From @LabourList
Last night, LabourList was breaking the European election results as they were announced in the different councils across the country, and feeding them to the mainstream media. The results can be seen below:
2:10am **FULL NORTH WEST RESULTS ** (seats in brackets)
BNP 132,094 (1)
Conservatives 423,174 (3
Lib Dems 235,639 (1)
Greens 127, 133
Labour 336,831 (2)
UKIP 261,740 (1)
1.55am ** FULL RESULTS WEST MIDLANDS ** (seats in brackets)
BNP 121, 967
Conservatives 396,847 (2) 28%
Lib Dems 170,246 (1)
Greens 88,244
Labour 240,201 (1) 17%
UKIP 300,471 (2) 21%
1.30am ** FULL SOUTH EAST RESULTS ** (seats in brackets) (no change)
BNP 101,769
Conservatives 812,288 (4)
Lib Dems 330,340 (2)
Greens 271,506 (1)
Labour 192,592 (1)
UKIP 440,002 (2)
1:15am ** FULL SOUTH WEST ELECTION RESULTS ** (seats in brackets)
BNP 60,889
Conservatives 468,742 (3)
Lib Dems 266,253 (1)
Greens 144,179
Labour 118,716
UKIP 341,845
** FULL EAST MIDLANDS RESULTS (seats in brackets) **
BNP 106,319
Cons 370,275 (2)
LD 151,428 (1)
Greens ?
Labour 206,945 (1)
UKIP 201,984 (1)
** Mary Honeyball and Claude Moraes will be returned to the EP for Labour **
** FULL LONDON RESULTS (seats in brackets) **
BNP 86,420
Conservative 479,037 (3)
Lib Dems 240,156 (1)
Greens 190,589 (1)
Labour 372,590 (2)
UKIP 188,440 (1)
** UPDATE: Full Waltham Forest results: **
** UPDATE: Waltham Forest result: (Turnout 32%) **
Labour 13,204 (25%) (+2%)
Conservatives 10,279 (19%) (nc)
Lib Dems 7,069 (-2%)
Greens 6,664 (+3%)
UKIP 5,529 (10.6%) (-2%)
** UPDATE: Plymouth results: **
UKIP 14,785
Conservatives 14,767
Labour 7,151
Lib Dems 6,228
Greens 3885
**UPDATE: Chorley results: **
Conservatives 9,766
Labour 6,251
UKIP 5,511
Lib Dems 2,674
BNP 2008
Greens 2004
SIGN THE HOPE NOT HATE "NOT IN MY NAME" CAMPAIGN AND ADD YOUR NAME TO THE PETITION TO BE DELIVERED TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND SEND IT TO ALL YOUR FRIENDS: http://action.hopenothate.org.uk/page/s/notinmyname
UPDATE: Griffin almost certain to win a seat in NW region. BNP up on the Greens by 8,000 as it stands with their stronger areas still to report. This is horrific.
**UPDATE: Wales region results ** (seats in brackets)
BNP 37,114
Christian 13,037
Conservatives 145,193 (1)
Lib Dems 73,082
Plaid 126,702 (1)
Green 38,160
Labour 138,852 (1)
UKIP 87,585 (1)
** UPDATE: Richard Corbett loses his seat to the BNP **
**UPDATE: Yorkshire and Humber region results ** (seats in brackets)
BNP 120,139 (1)
Cons 299,802 (2)
English Dems 31,287
Lib Dems 161,552 (1)
Greens 104,456
Labour 230,009 (1)
UKIP 213,759 (1)
UPDATE: Labour in 5th place in 36 councils.
UPDATE: Barrow results:
Conservatives 4,265
Labour 4,612
UKIP 2,814
Lib Dems 1,648
BNP 1,130
Greens 887
UPDATE: Labour wins Birmingham by 9,000.
UPDATE: The fantastic Richard Corbett MEP says: "looks like I've lost my seat to the BNP."
UPDATE: No change in East of England in terms of seats:
Conservatives 3
UKIP 2
Lib Dems 1
Labour 1
** UPDATE: Labour wins in Islington **
** UPDATE: Sandwell results: **
Labour 20,951
UKIP 12,917
Tories 12,794
BNP 8,806
LibDems 4,245
Greens 3,168
UPDATE: UKIP polling very highly in West Midlands.
** UPDATE: Wakefield result: ** (BNP look like getting a seat in Yorkshire and Humber)
Labour 16,126
Conservatives 14,455
UKIP: 12,919
BNP 9,108
Lib Dems 5,936
Greens 4,298
** UPDATE: Conservatives to win Wales region **
** UPDATE: Conservatives to win Yorkshire region **
** UPDATE: Leeds result Conservatives win with 22.5% **
** UPDATE: Hammersmith and Fulham result: **
Conservatives 15,305
Labour 8,014
Lib Dems 5,085
Green 4,855
UKIP 2,892
BNP 1,179
Christian 902
UPDATE: Nick Griffin not confident in NorthWest; BNP may win a seat in Yorkshire.
UPDATE: Sky projection for South East: Con 440,000 / UKIP 220,000 / LD 170,000 / Green 130,00 / Labour 90,000.
** UPDATE: UKIP wins in Hull **
** UPDATE: Cornwall results: **
Conservatives 46,589
UKIP 39,954
Lib Dems 29,436
Greens 13,361
Mebyon Kernow 11,534
Labour 8,483
** UPDATE: Calderdale results: **
Conservatives: 12,037
UKIP: 7,585
Labour: 7,432
Lib Dems: 6,118
BNP: 4,709
Green: 4,559
** UPDATE: Hackney results: **
Labour 34.1%
Green 22.7%
Conservatives 15%
Lib Dems 11.7%
UKIP 4.5%
Christian 3.6%
BNP 2.2%
BBC reporting 10% BNP vote in Leeds and 13% in Wakey.
** UPDATE: Rochdale results:**
Conservatives 8,909
Labour 8,568
Lib Dems 8,299
UKIP 7,141
BNP 4,905
Greens 2,590
Report that UKIP win Hull on a 20%
Reports that Labour up to 37% in Leicester
** UPDATE: Ealing result: **
Labour 18,610
Con 18,503
Lib Dems 8,730
Green 7,426
UKIP 5,802
Ind 4,718
Christian 2,401
BNP 2,200
** UPDATE: Barnsley result: **
Labour 12,500
UKIP 9,500
BNP 8,500
Conservative 8,000
UPDATE: ** PM to delay the part-privatisation of Royal Mail and announce an inquiry into the Iraq War **
UPDATE: Tories likely to top the poll in Wales.
