One third of students unaware Gordon Brown is

[Still Waters]

One third of students do not know that Gordon Brown is the leader of the Labour party, a shocking survey revealed today.

Highlighting a staggering knowledge gap, the survey also revealed a similar proportion failed to identify David Cameron as Tory leader.

The poll, by student accommodation provider Unite, also revealed a blatant disregard for politics, with half of those surveyed claiming they are unlikely to vote in the upcoming general election.

The survey of more than 1,500 students reveals that 33 per cent could not name Mr Brown as Labour leader, while 34 per cent did not know Mr Cameron leads the Conservatives.

Less than half (48 per cent) knew that Nick Clegg is the Liberal Democrat leader.

A quarter of students (26 per cent) believe actress and campaigner Joanna Lumley would do a better job running the country than the current candidates, followed by tycoon Sir Alan Sugar (22 per cent).

Read more...

[Pseudo Intellectual]

This is what happens when your country is governed by dozens of political parties.

And when the Left controls education.

[Emma_Acid]

This is what happens when your country is governed by dozens of political parties.

And when the Left controls education.

Or, its what happens when your country is lead by someone as paper-thin on the charm front as Gordon Brown. I mean, he is literally the most boring man in the country.

Anyway - dozens of governing parties??? Who are they then?

Although I'll agree the education in this country needs a whopping shake up.

[Pseudo Intellectual]

Not dozens... well, probably not, but still a lot of parties. Why can't you be like us and just have Republicans, Democrats and independents?

[Space Commander Travis]

This is what happens when your country is governed by dozens of political parties.

And when the Left controls education.

Dozens of parties there may be, but only the usual two ever have any realistic prospect of ever getting into power, just as in the US.

Actually, I think the whole {to all intents and purposes} two-party system has had its day, frankly; it may have been some use once upon a time, but that was a long time ago. I find the indifference of the people to the same old us or them same old very encouraging. Perhaps if not enough people did vote for either of them, neither of them would get into power.

[Space Commander Travis]

I think there might be something in this as well:

A quarter of students (26 per cent) believe actress and campaigner Joanna Lumley would do a better job running the country than the current candidates, followed by tycoon Sir Alan Sugar (22 per cent).

Well, Sir Alan at any rate. What is the job of a government, really? Isn't it like the board of a company, on a large scale? (although some mega-corporations come pretty close to the size of a moderately sized country, of course.) So I think that a government run by people with actual managerial experience would actually be a very good idea, rather than career politicians whose only interest is in getting further up the ladder of power, and who may not know anything at all about the actual jobs they're in. Like I think it'd be sensible to have someone with military experience, preferably actual experience commanding in the field, in charge of the Ministry of Defence. Seems sensible to me. The Economy? The Economy, of course, is largely imaginary, and it's out of governments' hands in any case, so it doesn't really matter who's in charge there.

[The Silver Thong]

Not dozens... well, probably not, but still a lot of parties. Why can't you be like us and just have Republicans, Democrats and independents?

Beats a two party dictatorship, ok maybe not. I think the reason Brown is so unknowen is that he was never voted it. He was just handed the leadership. In America you get 1 whole year to decide who to vote for.

[Emma_Acid]

Not dozens... well, probably not, but still a lot of parties. Why can't you be like us and just have Republicans, Democrats and independents?

Well there are dozens of parties, but only one in power - its not a coalition. One of the main problems with the UK is that it has only 2 powerful parties - when they are as bad as each other, why would people bother voting?

[Admiral Danger]

i think that should be one of the questions to be asked in a university interview

i'll make it in with no problems

[RamblingRebel]

Not dozens... well, probably not, but still a lot of parties. Why can't you be like us and just have Republicans, Democrats and independents?

Please don't start bombing us too coz we're a lil bit different to you!

Edited February 17, 2010 by RamblingRebel

[Eldorado]

I don't believe it for a second...students aint that dumb, and the Mail is a lying rag.

As for our resident fascist saying, "This is what happens when your country is governed by dozens of political parties.".....you should get your facts right.....just like the US, we have only two Parties who can win a General Election. Right or Left, take your pick....pfft.

[Emma_Acid]

I don't believe it for a second...students aint that dumb, and the Mail is a lying rag.

As for our resident fascist saying, "This is what happens when your country is governed by dozens of political parties.".....you should get your facts right.....just like the US, we have only two Parties who can win a General Election. Right or Left, take your pick....pfft.

Or Right or Right, take your pick...

[Eldorado]

Or Right or Right, take your pick...

lol.....you're right....it's hard tell them apart these days.....sigh.

[Pseudo Intellectual]

I don't see what fascism has to do with this... and it was a joke, what I said.

Personally, I don't like the UK's system, I think it's a failure, but if you guys like it, keep it.

[Space Commander Travis]

I don't see what fascism has to do with this... and it was a joke, what I said.

Personally, I don't like the UK's system, I think it's a failure, but if you guys like it, keep it.

Why is the US system better, then? Where people not only whinge endlessly about the current leader if it's not the one that you wanted, but try to invent ever more desperate reasons why he "isn't actually the legitimate president" (he wasn't born in the US, Hawaii isn't a state, and all that nonsense)? Why is that better? Why, come to that, is a system where the previous incumbent got into office despite getting fewer votes than his rival superior?