[ SECRET POST #3189 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3189 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.













Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 045 secrets from Secret Submission Post #455.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[diet_poison]

I was more creeped out by the "light money on fire in front of homeless people" thing

WHAT.

Okay, the pig thing is gross but not actually harmful to the big since it's, you know, dead. But that? Wow that is terrible, shitty, disgusting behavior right there.

[kitelovesyou]

My thoughts too. I can laugh about the pig thing. Wow, the ruling class's baby ruling rituals. Disgusting.

[(Anonymous)]

TBH, the fact that after learning shit like this, the British public hasn't displayed any inclination to vote all those posh Oxford Tory shits out of office is astounding and depressing.

I mean, some things really ought to be prima facie evidence to any reasonable person that someone is not suited for high office and positions of responsibility, and yet...

[(Anonymous)]

Only 36% of the British public voted for the Tories last election. Unfortunately, because the Tories are extremely crafty in terms of moving constituency boundaries, that 36% translated to just over 50% of the seats. Additionally, their main opponent, Labour, was a shambles and so didn't pose a real opposition.

And so the most despicable, evil assortment of rich entitled scum to ever sit on the benches of Westminster returned.

[(Anonymous)]

Well, no, that's not an entirely accurate analysis, I don't think.

First, it's not really because of gerrymandering, although I'm sure that doesn't help. It's more the way that a multi-party parliamentary first past the post system is going to work. The Conservatives were the plurality choice. That's why they won the most seats. I mean, gerrymandering accentuated that advantage, without a doubt. But you would expect the party that wins a plurality of votes to win more seats than their share of the vote in the system that exists in the UK, simple because that's how the system works, and because at the end of the day someone needs to win the actual seats. If you want to look at why they were the plurality choice, then you want to talk about Labour being a shambles and the Tories running an extremely good campaign, really a brilliant campaign in a tactical sense.

Again, the Tories probably outperform those results because of gerrymandering, but not to that extent. The same way that parties outside of Labour and Conservatives will underperform their poll results in terms of seats. (Speaking of which...)

Second, if you want to talk about expressed preferences of UK voters in the voting booth, it's really not that much more cheerful of a story, because not only were the Conservatives the plurality choice - the third most popular party in the 2015 election in terms of votes was UKIP. They got 12% of the vote. They only got one seat, because again that's how the system works, but if you want to look purely at votes, over 49% of votes went to either the Tories or UKIP. An outright majority of votes went to the Tories, UKIP, or the Unionist parties in Northern Ireland.

tl;dr:

1) In the UK's election system, a parliamentary race is essentially a race to win a plurality, not a majority. The Conservatives accomplished this task. It was as legitimate an election victory as possible.

2) Looking at the pure votes, the outright majority of votes were cast for right-wing parties.

3) This is bad, because the people in charge of the Conservative party are fucking terrible.

[kitelovesyou]

Make people afraid that someone else is out to get them, that works in Australia with the right-wingers.

[(Anonymous)]

Sure works here in the U.S. as well.

[kitelovesyou]

Yeah, it's a reliable way to gain power - get the populace to vote against their other self-interests and abandon social compassion - tell them there's a greater enemy to worry about and here's a strategy to protect them. I mean, I don't want to pull a Godwin but.... *points to history*.

[(Anonymous)]

The pig was an initiation ritual for the Piers Gaveston, a hitherto lesser known ruling class club that Cameron joined.

The burning money was an initiation ritual for the Bullingdon club, a much more famous club where rich men deride poor people and smash up restaurants because they can afford to pay for the damage and criminal charges.

David Cameron, George Osbourne (British Chancellor of the Exchequer), and Boris Johnson (Mayor of London) - all Tories - were all members.

In light of that, it's no real surprise that their policies have driven poor, vulnerable and disabled people further into poverty, including some well documented cases of suicides and death by starvation.

[(Anonymous)]

OT, but 'Piers Gaveston'. Really? I mean, I guess he did well for a while, but considering what happened to him, and Edward II for that matter, I wouldn't be modelling my career after him. I'd rather be long-lived than temporarily-powerful-and-died-too-soon.

Although, in this case, maybe the club being called Piers Gaveston just highlights the fact that it will all eventually come out to your ruination.

[raspberryrain]

At least it wasn't the younger Hugh Despenser?

[(Anonymous)]

LOL, good point!

[(Anonymous)]

This is where my mind went too.

[diet_poison]

wow, holy shit.

why would anyone vote for someone who had been a member of such a vile organization? :(