** UPDATE: Cheshire West and Chester results: **
Con 34.09%
UKIP 17.5%
Lab 15.52%
Lib 12.16%
Green 7.8%
BNP 5.92%
** UPDATE: Sheffield results:**
Labour 29,143
Greens 24,312
UKIP 14,390
BNP 12,607
Others 18,111
** NEW! NORTH EAST REGION FULL RESULTS **
TURNOUT 30.4% (-11%)
Labour 25% (1 seat) (-9%)
Conservatives 20% (1 seat) (+1%)
Liberal Democrats 18% (1 seat)
UKIP 15% (0 seats) (+3%)
BNP 9% (0 seats)
No change from 2004.
** UPDATE: Blackpool results: **
Conservatives 10,306
Labour 6,961
UKIP 6,456
BNP 3,523
Lib Dems 3,067
Greens 1,668
** UPDATE: Enfield Result:**
Conservatives 20,345
Labour 15,385
UKIP 7,916
Green 5,876
Lib Dems 5,398
BNP 3,145
Christian 2,281
** UPDATE: Bexley results: **
Conservative 30.6%
UKIP 20.6%
Labour 13.8%
BNP 12.3%
Lib Dem 7.3%
Greens 5.5%
English Democrats 3%
** UPDATE: Watford result **
Lib Dem 5,717
Conservative 5,124
Lab 3,839
UKIP 2,869
Green 2,128
BNP 1,l119
UPDATE: Pirate Party gains Swedish seats in European Parliament.
UPDATE: Labour could be fifth in the SouthEast.
UPDATE: Lib Dems say BNP will not have won a seat in NW (BBC)
** UPDATE: Full Newcastle results: **
Lib Dem 15,646
Labour 14,148
Conservative 8,678
UKIP 6,876
BNP 5,152
Green 4,443
** UPDATE: Full Manchester Results: **
Labour 27,502 (31%)
Lib Dem 16,424
Green 12,225
Conservative 11,896
UKIP 8,002
BNP 6,796
** UPDATE: Blackburn with Darwen result: **
Labour 26.6%
Conservative 24.4%
Lib Dems 12.7%
UKIP 12.1%
BNP 9.2%
** UPDATE: Conservatives win in Westminster, Labour second. **
** UPDATE: Full results for Burnley: **
Liberal Democrat 5,422
Labour 4,246
Conservative 4,058
UKIP 3,536
BNP 3,500
Green 1,021
UPDATE: Nick Griffin has been prevented from entering Manchester Town Hall by anti-fascist groups.
UPDATE: Socialists win in Denmark.
UPDATE: BBC projecting Labour's vote at 23%, probably above UKIP.
UPDATE: Nigel Farage says UKIP will get close to 20% of the vote tonight.
UPDATE: Europe wide turnout is thought to be the lowest ever, at 43%.
UPDATE: Mid Devon sample: Conservative 37%, UKIP 20%, Lib Dems 19%.
UPDATE: A borough in the NorthWest region is reporting, from a 7% sample, a projected Labour win:
Labour 28%
Conservative 24.5%
UPDATE: Nick Griffin has just said the BNP are confident in Yorkshire.
UPDATE: Early reports are that Labour are currently ahead of the SNP in Glasgow.
UPDATE: Reports that Labour will be 6th in Cronwall, behind Tories, UKIP, Lib Dems, Cornish Nationals, Greens
First indications from the northwest region are good for Labour. The latest samples from Manchester are:
(4,500 ballots)
Labour 1,454 (34%)
Liberal Democrat 715 (17%)
Conservative 599 (14%)
UKIP 407 (9%)
BNP 329 (8%)
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
Labour have never been able to see that closing the doors to everyone is not rascist.
Its only rascist if you close the doors to people on the basis of race.
Im aware of the different catogories of "New comers"
But the people at the bottom, are the ones that make room. it doesn’t matter why they are here. But they are the one that feel the hurt. I certainly don’t feel it, and I suspect you don’t either.
Its all very well for you and me to insist on housing asylum seekers and not putting caps on EU economic migrants while preaching that we must never avoid our obligation to the planets oppressed billions, but its not you and me who actually pay the price for this policy is it?
Is your local school full of “English as a second language” children, Is your local GP Surgery full to the brim with “New comers”, has the social dynamic changed dramatically in your street over the last 5 years. Have you had to accept a pay cut in order to compete with an EU worker who is happy to sleep on a pals sofa for 3 years. Are you still on a waiting list for a councils house while asylum seekers jump over you while you live in a B&B.
Personally I don’t really care less, I’m quite happy with an open door policy, but you lot are just plain stupid if you didn’t see the results of this policy and thought that poor and your core voters would accept all this happily.
I just love “worthy” socialism, it always turns around and bites you in the arse eventually.
What then adds insult to injury is when the Labour party actually gave people a say on this issue and more they reneged on it and told the public that they know best and no matter your opinion you're not going to be given the chance to air it. The idea of turing off to BNP issues is not working and its hurting Labour most. They need to get to grips with this fast.
If you're switch randomly between abstract principle and concrete specifics like this, I don't see any point continuing this discussion, so am signing off.
Or as Norman Tebbit put it 'Socialism with added racism."
It was lapped up by former disaffected Labour voters who voted BNP.
That is all.
If you care about children then natural families are best.
Further, marriage is a very strong indicator for the durability of a relationship.
If you are uncomfortable with the truth, then you have to look at yourself for the cause, not the world around you.
Try telling a white candidate he didn't get the job as he was white and see if he agrees with your distinction.
I'll not let race be a factor in my employment decisions whether you and Harman tell me or not.
Harman's bill was racist and all supporting it are racist as well.
Brown, with his reduction of capital gains tax for private equity investors and property speculators from 40% to 18%, and his abolition of the 10p tax rate band, favours the rich and famous over the ordinary man in the street. His surveillance police state, support for incompetant bankers and economic policy puts him to the right of Thatcher. We need to dump Brown as quickly as possible and go back to true Labour values, to the benefit of everyone in Britain.
The ONLY way to regain the electorate respect is to ditch Brown. He's disliked intensely outside the party for his arrogance, his treatment of Blair, his promises which are never backed up by actions, his manipulation and in-fighting within the PLP, his whispers and briefings against other Labour politicians, his inability to sicerely acknowledge his mistakes. He was shown at his worst in the 10p tax debarcle. It was obvious as soon as the figures were looked at that it was a huge mistake to remove the 10p band. But rather than stand up and admit the mistake and reverse it, Brown spent weeks trying to argue that it was a necessary move, and then spent billions compensating other tax payers for the impact of his decision. The one episode made a laughing stock of any claim Brown had to be a leader with vision, morality and political acumen.
Please, PLP, do the decent thing and put Brown out of his misery. He's like an old racehorse who's forgotten the way round the course and is running in completely the wrong direction. Let's put him out to grass.
One is a historic union based upon religion
The other a provision to allow equality in legal protection
If the CoE dones't want to recognise gay marriage and clergy don't want to have gay marriage ceremonies in their churches then I'm not going to support forcing them.
