Baloogan posted:

that just makes a new set of overlords, the guys who took the first guys money. Its not a new concept. Its been tried. Open a history book lol.

deadgoon posted:

what if the new overlords, were the people

Baloogan posted:

we're not eusocial;

deadgoon posted:

what if the person in charge of the money, is held accountable by the people

Baloogan posted:

What if some space aliens came down and just gave everyone what they wanted

Baloogan posted:

What if some space aliens came down and just gave everyone what they wanted

Jose posted:

we don't need aliens for that. We've got trident and can do it ourselves

Baloogan posted:

lol you don't have enough nukes to even end all life on ireland

Jose posted:

just drop a few on america and russia and china and watch the fireworks as they all retaliate

Baloogan posted:

yeh thats a plan, who can tell if a trident is american or UK?

deadgoon posted:

what if the person in charge of the money, is held accountable by the people

deadgoon posted:

what if the person in charge of the money, is held accountable by the people

Jose posted:

just drop a few on america and russia and china and watch the fireworks as they all retaliate

Uncle Wemus posted:

Is may gonna win

anime was right posted:

jeremy corbyn owns

hakimashou posted:

The way I see it, hunting the fox is the most british thing there is.

Many brits don't seem to realize that their magnificent rural country culture is their last remaining national treasure.

It turns out that opinion polling on fox hunting is split about 80/20, which is almost exactly the same as the urban/rural split.

Issues like fox hunting should be devolved to rural leaders to decide, it doesn't concern city people.





It's the soul of britain.

hakimashou posted:

eat the rich

deadgoon posted:

jBrereton posted:

So long as you live in Runnymede and Weybridge, he's.

hakimashou posted:

The way I see it, hunting the fox is the most british thing there is.

hakimashou posted:

Badger of Basra posted:

also the soul of britain is starving brown people to death hth

Bishop Len posted:

One of Jeremy Corbyn's key allies, Unite boss Len McCluskey, has said he cannot see Labour winning the election.

lorn Wayne posted:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39944331


interesting strategy labour, trying to convert undecided len-haters who want to prove him wrong.

or in reality nothing matters anywhere and everyone is just a oval office. that's more likely than the 12th dimensional chess theory.

Fallen Hamprince posted:

hey now, don't be needlessly provocative

the soul of britain is starving poor people to death, they were doing it for centuries before they even had access to brown people

hakimashou posted:

Ya and the irish aren't actually brown are they?

Business Insider posted:

Exclusive poll: Jeremy Corbyn is now a bigger vote-winner than Tony Blair

-Voters are more likely to vote for Labour led by Corbyn than led by Tony Blair, Ed Miliband, Yvette Cooper, or Sadiq Khan according to a Business Insider poll.
-Tony Blair is the most toxic potential leader of the party with 61% saying they would not even consider voting Labour if he returned.
-Cooper is the least toxic, with fewer voters saying she would be a deal-breaker for their vote.
-Findings come as Blair considers a return to frontline British politics.
-The Tories lead Labour by 20 points.


LONDON — More people would consider voting for the Labour Party under its current leader Jeremy Corbyn than they would if the party were led by Tony Blair, an exclusive Business Insider / GfK poll has found.

Tony Blair has recently made a high-profile return to British politics, saying that he wants to "get [my] hands dirty" in the battle for Brexit and Labour's future.

However, our poll found that Blair is now a significantly more toxic figure than Corbyn.

We asked voters whether they would consider voting for Labour were it led by either Corbyn, Blair, Miliband, London mayor Sadiq Khan or rumoured future leadership candidate Cooper.

Blair was the most toxic of all the potential Labour leaders polled, with 61% saying they would not even consider voting for Labour were the party led by him, compared to just 23% who said they would.

Corbyn, by contrast, was the most popular candidate listed, with 31% saying they would consider voting Labour under his leadership as opposed to 53% who would not.

The poll found that Corbyn was more popular than either Miliband, Cooper or Khan. However, fewer respondents said that Cooper and Khan would be a deal-breaker for their vote than Corbyn, suggesting they have potential to change public perceptions of the party. Cooper had the best net ratings overall.

"Yvette Cooper’s numbers are interesting," GfK Research Director Keiran Pedley said. "She is clearly the least toxic of the Labour politicians we tested but it is fair to say that she remains something of an unknown quantity for now among the British public, therefore voters are hardly clamouring for her to lead the Labour Party yet."

The findings suggest that simply changing leaders would not cause an immediate improvement in Labour's fortunes and could even make Labour's position worse.