Home Politics & Debate

Local Elections

2»

Comments

  • JsTJsT TheSite Graduate Posts: 18,267 Skive's The Limit
    How is polling fewer votes than they did last time garnering support? The only reason they got a seat was because of a collapse of the votes for other parties, not an increase in BNP votes.

    True. Turnout in Yorkshire fell from around 42% to around 30%. The BNP fell from 126,000 to 120000 votes, Conservatives from 387, 000 to 290,000 and Labour rather hilariously from 413,000 to 230,000.

    The papers and Twitter etc have been full of people all day whinging that Yorkshire is 'full of fucking morons' for 'voting in the BNP', the only morons were those that just didn't bother to vote at all.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    How is polling fewer votes than they did last time garnering support?

    I never said it was garnering more support. 120,000 sounds like support to me...

    You can put their win down to whatever you wish and the fall in votes for other parties is certainly top of the list. What doesn't change is that the BNP have two seats at the Euro Parliament and have a continental forum to make their views known.
    Despite a huge increase in reasons for ordinary hard-working (or more often nowadays, not working) people to feel disillusioned, there has been no increase in the BNP vote

    But proportionately, there has been an increase, because of the fall elsewhere. Democracy works on proportions of voters, not overall numbers.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    conversation_-_churchill_u1lf.jpg
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yeah I know that, but I'm just saying that it's only evidence of voter apathy than an increase in right wing thinking.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yeah I know that, but I'm just saying that it's only evidence of voter apathy than an increase in right wing thinking.

    "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

    - Edmund Burke

    ...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm disappointed that the BNP have got in, but the simple fact is that they're the only ones empathising with what the people at the bottom are feeling. Labour's sold them out to big business, the Tories sold them out to big business and the Lib Dems' demographic has always been middle class and middle of the road.

    People have seen their factories bought up by foreign companies, asset stripped and then shut down, the jobs moving to Poland or India. The BNP are the only ones saying 'hang on, why are the Government letting foreigners sack British people?'.

    People have seen their estates and their neighbourhoods go down the drain, with lack of investment and lack of interest. People then see the council spending £10m on a mosque, or on an ethnic community centre, down the road. The BNP are the only ones saying 'hang on, why do they get all the money and not the neighbourhoods that were already here?'.

    I don't agree with anything the BNP stand for. The BNP are nasty thugs who skew people's genuine anger and try and turn it into something it's not.

    But why should British companies be allowed to bought up and asset stripped by foreigners? You don't see it anywhere else in the EU.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    Let me explain. I happen to believe that Gordon Brown is mad as a hatter, and to top it off, he is a man with all the intellect and charisma of a lump of dog shit. Speculation about his mental health and stability has been doing the rounds for a long time. Much of it is doing the rounds via blogs such as Guido Fawkes, but it gets into the mainstream media. If you read the blog of Adam Boulton, (from Sky News) you'll see that he recently ran a story on there that Gordon Brown could retire after the local and European elections on "health" grounds. I wonder what Boulton could have been trying to tell us there?

    There's then the matter of Gordon's temper. There are countless reports of him having tantrums - he refused to speak to Blair for days on end when he was Chancellor, for example. He was described as "psychologically flawed" by a prominent member of Tony Blair's government, and not without reason. He has a Macavity-like tendency to disappear when things go wrong, something you simply can't do when PM. There's the reports of Gordon throwing mobile phones at walls and his staff when things go wrong, of breaking laser printers, (anyone else who did that at work would be sacked and forced to repay the cost of replacing such equipment) and of swearing at Downing Street switchboard operators. One of the aforementioned Downing Street staff who's since left the bunker spoke to a Sunday newspaper over the weekend and didn't dispute a single word of these accounts.

    There is Brown's pathological inability to admit he ever did anything wrong. This, in turn, has made him become a pathological liar in the last few days. This is why he was able to stand in fronf of ITN's Tom Bradby last Friday and say he wasn't planning on sacking Alistair Darling and replacing him with Ed Cunt. This is why he said the reshuffle occured in a "calm and orderly" way - another bare-faced lie. Several ministers resigned in the days beforehand, and the Cabinet was effectively reshuffling itself.

