egafd.com

RoddersUK wrote:
> Hanging never was a deterrent.....
Your taste for blood is worrying. You allege a service career- how
the Hell did you pass the psych' exams with an attitude like that?


>... and a date with Mr Pierpoint.
It's Pierrepoint. At least get the guy's name right.


> I don't know why I bother with you, but my views are
> mine and if you don't like them then hard cheese, for I aint
> going to change them.
Only the truly stupid never change their views.

45% of the electorate vote, on a good day. Simple as that.

Self-disenfranchisement: or realism, if you prefer.
A pseudo-democracy always requires the presence of an electorate-
but it does no harm to have it as low as is reasonably convincing.

I wonder if the Etonian assocation with the Tory party will ever go, just like the trade union association with the Labour party wont ever completely disappear. I said on another post a while ago that it was nice when the association seemed to go, in the days of Heath, Thatcher and Major (although some said in reply that it was always there just more subtle) but it is certainly back now with Cameron, Osbourne and others. It will probably be there forever now. Sadly.

max_tranmere wrote:
> I wonder if the Etonian assocation with the Tory party will
> ever go, just like the trade union association with the Labour
> party wont ever completely disappear.
A lot of this is about party finance, and self-interest groups.
I'd make a small prediction on the strength of it: in 10 year's time,
watch how much Islamic money gets donated, and to which party[ies].
I also find it interesting that the strong streak of Puritanism which
always inhabited Old Labour seems to have been reborn with Mr.
Broon- he so reminds me of Cripps, with the humourlessness and
sour devotion to thrift. 'Old Kirk', indeed....




> I said on another post a
> while ago that it was nice when the association seemed to go,
> in the days of Heath, Thatcher and Major (although some said in
> reply that it was always there just more subtle)
The old guard was always still there- and don't forget, Thatcher
openly blamed them for her eventual defeat. Although of course,
like Xhurchill, she was always far too arrogant to realise that she
sowed the seeds of that defeat herself.

God you are a pedantic twatt. Did I get that right?

There is another way, and there is evidence from history.
When their incompetence and callousness outreaches itself, a
population will rise violently against its leaders. Given the likely
world-scenario around 2100 [maybe 2050], of food-riots and mass
unemployment, this might well happen here.
All it would take is another Cromwell......... but of course, our
present rulers are secure in their ignorance of history.

Mick Stone wrote:
> There's no need for violence we have a vote and we can change
> things in the ballot box.

[img]http://bgafd.co.uk/forum/smileys/laugh.gif[/img]