If you are then I expect you to force gay marriage onto muslim and mosques, jews and temples, hindus and temples etc. Good luck with that.
Coulds it be that the quiet, placid white middle classes with their "soft" christianity is once again an easy target for your views?
Gays who want "marriage" have the option of civil partnerships. Tht is sufficient.
"prejudice against an ethnic group" - synonym "discrimination"
definition of discrimination:
"bias"
Yes I equate positive discrimination on racial grounds with racism. you passed a law that allows you to turn down a candidate on racial grounds, that is racism end of story.
Instead of strongly attacking all forms of racism and supporting the notion that hte best candidate gets the job no matter race, sex, religion you instead bring your own right-on pc correct form of racism in.
As an employee let me tell you something. I'll emply whoever the damn I want to and I will emply the best person for the job. I will not have race as even an issue to be considered in candidate selection.
Harman's bill was racist and you are racist for supporting it.
The BNP was elected in Labour areas with a direct transfer of voters from Labour to BNP.
THe BNP doesn't get councillors in tory shires and councills. It doesn't get elected in Tory wards and constituencies.
Labour lost it's core vote and has a problem with the BNP in its backyard. For you or anyone else to imply the BNP is a Tory issue indicates you havet a clue.
Labour passed a racist law discriminating against white candidates, you are getting payback in your core vote areas.
The BNP disgust me and so do Labour apologists for Harman's law.
2 sides of the SAME coin. Both the BNP and Labour supporters of Harman's bill are racists in their own way
So, for the record, you are for telling people who they can and cannot marry.
If the decision were yours alone, homosexuals would not be allowed to marry.
So much for not interfering in the lives of others, eh?
Just like the BNP, you equate positive discrimination with racism.
Just like the BNP, you fail to distinguish between discriminating to benefit a minority and discriminating to punish/harm a minority.
Just like the BNP, you oppose same-sex marriage.
That is where you thinking is: just like the BNP.
I do not pick and choose between forms of racism.
Positive discrimination has flaws. It is not racism. Only one political party I can think of describes it as such. Would you like to try and guess which one?
'I actually think the BNP is far closer to your thinking than mine. Perhaps thats why the BNP do so well in Labour areas?'
Really. If the BNP are only strong where Conservatives are weak, might one not infer that they were natural substitutes?
Well done for drawing me into exactly the kind of pointless finger pointing I wanted to avoid.
This was never about "who someone can marry" it was about gay rights and always was.
So lets be clear I don't agree with gay marriage rights and do agree with civil partnership protection and rights for gay couples
Now feel free to rant away
Any discrimination on racial grounds is wrong and that includes positive discrimination.
It is as morally wrong to turn down a candidate on the basis of them being white as it is wrong to turn down a candidate on the basis of them being black.
The fact you try to ignore that basic point and infer that I'm racist shows how you have lost the argument.
You don't pick adn chose which form of racism is acceptable to you, all forms are wrong.
I actually think the BNP is far closer to your thinking than mine. Perhaps thats why the BNP do so well in Labour areas?
Well the party was strongly opposed to same sex civil partnerhsips until the 2000s - the spin doctors acknowledged that when they spun the acceptance of Labour's new legislation as a sign that the party had changed.
Meanwhile, individual MPs are happy to try to prevent same sex partnerships:
"Homosexuality and ordinary sexual behaviour are clean different, and not equal in any way. It is proper that the law should establish that inequality. People feel profoundly that homosexuality is not equal. It is, I am afraid, gross and unnatural."
Desmond Swayne MP, HoC, 2000
"There is something less than natural about a relationship between two men."
Gerald Howarth MP, HoC 2000
"We not only have an epidemic of obesity, we have a huge problem of Aids and the Government's attitude is to do everything it can to promote buggery."
Norman Tebbit during the Civil Partnership debate.
It was a Tory PM, by the way ( Lord Salisbury) who effectively criminalised homsexuality, and an Labour Home Secretary (Jenkins) who liberalised the law.
There is also a question of who you can get divorced from, another important element of liberty in personal relationships, and the Tory record there is non too clever either.
Civil partnerships with exactly the same rights as marriage sem entirely appropriate to me.
Equally I wouldn't have forced on catholic adoption agencies the requirement to deal with gay couples.
Equally had I been up for adoption as a child I woud have wanted the ability to refuse to be placed with a same sex couple.
Marriage in the uk still carries a religious aspect to it. We ahe an establidhed church and until you get the CoE to agree to same sex marriage you aren't going anywhere with this argument.
By all means provide the same age of consent, protection from discrimination and legal rights for same sex couples but don't think forcing gay marriage on the UK is the way to go.
I have a lot of gay friends and they don't feel the need to challenge every single aspect of Britain over and over. Stonewall's tactics are deplored by large tracts of the gay community and rightly so.
I married my wife, it was a union between man and woman. I'll recognise gay civil partnerships with the full set of rights and legal protction but I wo't recognise gay marriage.
For example, beating someone up on the basis of their race is the other side of the coin from an inquiry into racial beatings.
The BNP use the same logic as you and say that the Stephen Lawrence inquiry was racist because it only looked into violence against non-whites.
Congratulations. You think like the BNP. Well done you.
providing a tax incentive/disincentive is surely the main way in which any government interferes in our lives.
The Tories would use the tax system to promote marriage. That is interference. Perhaps it is positive interference, but it is interference nonetheless.
Currently, the UK government does tell people who they can and cannot marry. People with matching genitals are not allowed to marry; they are only allowed civil partnerships.
If the Tories are not going to tell people who they can and can't marry, will they commit, in a manifesto, to a complete end to all marriage restrictions in the UK?
So yes I find that as distasteful as can be. The fact that the Labour party believe I should be turned down from a job because I am white is abhorant.
If you can't see that this sort of thing has led to the BNP getting elected in tradtional Labour areas then get ready for more BNP councillors and MEPs
The Nazi party though racial discrimination was fine, so does Harman.
I wonder what the uproar would be if there was a law that allowed black candidates to be turned down on racial grounds? Maybe I could select white candidates because I wanted a "less diverse workforce".
It's the other side of the coin and is as abhorant and vile as can be.
The labour party is a busted flush thank god and that nazi feminista will be removed from power very soon along with the rest of your corrupt and ethically challenged government
Ah, I think you misunderstand the point of positive discrimination. It is to help counter inequalities.
The purpose of the Nazi racial policies (such as they had anything as rational as purpose) was to worsen inequalities.
Think of it this way. Both viruses and doctors discriminate between people on the basis of physical weakness. Yet their objectives are wholly opposite.
Comparing positive discrimination to the Nazis is like saying doctors and viruses are one and the same. No. The former acts for the disadvantaged, the latter against.
Does that help clear things up for you Guy?
In creating an incentive, the allowance "interferes" because it encourages you to marry SOMEONE, and could be said to penalise you if you do not.