    And there is, of course, the infamous clip of Gordon Brown in Parliament when Tony Blair was Prime Minister picking his nose and then eating a bogey when all the cameras were on him. With that sort of record, you have to question his sanity.

    Is Derren Brown also a mentalist? Yes. But that mentalist isn't running the country.

    so what? Even if you're right, does this mean it's okay to make fun of or insult people with mental illness?

    I frankly I'd rather have someone as PM who might suffer from depression or tantrums than someone who claims he hears voices from the sky telling him to attack other countries. Who is the the more mentally ill there?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    so what? Even if you're right, does this mean it's okay to make fun of or insult people with mental illness?

    I frankly I'd rather have someone as PM who might suffer from depression or tantrums than someone who claims he hears voices from the sky telling him to attack other countries. Who is the the more mentally ill there?

    I do get the feeling most of the criticism levied at Gordon Brown is because he is the incumbent prime minister rather than actual real failings with him. But then that's just my feeling and I might be wrong.

    Stargalaxy - I may or may not be right in thinking that if it were up to you, along with the lawyers, all the politicians in this country would be lined up and shot, yes? If we say that we have to have politicians running this country, and because of our political system it's going to be members of a political party, either conservative, labour or liberal democrat (at a long shot) - who is the least bad? I think ultimately after all the lies and slander and spin and scaremongering that's what it comes down to - who do you trust to do the best job / do the least damage?

    Just by their track record (looking at it without paying attention to the media frenzy) labour have done a fairly good job, and I'm not confident that the conservatives or liberal democrats at this point in time would do a better job, or at the least wouldn't be able to minimise damage in the way labour has.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Even if you're right, does this mean it's okay to make fun of or insult people with mental illness?

    Yes, I do think it's OK to insult someone who is so poor at controlling his temper that he needs to be fed 'news sandwiches' and throws printers at people when he gets bad news.

    He's not the only one with mental illness but the rest of us are professional enough to hold our tempers.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I hear what you're saying- though perhaps you are laughing at a man not with mental illness but one who behaves like a child and a spoilt brat- which perhaps does not indicate a mental illness in the medical term.

    In another news, I see that Nick Griffin has been pelted with eggs and made to do a runner today outside the Houses of Parliament... :D

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8091605.stm
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    In another news, I see that Nick Griffin has been pelted with eggs and made to do a runner today outside the Houses of Parliament... :D

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8091605.stm

    What a bunch of utter fuck-wits Unite Against Fascism are. A travesty against both freedom of speech and the democratic process.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Unite Against Fascism are pretty clear about democracy. You can think whatever you want so long as you agree with them.

    I always think that the authoritarian/libertarian scale is much more enlightening than the left/right scale.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Compare the videos:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8091727.stm
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8091605.stm (half way down, Griffin's response)

    It's scary that just from that, it is by far Nick Griffin who comes off as the reasonable minded politician and the UAF who come across as anti-democratic. How unfortunate and ironic.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    Compare the videos:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8091727.stm
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8091605.stm (half way down, Griffin's response)

    It's scary that just from that, it is by far Nick Griffin who comes off as the reasonable minded politician and the UAF who come across as anti-democratic. How unfortunate and ironic.

    Scary:

    UAF Woman:

    "We don't believe in free speech"
    "He may be a legitimately-elected a politician, but he is actually a politician from a fascist organisation"

    Ok the first one is taken out of context :)

    She talks about the BNP advocating violence, yet condones her hippy mob who pelted with eggs. Irony, it would seem, as usual, is wasted on the left.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    She did seem to become increasingly hysterical - you could hear her voice rising and rising. Surely the UAF could have found someone who didn't like she was suddenly going to start screaming 'Exterminate' like a Dalek any second.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It was funny. Just like when Peter Mandelson, John Prescott, Tony Blair, and Margaret Thatcher had things thrown at them specifically chosen for their lack of ability to do any serious damage, and to just make a bit of a mess. Or those blokes who broke into parliament during the hunting vote. They're all out to cause a bit of mischief and make their feelings known, rather than genuinely being violent (obviously, the case is still out on this incident, and any genuinely violent protesters should be prosecuted).

