Labour will most probably get voted in again.

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Steven, Feb 12, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. According to a statement by the Department for Work and Pensions, something like 33% of ALL families in the UK are dependent on state handouts for at least half of their income.

    Reminds me of the old "being owned by the Company Store" idea.

    So what chance do any of the other parties have of getting rid of the people who give away all this free money? You would have to be mad to vote for any one else.

    Looks like we might be in for a few more years of pain.

  2. That corresponds almost exactly with an article I read about a year ago. It revealed that the government makes 22 million benefit payments per month.

    Look on the bright side. The figures mean that about two thirds of us are being taxed to death to support the other one third.

    Don't forget to vote at the next election. Also bear in mind that a Labour MP recently let slip that every poll Labour has commissioned shown Robin Hood - oops sorry I meant Gordon Brown - will lose to Dave at the next election.
  3. This includes every private who is married with children. And quite a few lance corporals?

    Well done to Civitas showing the dire state of wages in this country.
  4. Don't think that the equation is that simple. First, not all of those dependent upon benefits will vote at all. Second, a fair proportion of those in this position will be pensioners. A number of these will have voted Tory or Liberal/SDP-Liberal Alliance/Lib Dem all their life and won't change now. Third, despite their dependency on benefits, yet more will vote against the government.

    Then, the question of how many of these households are in Labour strongholds comes into play - the votes of these electors who do turn out, and vote Labour will simply boost the size of the sitting MP's majority, rather than translate into new seats.

    Finally, more of those dependent on benefits may well blame the incumbent government for their plight (although many didn't between 1983 and 1997) and vote for an opposition party as well.
  5. And what proportion of these voters will be swayed by the stories and attitude of the red-tops?

    I'm sure labours days are numbered.
  6. A good few of these sorts will find it hard to write an X in a box, and that is if they can find the Polling Station.
  7. I wish I could disagree... but Labour has not done enough wrong yet to lose the next election AND I don't think that Dave (aka the rump of the Conservatives) has done enough to win the next election, whatever the polls say.

    Interesting article in the Telegraph over the weekend that the bulk of political donations to UKIP are sub-£1000 - which means that they are attracting "yer av'rige voter"!


    Edited for complete and utter stupidity on a Monday morning and guessing that it's going to be a very long week....
  8. Much as I detest Blur's Nue labour I still cannot see Cammeron as the next PM.
    UK is lost until the great unwashed SEE just what the criminal Blur and his gang have done.
    Blur has led the most corrupt government since Lloyd George.
  9. Interesting - and worrying. The figures would appear to bear you out as well:

  10. And guess who will be holding the balance of power!!

    PR and representative government here we come
  11. The Cons have a 5 point lead according to the above poll, and they haven't actually done anything yet. The next election is at least 30 months away, I really don't think Cameron is going to start coming out with good ideas so Bliar/Broon can nick them (let's face it, there are precedents)

    The lead at the moment is due entirely to Labour's failure and implosion. When the Boy starts working, there could be a 1997 style Con landslide. Question is, considering how alike they are (at present) is that what people really want? And is the inertia that Cameron is indulging in now going to lose him enough votes to UKIP or BNP to make a difference?
  12. In the old days this would have been called "buying votes". In these more Orwellian and PC times, however, it is called variously "social justice ", "wealth redistribution", "being fair", "helping hard-working families", and other such trite and meaningless phrases.

    In simple electoral terms I see it as the Labour Party buying the votes of their target audience with money expropriated from the Conservatives' target audience.

    Countdown to Sven having a fit in three... two... one...

    (Edited to correct a lefty buzzword)
  13. It's really blindingly simple.

    All the Tories need to win, is a charismatic no-frills, sleeves-rolled-up leader.

    We're doomed aren't we :(

  14. I agree with everything you say matey, especially the phrase in bold. The majority of chavscum out there (and before the incoming starts, I'm not saying everyone on low incomes or benefits is chavscum) can't be arrsed to go out and vote, it'd detract from sitting at home drinking cans of Norseman and eating takeaways. Seriously though, I bet you that if you asked some of them who the PM was, or which party is in power, they wouldn't be able to tell you, guarantee it!
  15. Yes :frustrated: