The Student Room Group

Your 6 most disliked UK politicians active today

Scroll to see replies

Original post by ibzombie96
You've got no clue what you're on about, have you?

It is simply not true that 800k of the jobs created in the last Parliament are ZHCs. 800k jobs in the country are ZHCs, but that is not to say they were created in the last Parliament. The Guardian and the Mirror asserted this last year and were promptly corrected.

Global warming has come as a result of the industrialisation of our economy, not through the planning of the Bilderberg group in 1961. Need I mention that Bilderberg was founded way after the industrial revolution?

Let me tell you: My dad (until he retired) was a privately educated, millionaire, ex-Rothschild investment banker who was also a 'Worshipful Master' in the masons. The masons have absolutely nothing to do with the political order in this country - it's just a social club.


Thats what they tell you There are some secrets that they will not even tell their family. My Dads Freind who has been a mason for 45 years said they know who wiped out Kennedy- the majority of successful Mps are freemasons and they follow something called the agenda 21. They have secret handshakes purely for the powerful even the queen gives masonic handshakes when females are not allowed to join it. David Cameron is a Mason so was Tony Blair and my contact was 95% sure thatcher had a connection in it. I am not one but i know a lot about it through a contact they are linked to the skull and bones group who Select the US President. Then the saying will anyone help the widows son- this is used in court to sabotage the case if the judge or jury are masons
Original post by Jammy Duel
I suggest you go look at the Labour Force Surveys that correspond with the beginning and end of the last parliament, then again, that requires fact checking, checking facts that show your incorrectness.


Cameron is a hired yes man he is controlled by the bankers and he allows members to influence his decisions for 50k they are very corrupt
Original post by DarrenBCFC
Cameron is a hired yes man he is controlled by the bankers and he allows members to influence his decisions for 50k they are very corrupt


Not quite sure what toss has to do with your incorrectness, or OS this your way of admitting your wrong being being too proud to directly admit it?

And do you have any period of this or are you just warring your tinfoil hat a bit tight?
Plenty of vile individuals in politics, but...

Top six: Osborne (Labour could've authored parts of his budget), Cameron (sleazy salesman vibe), Dianne Abbott (loud, ignorant and rude), Sturgeon (disingenuous), Bennett (clueless), Brown (scum).

I'd have said Miliband and Balls, but they're toast.

As for Clegg, he wasn't that bad.

Blair deserves a mention, as he is an utterly horrible human being, but he's not an MP anymore.

Theresa May, I consider her a revolting authoritarian, and she could trade places with Cameron. She is probably more dangerous in some ways.

Salmond, though I consider him disingenuous, I don't rate as poorly as some of the above.


Iain Duncan Smith doesn't bother me hugely, as he occasionally makes some sense.
Original post by Jammy Duel
Not quite sure what toss has to do with your incorrectness, or OS this your way of admitting your wrong being being too proud to directly admit it?

And do you have any period of this or are you just warring your tinfoil hat a bit tight?


Not listening to your Pro right austerity cheering *******s. I bet you and your party love it when people are homeless and this will happen as tax credits are being cut.
Original post by DarrenBCFC
Not listening to your Pro right austerity cheering *******s. I bet you and your party love it when people are homeless and this will happen as tax credits are being cut.

Rwad: i refuse to look at the facts because i fear they will be wrong, and i refuse to backup my points because i cannot.
And you do realise that tax credits are damaging and dissuade work, right?
If you're on 10k and irresponsibly have a child as a dongle patent, then you increase your income to 15k, how much do you think the net household income goes up by?
Hint, it's nowhere near 5000. You lose your tax credits, so why should you work so much longer for so little? Answer, people don't.
Original post by Jammy Duel
Rwad: i refuse to look at the facts because i fear they will be wrong, and i refuse to backup my points because i cannot.
And you do realise that tax credits are damaging and dissuade work, right?
If you're on 10k and irresponsibly have a child as a dongle patent, then you increase your income to 15k, how much do you think the net household income goes up by?
Hint, it's nowhere near 5000. You lose your tax credits, so why should you work so much longer for so little? Answer, people don't.


No its just making the poor poorer and the rich richer. thousands will become unemployed by 2020
Original post by DarrenBCFC
No its just making the poor poorer and the rich richer. thousands will become unemployed by 2020


Again, you're doing a good job of making statements, a very poor job of actually making anybody believe you. I'll make a prediction, tomorrow your neighbour will be abducted by aliens, be missing for a week, then come back with an addled brain and no limbs. Clearly, this is going to happen AF it has been stated without evidence.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by DarrenBCFC
Thats what they tell you There are some secrets that they will not even tell their family. My Dads Freind who has been a mason for 45 years said they know who wiped out Kennedy- the majority of successful Mps are freemasons and they follow something called the agenda 21. They have secret handshakes purely for the powerful even the queen gives masonic handshakes when females are not allowed to join it. David Cameron is a Mason so was Tony Blair and my contact was 95% sure thatcher had a connection in it. I am not one but i know a lot about it through a contact they are linked to the skull and bones group who Select the US President. Then the saying will anyone help the widows son- this is used in court to sabotage the case if the judge or jury are masons


I'm really not quite sure what to tell you. Your argument fails on one level: you have no evidence. None at all. You can't really suggest something for which you have no evidence at all, can you? Furthermore, you surely must not believe it.

I don't really think we're ever going to see eye-to-eye on your wild conspiracy theories, so I just think you're wasting my time.
Original post by ibzombie96
I'm really not quite sure what to tell you. Your argument fails on one level: you have no evidence. None at all. You can't really suggest something for which you have no evidence at all, can you? Furthermore, you surely must not believe it.

I don't really think we're ever going to see eye-to-eye on your wild conspiracy theories, so I just think you're wasting my time.


33rd Degree ones are all famous or politicians. They have bad intentions - linked to the illuminati and the bilderbergs but you believe all of the official claptrap the government says. I know it is not the UK but i bet you swallow up the official story of 911 as correct
Original post by zippity.doodah
ed miliband - why is he even still an MP? I asked the same about gordon brown back in 2010/11
how does a man like him have the nerve/audacity to continue existing as a politician?
this is what I think of miliband:

Spoiler



The house would miss him!
Original post by DarrenBCFC
33rd Degree ones are all famous or politicians. They have bad intentions - linked to the illuminati and the bilderbergs but you believe all of the official claptrap the government says. I know it is not the UK but i bet you swallow up the official story of 911 as correct


Have you thought that just because you know some famous 33rd Degree masons, that there may also be ones you don't know about.

I'm sorry, but you've just shown -again and again - an utter disregard for critical reasoning. I get it. Conspiracy theories are great to read and are all very exciting. But you really must be more critical and understand that you should have evidence in order to believe something. Most people read and watch conspiracy theories because they're good fun, but you seem to have rather naïvely taken them as truth.
Original post by zippity.doodah
ed miliband - why is he even still an MP? I asked the same about gordon brown back in 2010/11
how does a man like him have the nerve/audacity to continue existing as a politician?
this is what I think of miliband:

Spoiler



Ummm... because he was elected by the people in his constituency to represent them in Parliament. Some audacity, sure.
george orborune
david cameron
nick clegg
theressa may
michael gove

Every sixthformers most hated...

also lets throw in boris johnson too...lol jk...i love boris hes got banter :smile:
(edited 8 years ago)
Nigel Farage
George Osborne
David Cameron
Michael Gove
Iain Duncan Smith
George Galloway
Boris Johnson
Original post by ibzombie96
Ummm... because he was elected by the people in his constituency to represent them in Parliament. Some audacity, sure.


they didn't specifically choose for ed miliband to represent their constituency - the labour party (not even the local one of that area - the "labour party"(tm) did - he was obviously parachuted into that incredibly safe seat. of course the people of his constituency would prefer a different person
Original post by zippity.doodah
they didn't specifically choose for ed miliband to represent their constituency - the labour party (not even the local one of that area - the "labour party"(tm) did - he was obviously parachuted into that incredibly safe seat. of course the people of his constituency would prefer a different person


The people in that constituency voted him in. Whether or not you think they voted for him or his party, if they really didn't want him in (surely the only case in which you could comment on the audacity he has to carry on), they would have voted someone else in.

