

 

Con 38 (-3)

Lab 40 (+2)

LibD 10 (+3)

 

Survation

 

Changes from 21 June

 

Is Queef of Skreech the owner of Survation, by any chance? :lol:

 

Seriously though, what has changed in the past few weeks to boost Labour?

Black swans? :huh:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory

 

Is Queef of Skreech the owner of Survation, by any chance? :lol:

 

Seriously though, what has changed in the past few weeks to boost Labour?

 

Nothing, it is within the margin of error for the two main parties being neck-and-neck. Survation were the closest poll to calling the 2017 GE result correctly however:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory

 

Ah, thanks.

 

Black swans? :huh:

Is Queef of Skreech the owner of Survation, by any chance? :lol:

 

Seriously though, what has changed in the past few weeks to boost Labour?

 

Not be awful and not be a party of rich old boys?

 

Not be awful and not be a party of rich old boys?

 

Nope - to win an GE majority you'll need to do more than just sit an your hands (as the Tories discovered last year) - you have to offer something that appeals to more than just your core vote.

 

BTW, what income level would you consider 'rich' in the above context?

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/new-...lections/14/05/

 

SHOCK :rolleyes: independent studies into BBC anti-Labour pro-Tory bias! Told y'all!!

 

Their excellent results were downplayed, BBTory blared out headline after headline about Labour antisemitisim without touching the parts of the report saying it was worse in the Tory paety, without touching the Islamic Council calls for investigations into the Tories. Then, magically, according to the BbC, sun et al, antisemitism must have been solved over night as they never mentioned it once following the local elections!!! Their Tory presenters were frothing at the mouth every time Labour came up too.

Nope - to win an GE majority you'll need to do more than just sit an your hands (as the Tories discovered last year) - you have to offer something that appeals to more than just your core vote.

 

BTW, what income level would you consider 'rich' in the above context?

 

Flick through all the promises made before the election. It's hilarious, most of it pure fantasy. You can't say they offered nothing because they promised all sorts of bollocks, plus some stark policies that were never going to be popular. So far, very little promised has actually been done. Perhaps you should write the policies to get them elected? That May sat on her arse after being seen to be a robot was understandable, it was a technique she picked up from Corbyn in the Referendum.

 

My own definition of rich is over 100k a year, with 50k a year being well off. I can't imagine earning that sort of cash, I've never been over 30k. Most of my life been on less than the modern equivalent of about 22k or so.

I would have put it at around 80k up, but I can accept that definition also, especially for the south.

I would have put it at around 80k up, but I can accept that definition also, especially for the south.

 

So that would be well under 5% of the population then - see below...

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/70000-...l-a7697561.html

 

Since a party needs a minimum 40% to win a GE, where do the other 35% of Tory voters come from, then?

Brainwashing. One Party State media.

 

Tories do not represent anyone else. I have said before that REALLY they shouldn't be polling more than 10% with what they really stand for.

Brainwashing. One Party State media.

 

That'll be news to the Guardian... :rolleyes:

 

Tories do not represent anyone else. I have said before that REALLY they shouldn't be polling more than 10% with what they really stand for.

 

You just cannot shed that early 19th C delusional image of the Tory party...

Edited July 8, 20187 yr by vidcapper

The Tory party are a mix of classical 19th century liberals and Toryism of the 19th century with a mix of modern neoliberalism that believes meritocracy is law and everyone can thrive within it.

 

Wealth isn't about money it's about opportunity. Many of my friends earn big money and live in big houses because they use their parents wealth and influence to secure themselves.

The Tory party are a mix of classical 19th century liberals and Toryism of the 19th century with a mix of modern neoliberalism that believes meritocracy is law and everyone can thrive within it.

 

Wealth isn't about money it's about opportunity. Many of my friends earn big money and live in big houses because they use their parents wealth and influence to secure themselves.

 

Wealth begets wealth!

That'll be news to the Guardian... :rolleyes:

You just cannot shed that early 19th C delusional image of the Tory party...

 

Delusional?

 

 

What about them spending millions on suits, posh dinners, posh cars, and attacking Corbyn for NOT spending the country's money on the same? Pig Gate - the media laughed because, oh, riffing good fun! But Corbyn can't even have a messy tie - the insinuation being that it is acceptable for the upper classes to do what they want, the Tories, and the rest of us should not dare to try for power.

Delusional?

 

What about them spending millions on suits, posh dinners, posh cars, and attacking Corbyn for NOT spending the country's money on the same? Pig Gate - the media laughed because, oh, riffing good fun! But Corbyn can't even have a messy tie - the insinuation being that it is acceptable for the upper classes to do what they want, the Tories, and the rest of us should not dare to try for power.

 

That is a stereotype, and anyone who claims to be progressive should be well aware of the dangers inherent in those!