There may well be a good case for the state interfering in my personal relationships; indeed there is, and you made it.
But the principle remains that you are deciding that the state should interfere in people's lives. That's what this debate is about
You insult everyone who fought and died against fascism by the comparison. You should be ashamed.
Seriously?
Now, I can see the flaws in positive discrimination, but I can't see the similarity with the Nazis.
Positive discrimination: attempt to quickly overcome historic social inequalities, particularly in terms of education and employment, by prioritising those from previously discriminated against groups.
Nazi racial policy: removal of non-Aryan persons (particularly Jews) through incarceration and extermination. Also, seizing private property and land. Further, aggressive foreign policy to 'Slav' nations, including invasion for reasons of land and natural resources. Ideologically, the Nazi's were preoccupied with the eradication of Europe's Jews.
Nope. Can't see 'the link' as you describe it.
I could see the link, for example, between Carol Thatcher's racist remarks and the Nazi attitude to Jews, Slavs and other non-whites.
The link is that in both cases, a white individual or race expresses a belief in superiority over a non-white. In Carol Thatcher's case, it was casually bigoted comment that a black man running around was 'funny'. In the Nazi party it was altogether more sinister and consequential.
(I can't believe I am actually engaging in this nonsense.)
Both the Nazi's and Harman passed laws legitimising discrimination on racial grounds. Deal with that fact maybe and don't hide behind the wider abhorant nazi policys.
Last I checked Harman doesnt intend on invading Eire for lebensraum either but maybe you could imply I meant that as well?
Germany was ruled by a government that supported discrimination on the basis of race.
Harman's bill supported discrimination on the basis of race.
Seems to me there's a similarity in those two points? Care to deal with that or just scream about the Holocuast some more?
You're too thick to make a coherent case so you throw words like 'Nazi' around to scare people.
Congrats, you are the intellectual equivalent of Gaunt and Clarkson.
BNP want British jobs for British workers, that is Gordon Brown's quote.
Maybe you should ask the trolls the same question. Do you think they're all paid employees.
Would you disagree?
Thousands of years of history would beg to differ.
This is pathetic. Stop. Just stop.
Excuse me if I don't take anything you say seriously ever again.
I say: Tories and Labour (and all other mainstream parties) should reach out to disaffected voters to prevent the BNP.
You say: well, they were disaffected ex-Labour voters, so it isn't a Tory problem.
Now, I am no election strategist but I would have thought that winning over disaffected ex-Labour voters might be a good policy for the Tories to pursue, particularly as the collapse in Labour's share of the vote was not matched by a reciprocal rise in the Tory's share.
'It wasn't in the Tory shires and middle class areas in the south of England.'
Oh. Well. Sorry. Forgot that it didn't matter and that there is no need for the Tories to address this. Will that be the official position when the Tories are in Government? 'Sorry, but your problems are in Labour-voter heartland, so there is nothing we can do?' Christ, that actually was the Tory attitude to the North, Scotland and Wales during the 1980s.
'The BNP is a problem for all political parties but it is a problem Labour have caused'
What point are you trying to make? I am saying that we need to engage and need to respond to the electorate. And by we, I do mean Tory and Labour. Why is that so unacceptable to you?
Another assumption gone t*** up.
Bye Mike, hope you don't have nasty dreams about the scary Muslims :)
I - like you - dislike the BNP. But to shriek out calls of racist with no justification serves you poorly. I suggest that this nasty Labour attitude (c.f.Dale) is examined in the long introspective period that will inevitably follow for a decade or so.
You might want to e-mail your concerns to Alex because you're certainly not alone with them.
Rave on :)
I have to say I admire your tenacity. I'm fed up with them now - most of them start silly arguments with twisted history, and then once they're exposed they just stop posting. Personally I'm always happy to be proved wrong on stuff, it's how you learn. This lot just want to win. And this equation of socialism, the BNP, Nazism, New Labour - you can understand it coming in anger, but to try to argue it seriously is historically illiterate and distasteful at the very least. I can't stand reading the self-serving crap about the BNP and its voters.
So I'm off for a bit, but good luck, it's good talking to you!
As things stand I'm an atheist who would agree with a lot of your views on religion but essentializing any group - religious or otherwise - that number into the hundreds of millions is dumb and there was no justification for you finding it necessary to describe those people as Muslim Labour Types.
What a despicable waste of time you are. Go and bother one of your other enemies, you sad loser.
If you have no other argument except accusing others of subsequently changing their posts, with absolutely no evidence, then perhaps its time for some shuteye. It's obviously been a long hard slog on this site all night, and I know Millbank don't pay well.
Economic migration: within the EU, there is free movement of workers.
Asylum: as a signatory of the Geneva Convention on Human Rights, we are obliged to house those seeking asylum from countries where they are at risk of torture, wrongful imprisonment or death.
These two things will not change, nor should they.
What do you mean by uncontrolled immigration? We have controls on immigration in the UK.
I don't understand what you are accusing me of preaching about. I was just saying that we should unite against the BNP, who are unpleasant, unthinking racists. I was also saying that we should combat them on policy, rather than just trying to ignore them.
It is one thing to provide incentives to marry, it is another to tell people who they can and can't marry. Can you not tell the difference in that logic?
It's like debating with an 8 year old
Thank you, I now see you for what you are and it puts all your nonsense posts into perspective.
Please provide the examples as to how the Tories intefer (sic) in how people live their lives
Married couples allowance favours marriage over co-habitation rather than a policy that is neutral.
Marriage Nazi's you might say :)
This is getting tiresome - perhaps a moderator would care to intervene and set Mr Leonard straight before he has a cardiac?
But I still don't see how that means the Tory party has ever told anyone who they can or can't marry.
Perhaps you could take a breath and show me examples of where the Tory party has prevented people from getting married?
Or did I compare Harmans bill with the Nazi party policy?
The Nazi party believed in discrimination on racial grounds, so does Harman.
If you pass a bill that allows you to employ one person over another on race then don't cry when the link is made.
It's hard to believe you are unable to read a post without jumping in sceaming about rediculous links and non existant comments
I remember the Criminal Justice Act, 1994 wasn't it. There was a great dance tune that had the reading of the act sampled on it.
Ah raves under the M25, a happier more peaceful time :)
I suggest you do change yours those, as your words are libellous and have no basis in what I have said. Criticising religion is not racist, nor is it illegal. Neither is criticising Labour.
I'm sure you'd like to change that, but you'll need to lure back the thousands of voters from the BNP to Labour in order to get elected at the next general election.
Give us 100 words on what you think of members of the Bullingdon Club.
Let's try again: I am an antitheist, not a racist. As such I would not vote for the BNP (unlike many thousands of ex-Labour voters). I voted for reform of the EU as I am pro-European liberal, and Libertas.