In any case, he's been elected now - it is his duty to do his job. There's no reason for a by-election, so I think it would show some cheek actually to give up being an MP now he's not leader of the party/PM.
Original post by ibzombie96
The people in that constituency voted him in. Whether or not you think they voted for him or his party, if they really didn't want him in (surely the only case in which you could comment on the audacity he has to carry on), they would have voted someone else in.

In any case, he's been elected now - it is his duty to do his job. There's no reason for a by-election, so I think it would show some cheek actually to give up being an MP now he's not leader of the party/PM.


that's an incredibly shallow argument to make either way - I don't even believe that you think it's even a very good argument - it's like saying "the people voted for the local lib dems not because they hated the local conservatives (the only other potent rivalling party), but because they just really really liked the lib dems" as if it's not sarcasm
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by zippity.doodah
that's an incredibly shallow argument to make either way - I don't even believe that you think it's even a very good argument - it's like saying "the people voted for the local lib dems not because they hated the local conservatives (the only other potent rivalling party), but because they just really really liked the lib dems" as if it's not sarcasm


It's absolutely not a shallow argument to make. Firstly, the parallel you draw with LibDem supporters' tactical voting doesn't apply in this case as - in the main - those who vote Labour, like Labour. Secondly, the crux of your argument is essentially that a politician must be 'really liked' for their position as an MP to be justified. You must know that this is simply not the case - all that matters is that that MP gains the most votes, whether or not those that voted for them loved them or simply thought they were the best of a bad bunch. To say that he is being audacious to carry on as a politician because he lost the General Election is to ignore the fact that he was voted MP by the majority of those in his constituency who voted at all. They may not have loved his party, and they may not have loved him, but they voted for him - it's hardly audacious to accept voters' wishes, however half-hearted they may be. It's here that your argument fails.
Original post by ibzombie96
It's absolutely not a shallow argument to make. Firstly, the parallel you draw with LibDem supporters' tactical voting doesn't apply in this case as - in the main - those who vote Labour, like Labour.


so if russell brand votes for labour, he "likes" labour?

Secondly, the crux of your argument is essentially that a politician must be 'really liked' for their position as an MP to be justified. You must know that this is simply not the case - all that matters is that that MP gains the most votes, whether or not those that voted for them loved them or simply thought they were the best of a bad bunch.


voting for somebody doesn't mean people like them - if you were in a constituency and the only people running were stalin and hitler and you voted for stalin (and he wins), does that mean you like stalin? you didn't want the choices to be so limited but that was outside of your control, just like the situation of ed miliband's constituents having no say over who represented the labour party in their area (it's a parachute seat). the institutional arrangements stop the legitimacy being full. in this case, the institutions might make the whole thing a total farce de facto

To say that he is being audacious to carry on as a politician because he lost the General Election is to ignore the fact that he was voted MP by the majority of those in his constituency who voted at all.


he got parachuted into his seat. his very-labour constituents would have voted in tony blair if he stood there. sometimes it's not about the politician. it's about their party. they are all paid to say the same things and they are paid to vote for the same policies in their manifestos. the person behind the manifesto in a constituency basically means nothing. my MP is michael tomlinson of the conservative party - do you really think I, if I voted for the conservatives, would have wanted him in particular over all the other possible candidates? I don't care if he won or not - he as a person is meaningless - it's his party that is the real significance. they could put a deaf-dumb-and-blind guy up for the conservative party's position in the constituency - as long as he has his brail and knows what the party heads are telling him to vote for, he'll vote for it and there will be nothing a constituent or a constituency could do about it.

They may not have loved his party, and they may not have loved him, but they voted for him - it's hardly audacious to accept voters' wishes, however half-hearted they may be. It's here that your argument fails.


again, you *know* this is shallow reasoning - "they may not like him" but they had no choice but to vote for him and this is the only thing that you're measuring, aside from the fact that he was the reason his labour lost so badly! therefore, like I said, he should have stood down as an MP because nobody even respects him any more, and they only voted for him because of his party, tactically (I bet) because in this country, basically any vote that means anything is a tactical vote - e.g. UKIP getting something like 13% and getting 0.01% of seats.

Quick Reply

Latest