British 2015 general election poll

[Arglorand]

I did one of those citizenship tests out of curiosity.

I found mistakes in the questions.

I'm somehow not surprised.
Do you have a link handy?

Have fun.

[Imperializt Russia]

I'm somehow not surprised.
Do you have a link handy?

Have fun.

http://www.theuktest.com/progress/wcxrqldqq
I apparently just qualify as a citizen.
Like, seriously, all those questions I answered incorrectly were things I was not taught in school.

[Ad Nihilo]

nevermind

[Vyvland]

Have fun.

http://www.theuktest.com/progress/wcxrqldqq
I apparently just qualify as a citizen.
Like, seriously, all those questions I answered incorrectly were things I was not taught in school.

My favourite question is this one:
"There is no place in British society for extremism or intolerance
[ ] True
[ ] False"

[Arglorand]

http://www.theuktest.com/progress/wcxrqldqq
I apparently just qualify as a citizen.
Like, seriously, all those questions I answered incorrectly were things I was not taught in school.

My favourite question is this one:
"There is no place in British society for extremism or intolerance
[ ] True
[ ] False"

I prefer

Who defeated the Vikings?

King Kenneth
King Alfred the Great
King Harold
King Edward I

fun fact

at least two of those answers are correct

but they only let you choose Alfred

[Alyakia]

you know what i'm just not even going to bother. you know what swizterland is known for now, you know what it was known for in the 20th century, you know what it was known for before that.

That doesn't mean Switzerland exists because of tax evasion. You could stop treating entire countries as silly caricatures.

you could stop being deliberately obtuse about the word exist so you can stop making the world's most useless point as well but i severely doubt that's going to stop you.

geilinor, champion of the swiss worker (warning: probably not actually talking about the swiss worker)

[Paper Sprite]

Looks like Farage's nuttiness could be put down to being on strong benzos and drinking at the same time. I'm sure that'll be whipped out next time he embarrasses himself.

[Paper Sprite]

Dave, man of the people, Cameron

http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/t ... yfVwmmQbxb

[Ad Nihilo]

Dave, man of the people, Cameron

http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/t ... yfVwmmQbxb

I rather like this: http://www.libdems.org.uk/DaveLovesWestHam

I'm relieved to discover that the Lib Dems have a sense of humour. They have fuck all else left in terms of human worth.

[Alyakia]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CDaQq6gWoAA7ksM.jpg

great idea guys

e:

http://i.imgur.com/JHF4H89.jpg

holy shit they are so desperate

[Paper Sprite]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CDaQq6gWoAA7ksM.jpg

great idea guys

e:

http://i.imgur.com/JHF4H89.jpg

holy shit they are so desperate

Better Together because it's all the easier to patronise and insult Scotland that way.

[Vyvland]

My favourite question is this one:
"There is no place in British society for extremism or intolerance
[ ] True
[ ] False"

I prefer

Who defeated the Vikings?

King Kenneth
King Alfred the Great
King Harold
King Edward I

fun fact

at least two of those answers are correct

but they only let you choose Alfred

This is made even worse by the fact there were two King Harolds

and at least two King Kenneths, each of whom repelled some Viking raids

[Miletos]

I propose that all British-borns have to take the citizen test after reaching 18 years of age.

Then we'll see how fucked up our immigration system really is.

I did one of those citizenship tests out of curiosity.

I found mistakes in the questions.

"The Middle Ages or the medieval period was a time of almost constant war" - Answer (apparently): True

That's the most obvious one I spotted on page 2; I have no appetite to look through 46 more pages, but it seems fairly apparent that this bullshit test needs to just piss off and die in a corner.

[Arglorand]

I prefer



fun fact

at least two of those answers are correct

but they only let you choose Alfred

This is made even worse by the fact there were two King Harolds

and at least two King Kenneths, each of whom repelled some Viking raids

if you accept Cináed mac Alpín as historical, that's a whopping three

[The UK in Exile]

I prefer



fun fact

at least two of those answers are correct

but they only let you choose Alfred

This is made even worse by the fact there were two King Harolds

and at least two King Kenneths, each of whom repelled some Viking raids

They publish the answers though, its a test of whether you've studied, not whether you've been attending pub quizzes whilst your here.

[Greater-London]

http://i.imgur.com/JHF4H89.jpg

holy shit they are so desperate

Thats absolutely incredible.