    What I find annoying is the number of people, who rightly criticise this group for their hypocritical stance, but then seem to have fundamentally different opinions about each of these incidents depending on the opinions of the people carrying them out. Throwing eggs at Nick Griffin makes you a thug, but throwing slime at Mandelson is just a bit of mischief.

    These idiots aren't doing their cause any good coming out with shit like that though. They should know the BNP love to play the victim card. Why do they think they chose to have a press conference outside of parliament where there's a pretty much permanent protester presence?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It was funny. Just like when Peter Mandelson, John Prescott, Tony Blair, and Margaret Thatcher had things thrown at them specifically chosen for their lack of ability to do any serious damage, and to just make a bit of a mess. Or those blokes who broke into parliament during the hunting vote. They're all out to cause a bit of mischief and make their feelings known, rather than genuinely being violent (obviously, the case is still out on this incident, and any genuinely violent protesters should be prosecuted).

    What I find annoying is the number of people, who rightly criticise this group for their hypocritical stance, but then seem to have fundamentally different opinions about each of these incidents depending on the opinions of the people carrying them out. Throwing eggs at Nick Griffin makes you a thug, but throwing slime at Mandelson is just a bit of mischief.

    These idiots aren't doing their cause any good coming out with shit like that though. They should know the BNP love to play the victim card. Why do they think they chose to have a press conference outside of parliament where there's a pretty much permanent protester presence?

    I thought she should have been prosecuted as well - however the difference was that she was on her own and wasn't trying to disrupt Mandelson speaking. This was a mob trying to stop someone practicing his right to free speech.

    As an aside a tourist was injured (albeit treated in ambulance rather than hospitalised) when they were caught in the middle, so it wasn't completely harmless fun
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I thought she should have been prosecuted as well - however the difference was that she was on her own and wasn't trying to disrupt Mandelson speaking. This was a mob trying to stop someone practicing his right to free speech.

    As an aside a tourist was injured (albeit treated in ambulance rather than hospitalised) when they were caught in the middle, so it wasn't completely harmless fun
    I suppose, but you don't go into a massively public place full of protesters you know are fundamentally opposed to you, to make your speech, and then moan when you're shouted down and complain about free speech. Yes, of course they should be able to deliver the speech and everyone should keep quiet until you've finished, but when it's well within your power to do it in a private establishment, and you deliberately choose to do it directly outside parliament where you know you will encounter opposition, you're just looking for a bit of controversy imo. It'd be like the government coming out after the fox-hunting ban and delivering a speech directly in front of the protest, and then whinging when they were pelted with shit. Yes, the people throwing things would be the ones in the wrong, but you've got to question the motives of anyone who knowingly puts themselves in that position in the first place.

    Oh, and I think that slime woman was prosecuted for it. Dunno what with, but she definitely got arrested at least.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well I'd have been happy if they just made noises and catcalls, even tried to drown out his speech by honking cars, but the second you throw something you move into the unacceptable whether the target is Prescott or Griffin.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    I'm disappointed that the BNP have got in, but the simple fact is that they're the only ones empathising with what the people at the bottom are feeling. Labour's sold them out to big business...
    Many of the BNP's voters appear to be disillusioned Labour voters, in my opinion. For evidence of this, take a look at the BNP's manifesto - it has a distinctly Old Labour feel to it. The BNP thinks we should withdraw from the EU. It's a policy I agree with, and one that has come up numerous times before. Countless people from the Labour Party used to advocate this. A certain Tony Blair managed to get elected in Sedgefield in 1983, largely by repeatedly saying the UK should leave the European Union. I wonder when exactly Tony changed his mind on that one?

    The BNP believes that British jobs should be for British workers. Aside from the nightmare of defining the word "British", if every single job in this country had to go to a British worker, people would soon complain. This would push up wage costs, meaning that life becomes more expensive. Who would feel the pinch from this first? Yes, the working men and women that voted for the BNP in the first place. Therefore, it can be argued that a BNP-led government would make you poorer. Sounds very Old Labour to me.

