• ARRSE have partnered with Armadillo Merino to bring you an ARRSE exclusive, generous discount offer on their full price range.
    To keep you warm with the best of Merino gear, visit www.armadillomerino.co.uk and use the code: NEWARRSE40 at the checkout to get 40% off!
    This superb deal has been generously offered to us by Armadillo Merino and is valid until midnight on the the 28th of February.

Start an uprising from the NAAFI bar!

#1
OK, we all know that our glorious PM will do anything for a few votes, but wont properly fund us for our operations, let alone repair some of the slums were forced to put our families in.

So as members of the armed forces, why dont we all register to vote by post in Gordon Brown's own constituency? Think about it, it would only take 20 000 or so to do it then we can all sit back and laugh whilst listening his arrse squeak as it reduces to the size of a pin head. Just think what the PM would do for the armed forces if the majority of his constituents were serving in Iraq and Afghan??? Your thoughts please...
 
#4
If huge numbers of soldiers started registering to vote in Broon's constituency, one of two things would happen:-

1. The law would be changed to stop non-resident registrations.

2. Vast numbers of postal votes would be mysteriously lost en route to the UK or while in the capable hands of the Post Office
 
#5
Ancient_Mariner said:
If huge numbers of soldiers started registering to vote in Broon's constituency, one of two things would happen:-

1. The law would be changed to stop non-resident registrations.

2. Vast numbers of postal votes would be mysteriously lost en route to the UK or while in the capable hands of the Post Office
Either, or both, of which, would have startling ramifications. I have to say, it had never occured to me that 'non-resident' registrations were licit in the first place: why hasn't this been done before?

With the number of guys in uniform, it ought to be possible to set up a whole host of neo-rotten boroughs: the larger corps and regiments could pocket a few constituencies each on that basis. It would probably be necessary to register in constituencies where there were large [I know, that that is a relative term in this day and age...] indiginous military populations in order not to fettle with the domestic constituents' franchise too much.

Where's Hackle when we need him - and can this get moved somewhere else so that Falls can contribute without feeling the need to uphold the dignity of the NAAFI?

Oh, yes: that'll be my 1,000th post, and it's in the NAAFI... :D
 
#7
fas_et_gloria said:
Either, or both, of which, would have startling ramifications. I have to say, it had never occured to me that 'non-resident' registrations were licit in the first place: why hasn't this been done before?

With the number of guys in uniform, it ought to be possible to set up a whole host of neo-rotten boroughs: the larger corps and regiments could pocket a few constituencies each on that basis. It would probably be necessary to register in constituencies where there were large [I know, that that is a relative term in this day and age...] indiginous military populations in order not to fettle with the domestic constituents' franchise too much.

Where's Hackle when we need him - and can this get moved somewhere else so that Falls can contribute without feeling the need to uphold the dignity of the NAAFI?

Oh, yes: that'll be my 1,000th post, and it's in the NAAFI... :D
It is a damned clever idea. An organised campaign of tactical voting in marginals could have a serious impact on Broon's re-election prospects.

There's an list of Labour held marginal seats on wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_constituencies_in_the_United_Kingdom. Some of them have majorities of less than 100 and the list doesn't include Labour/SNP marginals in Scotland where Labour are currently 16% behind in the polls.

A few questions:-

1. Is there any information in the public domain about the number of servicemen/women who are posted abroad?

2. Are foreign based troops allowed to vote by proxy rather than by post? This would avoid the 'lost in the post' problem I highlighted earlier.

3. Would it be better for everybody to register in Gordon's constituency or to spread registrations across marginal constituencies?

Edited to add:-

4. How the hell did Labour manage to get 79% more seats than the Tories in 2005 when they only got 3% more votes?
 
#8
Ancient_Mariner said:
fas_et_gloria said:
Either, or both, of which, would have startling ramifications. I have to say, it had never occured to me that 'non-resident' registrations were licit in the first place: why hasn't this been done before?

With the number of guys in uniform, it ought to be possible to set up a whole host of neo-rotten boroughs: the larger corps and regiments could pocket a few constituencies each on that basis. It would probably be necessary to register in constituencies where there were large [I know, that that is a relative term in this day and age...] indiginous military populations in order not to fettle with the domestic constituents' franchise too much.

Where's Hackle when we need him - and can this get moved somewhere else so that Falls can contribute without feeling the need to uphold the dignity of the NAAFI?

Oh, yes: that'll be my 1,000th post, and it's in the NAAFI... :D
It is a damned clever idea. An organised campaign of tactical voting in marginals could have a serious impact on Broon's re-election prospects.