[Angleter]

This is made even worse by the fact there were two King Harolds

and at least two King Kenneths, each of whom repelled some Viking raids

if you accept Cináed mac Alpín as historical, that's a whopping three

It's obviously designed so that new citizens know just as little (almost all of it wrong) about medieval history as most of the rest of the population.

[Greater-London]

Dave, man of the people, Cameron

http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/t ... yfVwmmQbxb

Support Aston Villa - Get West Ham!

[The UK in Exile]

Dave, man of the people, Cameron

http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/t ... yfVwmmQbxb

Support Aston Villa - Get West Ham!

Could have been funnier, he could have said Burnley

[Ad Nihilo]

Dave, man of the people, Cameron

http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/t ... yfVwmmQbxb

Support Aston Villa - Get West Ham!

The problem isn't that Dave doesn't give a fuck about football. I don't give a fuck about football and I don't see why it's compulsory to give about football to qualify as a normal person (TM).

The problem is that politicians and the media keep telling the voting public that they should expect that their politicians to be normal people like they are. And that's just retarded.

1) If politicians are normal people like everyone else there is no fucking point to them. If politicians are not there to represent people's interests with better abilities and access to information than the average voter, but instead they are there to represent the prejudices of the public, then they are redundant and we should have direct democracy via Twitter.

2) It legitimises clowns like Farage because he does in fact speak for the man in the street - that's why everything he says is so retarded.

[The UK in Exile]

Support Aston Villa - Get West Ham!

The problem isn't that Dave doesn't give a fuck about football. I don't give a fuck about football and I don't see why it's compulsory to give about football to qualify as a normal person (TM).

The problem is that politicians and the media keep telling the voting public that they should expect that their politicians to be normal people like they are. And that's just retarded.

1) If politicians are normal people like everyone else there is no fucking point to them. If politicians are not there to represent people's interests with better abilities and access to information than the average voter, but instead they are there to represent the prejudices of the public, then they are redundant and we should have direct democracy via Twitter.

2) It legitimises clowns like Farage because he does in fact speak for the man in the street - that's why everything he says is so retarded.

It helps represent peoples interests if you can share them, or at least relate to them, or at least remember what you said.

Also there are a large number of issues on which it makes no sense for politicians to have better access to information than anyone else.Arguably for all non-national defense issues, if politicans can see it, the public should be able to see it.

[Greater-London]

The problem isn't that Dave doesn't give a fuck about football. I don't give a fuck about football and I don't see why it's compulsory to give about football to qualify as a normal person (TM).

The problem is that politicians and the media keep telling the voting public that they should expect that their politicians to be normal people like they are. And that's just retarded.

1) If politicians are normal people like everyone else there is no fucking point to them. If politicians are not there to represent people's interests with better abilities and access to information than the average voter, but instead they are there to represent the prejudices of the public, then they are redundant and we should have direct democracy via Twitter.

2) It legitimises clowns like Farage because he does in fact speak for the man in the street - that's why everything he says is so retarded.

I'm inclined to agree, it really doesn't matter if a politician likes football or not OR for that matter who they support. Villa of course is a brilliant team for DC to support from a PR perspective; nearest premier league club to his constituency and nobody bar maybe West Brom and Birmingham fans have any strong feelings towards them.

However I do think its important that politicians are normal people too...

1) Being normal doesn't mean you can't be good at representing interests or be better informed than the average voter. Being well informed is good but you also need to understand how people work, how the world works in order to implement good policy. Being a normal person helps bridge that divide - you can't be properly informed on anything if you don't have a relationship with or understand the people you represent.

2) Well then maybe people from the other parties should be more in touch. I'm sure Ed, David, Nicola, Nathalie, Nick ETC ETC do speak for the man on the street too - after all we do all have different opinions. They just look like weirdo's which like it or not stops them from being popular.

[Ad Nihilo]

It helps represent peoples interests if you can share them, or at least relate to them, or at least remember what you said.

Really can't see how football is in any way related to anyone's interests, except the footballers' and club managers' who make their living out of it.

Otherwise people may be interested in football, but that has nothing to do with the success of their lives.

Also there are a large number of issues on which it makes no sense for politicians to have better access to information than anyone else.Arguably for all non-national defense issues, if politicans can see it, the public should be able to see it.

