Britain - The Official Thread

  • Thread starter Ross
  • 13,348 comments
  • 611,330 views

How will you vote in the 2024 UK General Election?

  • Conservative Party

    Votes: 2 6.9%
  • Green Party

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Labour Party

    Votes: 14 48.3%
  • Liberal Democrats

    Votes: 2 6.9%
  • Other (Wales/Scotland/Northern Ireland)

    Votes: 1 3.4%
  • Other Independents

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other Parties

    Votes: 2 6.9%
  • Spoiled Ballot

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Will Not/Cannot Vote

    Votes: 8 27.6%

  • Total voters
    29
  • Poll closed .
Paraphrased from Gladiator:

"I think he knows what London is. London is the mob. Conjure magic for them and they'll be distracted"

The benefit of the Olympics is essentially psychological. It distracts from peoples' real issues and lets the government sweep dodgy stuff under the carpet for a while, while everyone is basking in "national pride".

Or the earlier concept of "panem et circenses"...
 
Once the Olympics is back out of peoples memories again, nobody will really give a toss how "our heroes" do during other games for the next few years.

I admit to being guilty of that myself. The Olympics meant very little to me and I'd paid virtually no attention to the Sydney or Beijing games. I was even cynical in the run up to the opening ceremony, but once that turned out to be something quite special I did get into the games far more than I'm willing to admit... until now I guess. But come Rio, will I be as interested in supporting our team? Sad to say, probably not.

Adding to The Cracker's point, I understood that the plan was to use the games to 'sell' Britain as a worldwide brand to encourage business interest and hopefully investment in the UK. Whether that will actually happen or not, who can say? Did Australia or China witness an upturn in investment in the years following their games? I'm sceptical and particularly sceptical at a return high enough to cover the £9bn.

Still, 'twas a good spectacle, even if a little pricey. Have they paid for all those fireworks yet? ;)
 
I don't know about F1 and football, but in 1996 I was at Brands Hatch to watch the world superbikes, and Carl Fogarty was very popular at the time as he was doing well. I was in the grand stand and it was quite full, until it became obvious Carl Fogarty was not going to win the race, then about fifty percent of the crowd left the grand stand, with plenty of laps left in the race.

I was amazed that there was that many people there, that were not really interested in the racing, but just there because there was a British rider expected to do well.
 
Adding to The Cracker's point, I understood that the plan was to use the games to 'sell' Britain as a worldwide brand to encourage business interest and hopefully investment in the UK. Whether that will actually happen or not, who can say? Did Australia or China witness an upturn in investment in the years following their games? I'm sceptical and particularly sceptical at a return high enough to cover the £9bn.

Barcelona benefitted massively from holding the '92 Olympics, it's become one of Europes most visited cities, after largely being just another large city previously. The games really put Barcelona 'on the map'. London however is already 'on the map' so it's increase in profile is bound to be proportionally less so.
 
Or the earlier concept of "panem et circenses"...

Yes, that too.

I remember reading/hearing during the second week of the games, one of the credit card companies, American Express i think, was reporting a 4% increase that week in foreign credit card usage in London over what it had seen in the year previous.

You can extrapolate from that that the Olympics increased foreign tourism revenue by about only 4%. I don't know what figures are batted about for annual tourism revenue, but i doubt an increase of 4% would cover the £9bn it reportedly cost us.

There is of course always a residual effect of hosting the games, and some of that £9bn will have been spent on new infrastructure that will no doubt be of some benefit, but i'd imagine that overall hosting the Olympics, especially in time of recession, is a money loser.

I did see reports on BBC News this morning suggesting that retail sales actually went down in August, despite the Olympics. Apart from in one area: shops selling Olympic-branded tat.
 
I would have imagined that normal tourist attractions and locations would have felt a dip in sales too. Just the prices the hotels and B&Bs were charging over the Olympic period would have put most of the non-Olympic visitors off. Traffic issues can't have helped either.
 
422951_10151197040690479_313039797_n.jpg
 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19635239

BBC
Two unarmed female police officers have been killed in a gun and grenade attack in Greater Manchester, which led to the arrest of a wanted man.

PC Nicola Hughes, 23, and PC Fiona Bone, 32, were called to Abbey Gardens in Mottram to investigate what turned out to be a false report of a burglary.

Dale Cregan, already wanted in connection with 2 other murders, falsely alerted the Police to a domestic burglary in a terraced house in Manchester. Two female Police officer's attended the scene to find Cregan shooting them down right outside the house in a completely unprovoked attack.
He then handed himself in not long after at a local Police station.