PS I know you don't care too much about the strong-arming of voters, but here's how Labour dealt with it on another occasion in Tower Hamlets:
http://www.eastlondonadvertiser.co.uk/content/towerhamlets/advertiser/news/story.aspx?brand=elaonline&category=news&tBrand=northlondon24&tCategory=newsela&itemid=WeED09%20Aug%202007%2019%3A48%3A55%3A703
Respect party worker forcibly removed by police from outside Shadwell polling station.
Things are so much easier when you control the police force.
It's a policy to support marriage not tell anyone who they should or shouldn't marry, are you that unable to critique policy?
You are beneath contempt for that Guy
The Tories have consistently positioned themselves as "the party of the family", and have therefore set a higher moral value on conventional, heterosexual, two-parent family units, with legislation to back it up.
Remember Clause 28, introduced on the ludicrous pretext that schools were "promoting" homosexuality? On a more trivial note, with the Criminal Justice Act they even created legislation to determine what sort of music (ie one with non-repetitive beats) that one could play loudly in public.
Your voters aren’t cross about St Georges day being abandoned.
They are fed up with making room at the bottom for uncontrolled immigration.
The people at the bottom don’t see the cultural or economic benefits of uncontrolled immigration.
Labour have, for years, sought to mix immigration controls with racism, they are two completely separate issues.
You need to listen more and preach less.
Did you switch over to the BNP like so many others on the left?
You'd have to get Jonathon to answer the rest of you questions.
I despise religion and its pernicious and evil influence on mankind over the millenia.
If that makes me a bigot to you then fine. I am not a racist - I don't care what any British citizen's ethnic origins are, it doesn't bother me in the slighest - what does bother me is what they THINK, and how fanatical and irrational those thoughts are.
We all know Labour would let terrorists into this country if they thought they'd shore up the vote.
And I did not change the post - check with the moderators before lying with no proof again please.
As they don't exist and neither do my Stalinist tendencies I have no need to disprove them.
See I can read Dawkins and Hitchens too.
Take a look at where the BNP has its councillors and where it got its vote to achieve the 2 MEPs
It wasn't in the Tory shires and middle class areas in the south of England.
The BNP gets its votes and seats in normally staunch Labour working class areas. THe BNP isn't primarily a Tory porblem it's a Labour problem and it's down to 12 years of a ludicrously inane and hapless immigration policy by this government.
You had no idea how many people would come in, you underestimated the effect of eastern european migration after then enlargement of the EU. You have aloowed countless illegal immigrants in and done little to remove them once they are in. Most damagingly of all you have then failed to provide local government with the increase funding to provide the support all the immigrants are entitled to thus putting strain on local services.
Labour has been about as incompetant on immigration policy as you could be and now you are reaping the reward in tradtional Labour areas with the rise of the BNP.
The BNP is a problem for all political parties but it is a problem Labour have caused
Why'd you change the post Mark?
Why was it only Labour who felt the need to have a mob on the doors of the polling station?
Even your sister party the BNP didn't stoop that low.
Obviously you were either (a) ashamed of what you wrote or (b) didn't want to get caught out.
If you'd done nothing wrong, why change it?
If you're not a Labour party member, why do you spend all your day trolling this site on their behalf?
Oh, you're a paid employee instead is it?
Bigot.
Care to explain why the BNP vote is clustered in working class urban areas? I didn't realise the spread of the the Tory resurgence had reached so far.
I doesn't require a degree in politics to be able to look at the voting breakdown and see where the BNP vote is clustered both in Local and Euro elections
I don't see many Tory shires with high BNP votes, and the BNP certainly didn't get high votes across the affluent south east and south west.
Care to respond or jsut carry on the nonsense you have been spouting?
If you don't have a problem with religion being used to influence voting, then fine. The electorate understand your approach to politics in this country - hence the huge drop in your vote share.
What do I make of you hating Chrisitianity? Not much except you took the time to single out Muslims as intimidating you. Do you bring up Christianity in the same way?
Bigot
Just lie on the form, I bet no one checks and even if they did they would be too afraid to question your "ethnic roots"
We had a form in our office from a government procurement dept the other day enquiring about the diversity of our work force, one of the questions asked how many transsexuals we employed, so I put down 1. Must be worth a few points I thought...
However, for a final time, can we end this nonsense about the BNP being a socialist party.
First, the word 'socialism' in "National Socialism' is akin to the word 'democratic' in the 'Democratic People's Republic of Korea' (known to you and I as North Korea).
Second, the BNP clearly position themselves in opposition to 'the left'. As from their website:
'A far reaching book which has the left squealing in horror.'
'British people are NOT a "nation of immigrants" as the far left lies, but actually a highly homogenous group of people with roots going back millennia'
Third, the terms 'right' and 'left' are fluid and imprecise. In the 1920s, 'National Socialism' was intended as a counterpoint to 'International Communism'. Now, we (happily) associate a tranche of liberal social views (multiculturalism, feminism, gay rights), as well as a general pro-EU stance, with the 'left'. These values are precisely those to which the BNP set themselves in opposition. Hence, the BNP are virulently anti 'left', in both rhetoric and policy, by their own admission.
I repeat - and I really hope this is the last time - that there is no point picking over the appearance of the word 'socialism' in 'National Socialism'. It might serve as an interesting cultural history lesson: post World War One, everyone wanted to be called a socialist. It does not add anything to the debate about the BNP in the UK in 2009. You are trivialising something important.
The BNP manifestos and policies (and we are flattering both by allowing them such monikers) are an unreasoned mash up of popularist policies from the centre-left and centre-right, which often contradict each other.
But what the BNP are at heart is this: racist.
Their ideology is mis-thought gibberish. It smashes a post-hippy Arthurian folklore esotericism into pseudo-cultural science about inter-racial tensions, stirs in some incoherent claptrap about 'indigenous peoples' and then tarts it all up in suit. At the centre, there is one idea: the primacy of the white race. This idea does not belong to the right or the left, to Conservatives or Labour. It belongs to embittered bigots. Let them keep it.
On one thing only, let us all please be united: halt the rise of the BNP.
How? Close down their political space.
They say they are an alternative to expenses-cheats MPs; we radically reform the expenses system, with a cross-party consensus.
They say that there is a problem with immigration; we demonstrate who immigration is the lifeblood of this country, economically and culturally.
They say that we are victims of an EU dictatorship; we work for greater democratisation of the EU from within and argue the case for the trade and social benefits of EU membership.
It is hard to have a serious policy debate with a party whose policies and priorities are so overwhelmingly emotional. They howl about St George's Day being banned, about Romeo and Juliet being condemned for being too heterosexual, about Christmas celebrations being cancelled for reasons of 'political correctness'. We all know this is pure nonsense, but it's hard to debate such issues when your opponent sees themselves as a dambuster in a great cultural war.