You misunderstand me. I'm not saying that politicians have, or should have statutory privilege in accessing this kind of information. What I'm saying is that there is a fucktonne of relevant information to process in order to formulate reasonable, evidence-based policy, and if you work 40+ hours a week in a shitty job you hate, you probably don't have the time, energy and inclination to go through all that. Instead, politicians do it on our behalf because that is their job. Or at least that should be their job.

And we, private individuals, as well as the media, can review how politicians respond to the relevant facts and how they justify their decision at our leisure. That's how it should work in principle. And often enough it does. We have a very well-functioning civil society.

But somehow, when it comes to the immigration debate in the last couple of years, everyone has decided that the facts that should matter don't matter any more and there is no need for evidence-based policy when the only obvious relevant fact of the matter is that they talk funny and we don't like it.

[Ad Nihilo]

1) Being normal doesn't mean you can't be good at representing interests or be better informed than the average voter. Being well informed is good but you also need to understand how people work, how the world works in order to implement good policy. Being a normal person helps bridge that divide - you can't be properly informed on anything if you don't have a relationship with or understand the people you represent.

I was not suggesting that you need to be abnormal to be good at representing other people's interests. Point I was making that 'being normal' is simply not relevant.

And the problem with what you are suggesting is that you then have politicians doing policy because 'they understand the issues from the point of view of the man in the street' and because certain policies are 'just obvious common sense'.

Both of those ways of going about doing policy are evidence-based. It's just that the evidence is anecdotal. And anecdotal evidence is a worse than useless evidence base. It not only generalises conclusions from one piece or a very limited amount of evidence, but that evidence will also incorporate all sorts of other biases, prejudices and distortions that you cannot control for.

It's a bit like when you get on TV news programmes interviews with business leaders on the state of the economy. Business leaders know the sum total of fuck all about macro-economics in virtue of their job as 'business leaders', and nobody is asking them to either. Their job is to know what the market in which they operate is doing. Whether their business is doing well or poorly bears no relation to what the overall economy is doing. So the 'insight' that business leaders bring to these debates is purely anecdotal.

If you want to know what the macro-economy is doing ask an economist to tell you what the official statistics are saying.

And if you want to know whether a policy would have a positive or negative outcome you don't use 'common sense'. You do a study.

2) Well then maybe people from the other parties should be more in touch. I'm sure Ed, David, Nicola, Nathalie, Nick ETC ETC do speak for the man on the street too - after all we do all have different opinions. They just look like weirdo's which like it or not stops them from being popular.

The narrative that politicians should be 'ordinary people' helps Farage more than it helps anyone else because people think the shit he says. That's why he says it. People don't think the shit they do because of evidence, they do so because of prejudice. And I shouldn't have to explain that reducing democracy to 'reflect the views of the people' is a retarded way to run a country.

[The UK in Exile]

It helps represent peoples interests if you can share them, or at least relate to them, or at least remember what you said.

Really can't see how football is in any way related to anyone's interests, except the footballers' and club managers' who make their living out of it.

Otherwise people may be interested in football, but that has nothing to do with the success of their lives.

Also there are a large number of issues on which it makes no sense for politicians to have better access to information than anyone else.Arguably for all non-national defense issues, if politicans can see it, the public should be able to see it.

You misunderstand me. I'm not saying that politicians have, or should have statutory privilege in accessing this kind of information. What I'm saying is that there is a fucktonne of relevant information to process in order to formulate reasonable, evidence-based policy, and if you work 40+ hours a week in a shitty job you hate, you probably don't have the time, energy and inclination to go through all that. Instead, politicians do it on our behalf because that is their job. Or at least that should be their job.

And we, private individuals, as well as the media, can review how politicians respond to the relevant facts and how they justify their decision at our leisure. That's how it should work in principle. And often enough it does. We have a very well-functioning civil society.

But somehow, when it comes to the immigration debate in the last couple of years, everyone has decided that the facts that should matter don't matter any more and there is no need for evidence-based policy when the only obvious relevant fact of the matter is that they talk funny and we don't like it.

sure, but you've got it backwards, 60 million people are much more likely to have the time to absorb and understand huge quantities of information and make a decision than 600. Your average MP is working 60 hours a week and if he/she is a minister is working three jobs, MP, Minister and Party leadership.