R.I.P PC Nicola Hughes, aged 23, and PC Fiona Bone, aged 32.
 
Does anyone else feel that in the next general elections the Lib Dems are going to feel the brunt of unpopular decisions made by this government, and that the Tories will probably remain unaffected?
 
aadil717
Does anyone else feel that in the next general elections the Lib Dems are going to feel the brunt of unpopular decisions made by this government, and that the Tories will probably remain unaffected?

Yes. This is known to Tory frontbenchers as Operation Human Shield.

As for the Manchester murders, this is a heinous, callous crime with devastating effects. It once again raises the issue of whether our police should be armed. A topic which I don't have the patience for writing about on my phone's rubbish keypad.
 
Does anyone else feel that in the next general elections the Lib Dems are going to feel the brunt of unpopular decisions made by this government, and that the Tories will probably remain unaffected?
The Lib Dems will get barely a single student vote.
 
It's kind of a general rule that a junior coalition partner gets beaten to a pulp in the next GE.

The best Irish example which comes to mind is the Progressive Democrats, who, despite their name, would be very close to Mitt Romney on economic matters. They were the junior coalition partners with Fianna Fail between 1997 and their end in c.2009/10. In 2002, they won 8 seats in the Irish parliament, but in 2007, before we were aware of the economic :censored:storm (pretty much the best way I can describe it) heading our way, they only took ONE seat.
 
ExigeEvan
The Lib Dems will get barely a single student vote.

+1

Instead of £3,200 a year, I'm having to pay the maximum £9k so by the end of Uni I will be in major major debt. 👎 👎 👎 👎

And I know it's not entirely their fault, but the fact is that they didn't do anything to stop it (I've always hated the Tories but now the Lib Dems have lost my support too).

Edit: this was on the BBC News main headlines:

** Clegg apology over tuition pledge **
Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg say he is sorry the Lib Dems broke their pre-election pledge to oppose an increase in student tuition fees.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19646731
 
Last edited:
This is hardly a coalition anymore. It's basically David Cameron getting his way and Nick Clegg being his bitch.
 
aadil717
+1

Instead of £3,200 a year, I'm having to pay the maximum £9k so by the end of Uni I will be in major major debt. 👎 👎 👎 👎

And I know it's not entirely their fault, but the fact is that they didn't do anything to stop it (I've always hated the Tories but now the Lib Dems have lost my support too).
The thing is the debt is really a non-issue. Loans mean no one has to pay it upfront. It simple means you take a great responsibility for the cost of your own education. It beats everyone else paying for it or you paying for it until the grave. The terms of the loan are also very good, it certainly won't make you bankrupt or ruin your credit score.

However, the fact they got elected almost entirely on this policy, and then did such an insane degree of the opposite is what disgusts me. Their push to increase the tax-free allowance is about all I can think they have achieved.
 
So anyone seen Clegg's half-assed apology on the news? Seems like a waste of time frankly. If he's so incompetent that he goes back on the biggest promise he made before the elections, he may as well stand by it. Or even try and rectify it. Apologising is pretty pathetic, really.
 
He really is pathetic and really arrogant.

What has he actually brought to the table since being elected? I hope there is at least something good worth remembering him for - because he's not going to last the next election, as party leader or even an MP IMO (well maybe MP - who knows though).
 
What has he actually brought to the table since being elected?

I think he brings all the cutlery and plates. Plus I believe he sometimes brings in the tea and sugar if any of the group-ups need it. ;)

Anyway, the apology is just words. I prefer to judge people by their actions, in which case he has failed badly.
 
I think he brings all the cutlery

Of course - he'll get it at the source.

Incidentally, remember two things:
1. The Con-Lib coalition is 306 seats to 57. The Lib Dems get about 16% input in anything. Expecting anything from them is optimistic - the reality is that they'll just water down Conservative plans and policies to render them just about ineffective.
2. All politicians are liars. Setting your scopes on one Oxbridge-educated Law/PPE graduate (though Clegg's actually got a degree in rock-smashing, unusually) that's spent so little time in the real world but thinks they know how to run it and ignoring all the others is... narrow.
 

I thought we'd settled on "Con-Dem" as a name for the coalition?...

Incidentally, I don't think it's a narrow view of Clegg holding any power per se, more that as the one who made such promises before the election only to essentially do nothing once in "power" (loose term), his reputation is the one that's bearing the brunt of the mistrust.

And an apology for it smacks more of "oops, nevermind" than it does as anything sincere.
 
Back