We need to make the case that the BNP are not capable of governing. Where they have won seats in local councils, they have often failed to turn up or actively participate. They like stirring up racial hatred. They don't like costing and coordinating recycling schemes, planning red routes or maintaining council properties. Similarly, on the London Assembly, Richard Barnbrook is a rambling, ranting irrelevance; the political equivalent of the unacceptable uncle, drunk in the corner at a wedding. The BNP's net effect on the Assembly has simple been to unite the other parties and to make us on the left (grudgingly) respect Boris for his witty ripostes.
Hey, if the BNP can make an ardent Ken Livinstone-ophile like me praise Boris, then we really can, both Tory and Labour, come together to beat them.
Lying for the sake of "equality" sounds like a Labour policy to me.
I know you don't have a problem with these figures barracking vulnerable voters to vote Labour - it's part of your Stalinist tendencies, which I note you take no pains to deny.
Bigot.
It's not a surprise - Labour were the only party to do this in the Mayoral elections too.
Another reason Labour did badly last night - the nasty electoral people took away their free (aka postal) votes.
Shame Labour can't win on an even playing field.
Perhaps you coud show me some comments you've made about 'Christian Labour Party types' intimidating you or do you just reserve you antitheism for Muslims.
Why did you change the comment if you've got nothing to be ashamed of?
I voted Libertas (fat lot of good that was!).
I object to religious types loitering outside polling booths to try and influence vulnerable voters. You don't, sure, but that's why you're in a party that idolises authoritarian communism - watch out you're only a step away from National Socialism.
And when you understand the difference between race and religion we can talk.
I hate Christianity too - what do you make of that one?
I would show you but the coward changed it when he realized he'd been rumbled as a bigot.
I am an antitheist.
When you understand the difference, we can talk further.
Also, try and work out why your vote haemorrhaged over to the BNP before criticising those of us who did not vote for them.
However, I am not a racist because I deplore the influence of all religion in our society. One day you might begin to comprehend that religion and race are not the same thing.
I voted Libertas.
Losing the argument Simon?
Still trying to defend the retarded view that the BNP took its votes from the Tory party?
Or have you given up the ghost and turned to comments about "muslims"?
The fact you think having a gang of men hanging around the gates of a polling station to threaten and bully those whose English is not very good shows the state of the modern Labour party.
Probably why half its members ran off and voted BNP on Thursday.
Please provide the examples as to how the Tories intefer in how people live their lives and (this one makes me laugh) who they marry? As far as I'm aware the Tory party doesnt have any policy on who anyone can marry? Yet more left wing stupidity?
As for the "share the wealth out" comment, yay redistribution through excessive taxation! Go fot it in the next Labour manifesto, maybe you could get Michael Foot to draft it for you? Because the vast majority of the population want Labour stealing more of their money through taxation as has been shown at the ballot box time and time again.
As I've said elsewhere, I go to work for me and my family. My salary is mine and I take it badly when people like you feel they have some sort of divine right to take however much of my money you feel like to go waste on your right on pc policies.
This is not my government and not my PM and I feel uninclined to provide them with funding to screw up my country anymore
Now you're not going to be racist today are you Mark or are you going to post bigoted statements and then change them when you get found out?
As exemplified by Griffin's call to renationalise our public services from the hands of multinational profiteers.
Dodge the issue as much as you like, but it's no coincidence that as the BNP vote went up, the Labour vote went down.
Gordon does not even have the courage to call one. Why would he break the habit of a lifetime and put himself up to get a mandate from the public?
Otherwise, you will simply nick all the ideas as usual.
Nice name.
Perhaps, however, you should have been a bit more focused in more relevant areas - namely trying to get your message across to the Labour core vote, who have deserted you in droves in favour of the National Socialists.
"Keep the Labour vote away from the Nazis"
That might be a good new moniker for you.
Your last para is so true, perhaps more so in America given the Republican stance on abortion.
Still, we knew there was something wrong with them.
To hell with the country eh Alan?
What a coincidence :)
Can we deal with those and then we can start on the BNP. Hate to leave a discussion unfinished.
And do what exactly. I don't know of any newspapers or website that still supports Brown but he's still there. What are tou suggesting that would be effective to get shot of him?
Is it right, in this day and age, for players to be asked to fly 3,500 miles to perform on a pitch clearly unfit for international football, in a supposedly European country where corruption is of widespread concern and the people have no choice in their head of government? But enough of the problems Kazakhstan encountered when they lost 5-1 at Wembley. That was eight months ago, for heaven’s sake — and England proved in Almaty on Saturday that they were the better team in any conditions.
"It is depressing. It's obviously a depressing day for all of us. The BNP are completely beyond the pale," he said.
"They're an appaling bunch of people, It is depressing. What the mainstream parties have to do is prove their worth explaining to people how we are going to take up their concerns," he added. "That is the best way to beat these dreadful people".
If the PLP chooses to ditch Brown, they'll be defeated, but survive and live to fight another day.
If the PLP chickens out, Labour will be annihilated.
It's up to you, Comrades....
You haven't heard any solutions because it's not the job of HM's Opposition to come up with solutions (apart from which, the last time the Conservatives announced policy it was instantly nicked by the Head Magpie at Number 10 (inheritance tax reform anyone?).
You usually hear the Opposition's solutions in the form of an election manifesto. And you'd be reading said manifesto now if the Loon-in-Chief would grow and pair and go to the country.
Meanwhile I'd just like to offer my congratulations for Labour presiding over the appointment of the first BMP MEP. Well done indeed. What an achievment.
Labour MPs are like rabbits caught in the headlights. If decisive action isn't taken, the Parliamentary Labour party will be wiped out at the next election, possibly never to return to government. And if you think a re-shuffle constitutes "decisive action" in the eyes of the electorate you are sorely mistaken.
This is no longer about electoral advantage. Yesterday Labour got 15.3 per cent -- worse than my most dire prediction of 16. We were fifth in several regions and lost Wales for the first in 90 years.
This is about survival. The only way the party can survive as a major political force is by getting rid of Brown.
If the PLP chooses to ditch Brown, they'll be defeated, but survive and live to fight another day.
If the PLP chickens out, Labour will be annihilated.
It's up to you, Comrades....
To have GB ousted in that way would be even worse for the Labour Party than a leadership contest. The comparisons with '78/'79 would then be made by the media, you can only imagine the headlines.
While I'm on about comparisons to '78/'79, it might be worth watching what is happening to fuel prices again. If GB doesn't get a hold of the markets that are causing the fuel prices to rise or offset it by reducing the tax take on fuel, there could be an explosion of public anger by the end of the summer, something Cameron and Clegg will capitalise on.
