- Jan 14, 2004
- 890
- 6
- 125
Voting
- Thread starter Omen_lom
- Start date
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the first known use of "England" to refer to the southern part of the island of Great Britain occurs in 897, and its modern spelling was first used in 1538.
An alternative name for England is Albion. The name Albion originally referred to the entire island of Great Britain. The earliest record of the name appears in the Aristotelian Corpus, specifically the 4th century BC De Mundo:"Beyond the Pillars of Hercules is the ocean that flows round the earth. In it are two very large islands called Britannia; these are Albion and Ierne".
so technically you may be right in saying it was used instead of great britain but i dont think in this century, or the one before that, or the one before that etc :P
my 2 cents
-J
Last edited:
Nah if u look through most dictionaries it will say the same thing, that just happened to be the first 1 on the list... and yeah i agree it is a old term but im not gonna be seen as a dumbarse :P lol.
but its not as old as u think, i've seen travel guides etc from the 1900's that have described Britain as 'England'... but yeah.. the point is im right, and i'm not dumb, showed proof, i win, now back on topic :P
but its not as old as u think, i've seen travel guides etc from the 1900's that have described Britain as 'England'... but yeah.. the point is im right, and i'm not dumb, showed proof, i win, now back on topic :P
point is my e-penis is much bigger and i also showed proof that im also right
furthermore i think the whole topic of britain being incorrectly labelled by newbs can now be compared to this picture http://www.clevelandleader.com/files/CareBears_Blanket.gif
now yes lets get back to voting
(u win diddly squat muahaha)
furthermore i think the whole topic of britain being incorrectly labelled by newbs can now be compared to this picture http://www.clevelandleader.com/files/CareBears_Blanket.gif
now yes lets get back to voting
(u win diddly squat muahaha)
This. It says people use it to refer to UK, doesn't mean they're correct to do so, it simply means your one of these people in the wrong...?
And some good posts on here. Especially those that replies to the anti-Lib Dem post. I had a few points but most were covered, although yes they're giving amnesty etc to some of the immigrants already here, but then they plan to tighten the borders - the only fair way to do it. Let's be honest Labour wont remove them, and then what? Leave the borders open?
I hate benefit scum too, and pointless civil servant positions. But some of the Tory ideals are too far from my comfort zone... Lib Dem's seem to cover that happy middle ground for me, with a good range of policies i agree with. Will be interesting to see what happens.
/Gand
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/england/8663681.stm
Watch that guys. No wonder BNP are getting more votes each year.
Watch that guys. No wonder BNP are getting more votes each year.
- Sep 10, 2004
- 2,616
- 68
- 195
That was deserved, Asian or not. Spitting at somebody is just disrespectful and rude.
The whole thing is ridiculous tbh.
Conservative clearly have more votes, they should clearly win.
A hung parliament is probably the worst outcome tbh.
Conservative clearly have more votes, they should clearly win.
A hung parliament is probably the worst outcome tbh.
Any government must have a majority amount of votes, since no 1 party have this they must cahoot with one or more parties to become a stable government.
If Lib dems and labour wer to do it then they would still not have enough votes so they would have to bring in even more parties, thats why its more than likely lib dems will work with the tories and the tories have enough votes with lib dems and no others.
I think the system is to not let the people down who didnt vote for the winning party, and also they need to do it by seats as thats the way its represented int he house of commons, its jsut a big mess really lol
Last edited:
goddamn people learn how your own electoral system works please. You vote for an MP to lead your constituency. Each MP takes up one seat in parliament. If a party doesn't get enough MPs to get a majority of seats, they can't lead (except by minority government). They don't just give an automatic majority to whoever gets the most votes, how could they unless they just flooded parliament with people that weren't voted in? That wouldn't be very democratic now would it?
You say conservatives should 'clearly win' but don't forget they only actually got 36% of the vote. The majority of people voted for either lib dems or labour, so a coalition government of those two parties is more representative of the people's vote than a minority conservative government.
You say conservatives should 'clearly win' but don't forget they only actually got 36% of the vote. The majority of people voted for either lib dems or labour, so a coalition government of those two parties is more representative of the people's vote than a minority conservative government.