    The BNP believe in centralised command and control, trade tariffs as outlined above) and nationalising large swathes of industry. They're essentially a traditionally Left-wing party with a racist wing. Iain Dale attempted to explain this on his blog a few weeks ago, to a mixed reaction.
    Aladdin wrote: »
    In other news, I see that Nick Griffin has been pelted with eggs and made to do a runner today outside the Houses of Parliament... :D
    Protesters are never particularly imaginative when it comes to these things. They always end up throwing things like flour and eggs towards people. Those ingredients could help make a perfectly good cake to throw at someone.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    Protesters are never particularly imaginative when it comes to these things. They always end up throwing things like flour and eggs towards people. Those ingredients could help make a perfectly good cake to throw at someone.
    Indeed.

    I hear what Griffin was most angry about is that the eggs he was pelted with had their yolks. He only likes the whites.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Throwing eggs at Nick Griffin makes you a thug, but throwing slime at Mandelson is just a bit of mischief.

    The difference, for me, is democracy. Who voted Mandelson in?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    The difference, for me, is democracy. Who voted Mandelson in?
    Or the Queen, for that matter? :D
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Indeed.

    I hear what Griffin was most angry about is that the eggs he was pelted with had their yolks. He only likes the whites.

    :lol:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    was Nick Griffin voted in then? I thought it was some other guy..?

    Anyway, I think it's only right we allow him the freedom to speak, afterall that is far more damaging to the BNP than any other act we could take as the intelligent will see through the hate and the stupid are the stupid anyway.

    I wonder if there are any straw poll studies of the amount of racist people in the UK today? Would be interesting. Anyone doing a PhD in sociology, perchance? Need research plz :cool:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I wonder if there are any straw poll studies of the amount of racist people in the UK today? Would be interesting. Anyone doing a PhD in sociology, perchance?

    Lol, well yes I am (in Oct) but my bigot-o-scope is broken, so I can't give you a definite stat :D

    As I understand it however from comparative studies of race relations, particularly in the north, the way in which attitudes to 'others' harden is mainly around perceived (although in many cases not actual) inequalities in treatment, employment, housing etc.

    The model of racial discrimination that sees physical difference as of primary importance (e.g: the Nazi eugenics model) is a far more marginal group than those whose discrimination is grounded in perceptions of unequal treatment or threats to culture.

    At the risk of getting into an academic debate on the social construction elements of race and racism, there is also a huge class dimension to this. Historically (and very broadly), the operation of racism has been split on class lines - racisms of those more powerful or wealthy groups tend to be one of distance, distinction and in some cases in order to dominate other groups.

    Racism of the less well off or powerful tends to be reactionary and protectionist, in the sense that it is more about 'threats' to job markets, housing etc. These threats are NOT usually backed up by the stats, but these kind of academic arguments are rarely very good at shifting entrenched attitudes.

    It should be CRIED OUT however, that many studies in education, housing surveys and employment sociology that I've seen back up the fact that for all it's problems and newspaper headlines, our civil society is genuinely good at integrating new cultural elements.

    Obviously not without problem, but compared to many other countries of similar economic profile we're not bad. For example: studies into Islamophobia perceptions amongst Muslim minorities, many of whom contain recent migrants from various parts of the world - while affirming problems and pressures to do with housing and employment, as well as cultural and ethnic tensions with other communities, time and again you get the comment, almost in the same words - 'But we are protected by law and able to practice our religion'.

    Far from perfect but needs to be kept in perspective.

    There are TONS of studies on this btw - just feed a question into Google Scholar and you'll get way more than you need.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    In a nutshell: people who use local (or European) elections to punish the government are imbeciles.
    And yet if we do the opposite, they are more than happy to see it as a validation of every crackpot idea they come up with.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Or the Queen, for that matter? :D

    The Queen's neither in the executive nor the legislature :)

    She gets a bit of a bum deal really, having to be nice to all those boring politicians and 'pillars of the community'. Even Buck House isn't enough compensation for having to be nice to those people.
Sign In or Register to comment.