It might seem like political suicide to some, but from the electorates point of view if the Labour Party remove GB, they can at least tell people that they are listening and if a fuel crisis rears it's ugly head, whoever is leader of the Party can use that moment to shine. A leadership contest will take what, 5 or 6 weeks? Then an GE called for 3 months from the new leader being in place, it could change the Labour Parties fortunes and at least squash the chances of having the BNP. The longer this goes on, the stronger they will become and its no good whinging about them gaining seats, they did it by the rulebook, its democracy.
My point about unions, which I didn't explain clearly, is that unions are often one of the first targets for fascist governments seeking to control the economy. To justify attacking the unions, fascists will say the unions in question are Marxist, and that Marxism attacks national cultures and individualism, so they have to go. Given that unions are really the bases of workers organising themselves, it seems misleading to say simply that fascism needs big government and big government needs socialism.
Central planning had its ROOTS in socialist thinking about monopoly capitalism, but it was adapted for different ends.
I don't say this to say the BNP is "right" not "left". I understand why Conservatives, especially the new, socially-liberal breed, object to it being called "right". However, to yah-boo it back as "left" is misleading.
It is fascist, and fascism is a separate ideology.
The liberal elite that run the labour party didn’t really think through the implications of their open door policy. They were just to darn keen to look worthy.
They forgot who suffers when you open the doors to hundreds of millions of people.
They didn’t think about which “class” has to budge up and make room.
They didn’t think about whose towns are flooded with immigrants.
They didn’t think about whose jobs the immigrants will take.
They didn’t think about whose schools get filled with non English speaking kids.
But then I guess when you’re an MP living in a £2 million pound Islington town house with kids at private school, those implications are a million miles away and cheap plumbers and nannies are such a draw.
The BNP winning 2 seats is neither here nor there, its not like they will actually get to influence anything. Hell even all those Tory MEPS wont have any influence. All the power lies with 27 Unelected Commissioners. So lets remember this election actually changes nothing.
But the shock of this vote and the possibility that the BNP will win more seats in a general election will send a very strong message to a party that remain so out of touch.
So over to you boys and girls either devise policy that is representative of your voters or face oblivion.
By keeping Brown, you are rendering Cameron & osborne impotent because they can't get an election, and this will make them very frustrated. The more frustrated they get, the more likely they will start to make mistakes
Gordon Brown's thugs successfully intimidated all other candidates standing against him when Blair departed. There should have been a choice and people were mystified that instead there was a coronation. People understand they have been duped and are voting for BNP out of exasperation.
We need a new leader in the next day or so, followed by a promise of an election in "the next few months". Then the party has to work night and day to win back people's confidence so we can mitigate the damage. Anything less will create more support for the BNP and obliterate the Labour party.
We must act NOW.
The Tory contradiction on this is that it's businessmen who vote Tory and who will often rail against "Pakis" and the like who are employing immigrants.
Interesting re the Ford workers, similar stuff happened in the pits.
A website created to express concerns over the last 12 years of Labour extremism, suppression of free speech, diversion of public funds towards supporting social engineering, dividing people into groups where employment and services are concerned.
I applied for an allotment the other day, and found that I had to explain my racial group. For an allotment!
The website explained this is so they can achieve an equality of outcomes. This basically means they have noticed that allotments are usually occupied by non BME, and if you are BME you go to the top of the list. How fair is this? What difference does it make? In my local plot, there is not a single red haired person with green eyes between 5ft 6 and 5ft 8 1/2, so surely they are not receiving their "outcome"?
What ever happened to first come first served?
# The nurturing and encouragement of new and existing British industries - bland general statement which is totally meaningless
# The protection of British companies from unfair foreign imports - Socialist protectionism, God they are so horribly right wing aren't they?
# The promotion of domestic competition - The promotion of a a commanded internal competition economy that is anti-free trade. Bukharin called that "Socialism in One Nation"
# Increased taxes on companies which outsource work abroad - punishing companies for acting in their interests whn they engage in global free trade and labour liberalisation? Who'd have thought such vicious right wingers could be so socialist?
# The reintroduction of the married man’s allowance - what about married women?
# The raising of the inheritance tax threshold to £1 million - utterly meanigless [sic] given that the economic will be in the s**t and no one will have that much to give away because of the socialist protectionism. A dog whistle policy that is total inconsistent with the socialism already laid out.
# The encouragement of savings, investment, worker share-ownership and profit-sharing; - what's this? The workers owning things through state legislated share and profit owenrship? [sic] Marx and Engels would be turning in their grave at such rabid right wingism!
# Halving council tax by centralising education costs and eliminating multiculturalism spending and unnecessary bureaucracy. - the authoritarian centralisation of education spending away from local people? God they're so right wing aren't they? No one on the Left would ever centralise education would they!
# The renationalisation of monopoly utilities and services, compensating only individual investors and pension funds. Privatising monopolies does not benefit either the consumer or the country. All that happens is the ‘family silver’ is sold off and monopoly utilities and services are asset-stripped, often by foreign competitors. - Oh my, nationalisation!? These EVIL right wingers must be stopped! We can't possibly let these right wingnuts make the state own anything! Only the Left could stop this!
Wow... they look very right wing, nationalisation and centralisation are core beliefs of the centre-right aren't they?
Deep that you wild prose, you intimated that the Tories are racist.
What a disgusting and vile thing to say, Labour got a hammering last night because of its lies and its intransigence on the issues that really matter to the British people.
Your contempt for a deaf ear was abject humiliation in the polls.
It is in former Labour heartland areas that the BNP are finding a route to power - it is ex-Labour voters giving this odious Socialist filth a franchise.
Your car analogy could be more wrong if you tried. It was Labour's total incompetence that destroyed Britain's indigenous car industry; yet as always the left-wing revisionism is all too tempting.
Labour has messed up big time and it's Labour vote wandering off to this vile Socialist filth.
I see nothing here in any form that admits that culpability. Happy to take power, unhappy to take responsibility for failing to use it wisely.
As long as Tories eat babies and the fools among
Does that not strike you as a significant distinction?
Maybe Tory Troll sees Simon Leonard as some kind of inferior which is why he sees him as socialist. Maybe Simon Leonard is concerned about his fellow mortals so making out as not a tory and therefor a 'socialist'. Personally I think it's more complicated than that.
I can't see much difference between the BNP and UKIP, it may just be that the origins of the BNP is the working classes and UKIP the business classes, espacially now the BNP leader has said he has nothing against immigrants legally here and working. He may loose some supporters now.