There's an list of Labour held marginal seats on wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_constituencies_in_the_United_Kingdom. Some of them have majorities of less than 100 and the list doesn't include Labour/SNP marginals in Scotland where Labour are currently 16% behind in the polls.

A few questions:-

1. Is there any information in the public domain about the number of servicemen/women who are posted abroad?

2. Are foreign based troops allowed to vote by proxy rather than by post? This would avoid the 'lost in the post' problem I highlighted earlier.

3. Would it be better for everybody to register in Gordon's constituency or to spread registrations across marginal constituencies?

Edited to add:-

4. How the hell did Labour manage to get 79% more seats than the Tories in 2005 when they only got 3% more votes?
Proxy votes used yo be OK - when I was in my old man used to vote for me
 
#9
Please vote to get my local MP out (One of Blairs biggest ass-kissers!) Bill Rammell.

I believe his majority is something like 96. So, 100 of us should do it :D
 
#10
Ancient_Mariner said:
If huge numbers of soldiers started registering to vote in Broon's constituency, one of two things would happen:-

1. The law would be changed to stop non-resident registrations.

2. Vast numbers of postal votes would be mysteriously lost en route to the UK or while in the capable hands of the Post Office
I thought vast amounts of post got lost anyway by our so called capable post office... :? :p
 
#11
For AM:

4. How the hell did Labour manage to get 79% more seats than the Tories in 2005 when they only got 3% more votes?
This is one of the vagaries of the so-called "first past the post" voting system such as practised in UK.

A similar result came about in `74. Ted Heath obtained considerably more votes than Harold Wilson, but Wilson won more actual seats. Hence, Wilson formed the next gummint.

As the lesser of two evils, I personally would much prefer PR over FPTP. It seems to work fairly well here in Germany - having been imposed on them by the victorious western Allies, who for some reason don`t care too much for it for themselves. Strange, that!
 
#12
SpannerSpanker said:
Ancient_Mariner said:
If huge numbers of soldiers started registering to vote in Broon's constituency, one of two things would happen:-

1. The law would be changed to stop non-resident registrations.

2. Vast numbers of postal votes would be mysteriously lost en route to the UK or while in the capable hands of the Post Office
I thought vast amounts of post got lost anyway by our so called capable post office... :? :p
I think it gets even worse with postal votes. At the last election there were stories about union reps in sorting offices arranging for postal voting forms to go astray. A judge described the system as 'worthy of a banana republic'.
 
#13
2Buns...
PR gives deciding votes to minority nutters. Look at the israeli government - the ultra religious party gets to tell the ruling party what to do in some cases cause the majority (requiring their vote) is so small.

hypothetically do you want george galloway (the deciding in a hung govt) deciding some govt policy? If I thought about this too closely .. I'd piss meself in fear.
 
#14
rabid_hamster wrote
PR gives deciding votes to minority nutters. Look at the israeli government - the ultra religious party gets to tell the ruling party what to do in some cases cause the majority (requiring their vote) is so small.

hypothetically do you want george galloway (the deciding in a hung govt) deciding some govt policy? If I thought about this too closely .. I'd urine meself in fear.
You mean there is little chance of a bunch of nutters steering the ship of state with an FPTP voting system? So how would you rate the present incumbents at the ship`s wheel - a load of whackos or the personification of sensible statesmanship?

And I did qualify it with "the lesser of two evils".

As AM said, in 2005 Liarbour finished up with 3 % more votes but 79 % more seats - and that is a sensible method for selecting the next gummint? Giving them a working majority which bears no relation to their actual appeal amongst the electorate. This is further reinforced with the election results in `74: despite getting less votes - in clear text, the MAJORITY of the people who voted didn`t want to see him in power - Wilson was still able to form the next gummint, with a working majority. T´wouldn`t have happened with PR!

As for nutters such as Galloway et.al, the great benefit of PR is that it is rather difficult for one party to get a working majority for itself alone - not impossible, but they do need to have a broad appeal to achieve it. Which means, in most cases compromises have to be made (and sometimes straight plain horse-trading) to form a gummint. The resulting gummint then corresponds more or less with the wishes of the MAJORITY of the electorate - which, hand on heart, cannot be said for the present shower.

The down side with it is change tends to be rather slow, but change does come.

But where nutters are concerned, the more "sensible" parties - if such an adjective might be permitted - tend to arrange for their exclusion anyway. Have a quick look at what is happening over here in Germany. We have our headbangers too, Lafontaine and Gysi being two to mention, but the "sensible" politicos go out of their way to ensure they don`t come into power.
 

Latest Threads

New Posts