Tory Troll is confusing over what a socialist is because he can only know what a tory is and how he sees everybody else. Likewise I don't know what it is to be BNP is, maybe it's leader doesn't either, but consider those construction workers who keep going on strike over EU workers coming over here and 'taking their jobs'. I see these people as most likely to be BNP, they have secure work, they believe down to their hard work alone, they're threatened by foreigners coming over and taking their jobs. Labour tends not to be interested in them, being either concerned with encouraging jobs with more trade, we get more jobs but we get more foreigners, or with those much lower down the pecking order than these quite well paid workers. Consider the car industry. Most people buy their own countries cars and so each country has strong national companies. We tend not to, but our employment and corporate laws favour foreign investors so Honda and Nissan come here. Car workers clearly think that they're entitled to employment for life, are happy for car companies to come here, less happy for them to go, they don't realise that being easy to sack makes the less threatening to hire, so now they are hired they expect government to keep them in work. It used to be the case that Ford drivers nominated friends and family to new driver jobs and opposed the appointment of immigrant drivers.
I don't believe the Tories are anti-immigration, rather they're agaist legal immigration - much easier to deal with employees if you can report them to immigration if they don't like the conditions you give them. Also in all past elections where the Tories did well they made it clear that it was o.k. to be racist and vote tory - an anti-immigration bill in each year before they went to the polls. Tory leaders might not say obnoxious things but they didn't stop others within their party. But they also kept quiet about it, letting people in but not mentioning it. The big lie about immigration is that they come in because it's easy here, it isn't, but we have jobs. Immigration flows mirror economic performance. We had lots of immigration under Labour because we had lots of jobs, less so under the Tories because they see unemployment as a legitamate tool to contain the working classes.
Tories tend to be o.k. about interfering in people's lives when it's about how they live their lives, who they marry, less so when it's policies that share the wealth out, provide education and health services for all (paid for according to ability to pay but filled with 'needy', not rich people).
"You can go by foot, you can go by cow, Gordon Brown, will you please go now."
Nick Griffin, in his victory speech, said that it was time to claim back our public services from the private multinational companies that New Labour had sold them to.
Sounds pretty socialist to me.
After weeks of canvassing and workng wards I can say I've seen a lot of UKIP poster, flags and pledges in Tory areas and not a single sign of BNP support.
Take a good look where the BNP got its votes, working class, urban, normally strong Labour areas. The tory shires and suburbs have not returned BNP votes according to the election returns.
Down right stupid is how I'd describe your thinking
Now you want the tory opposition (i.e. no power in the country) to not only have suitable policies, but to counter the decade plus of indoctrination that labour have handed out at taxpayer expense - thats a damn big ask, and it is labour that have made it far bigger than it should be.
i.e. Until very recently Labour were really proud of their female ministers, and berated the tories for having fewer than they did. Now the truth dawns - most of the female labour ministers were only there so labour could boast about it - not because they were competent or capable (which they weren't).
Brown has had to work really hard to squander labours advantages, don't berate the opposition for having to fight the party political dis-information, and having to do so without the benefit of taxpayers money.
Labour have been bribing supporters for a decade using taxpayers money - noone can fix that in two seconds.
Your loss.
Just heard... two EU seats that Labour have handed over to the BNP - you must be proud - keep brown and maybe all the socialist voters will switch to BNP and they will be camerons official opposition !!
At least Cameron (once he screws brown at the GE) will have a simple solution to getting rid of the BNP MEPs - leave the evil EU emipre...
Unions being affiliated with the labour party must be a problem for all parties other than labour...
Fundamentally racist policies require big government to administer them. Big government requires socialism to justify its existence and its expense.
The BNP must be really looking forward to labour introduction of biometric ID cards and national DNA database - they would find that really useful to decide who is 'british' and who isnt...
But I was really just talking about which groups would swing to the Tories, based on tonight's evidence.
I'm not being daft. I see your point in terms of who the voters are. But that doesn't mean the party is socialist, any more than it meant Maggie was socialist in 1979.
The point is that at the time Mrs Thatcher won, the National Front was attracting discenfranchised working class voters as the BNP is doing now. However, Mrs Thatcher was able to present a vision to those voters that was more appealing and inspiring than the NF's vision, and thus when those voters swung away from Labour in the election, they swung to her.
On tonight's evidence, David Cameron is not presenting a vision that inspires disenfranchised working class voters more than the BNP's or UKIP's visions.
The tory party of protest is UKIP, the labour party of protest is BNP.
Sorry you don't like it... but overall the BNP is 'labour with racism'.
What are you asking the tories to achieve? and what 'reward' are you planning on giving them should the achieve it?
Clearly you don't think they should be satisfied with winning the next general election - so what more are you looking for?
I kind of guess that winning the GE will be enough for them as a current target, but am interested in what more you are demanding...
I wish you trolls would drop this BNP/socialist nonsese. The BNP doesn't have "socialist" economic policy - it is pro-free market and low taxation. The manifesto is on the website.
It's true that they tell people in former mining villages that they are like the old Labour Party, but they pursue an entirely different line when targeting, say, farming or hunting groups.
Only an idiot would hang around here to discover tory policy!
1) You were trying to needle people (at least myself and one other) by calling them 'Mr Intellectual'.
2) I hadn't seen that kind of behaviour since junior school.
3) So I put these together and called you 'boy' to suggest you were behaving childishly.
Simple enough for you? - forget childish, I think you are becoming babyish...
Mrs Thatcher got her big 1979 swing by attracting working class voters, mainly C1/2s. Many of those voters had previously been swayed by the NF, but Maggie managed to attract them - some would say with some dubious language.
So past evidence suggests the Tories CAN attract disillusioned working class Labour voters. And they'll need to attract them again to win a general election. But they are not doing so on tonight's evidence, whether you like it or not.
Firstly as I said, I'm a floating voter. Given that, what sort of impression do you think your comments and manner has made on me and have they increased the likelihood that I'd vote Tory?
Secondly, it's now apparent that there will be a Conservative government within a year so all these problems that you have brought up will become your problems and thus far, I've not heard any solutions from you.
Get working boys.
I look 'forward' to you comments ;)
Power blackouts, rubbish piling up on the streets, constant strikes, three day working week, the dead going unburied, the British economy down the toilet, high unemployment. The list goes on and on. The working class had no choice but to vote for Thatcher, because Labour left the country in such a perilous state.
You suggest that working class votes aren't going to Cameron. Well, considering the Tories took control of all labour Councils on Thursday, and have come first in the European elections, I think you'll find that many working class votes are indeed going to Cameron.
No I'm not tired you're just boring me now. A debate on IHT is for some other time but my views are my views and seeing as we live in a democracy they are no more or less valid than anyone else's.
Actually they might be more relevant seeing as I live in a marginal constituency.
I know you don't want to answer - mainly because you can't - but I've asked you before to provide any example of a statement I've made to suggest I'm a socialist.
What more needs to happen to the Labour Party before they realise that the current government needs immediate reform? This is no longer about Labour being out for a term or two, this is about the total destruction of the Labour Party period!
What do you want my age for, are you some kind of pervert?
People who voted BNP voted for a SOCIALIST party - SOCIALISTS would never vote for the conservative party, so BNP voters would never vote for the conservatives.
Thats why the conservatives didn't get their votes - because conservatives are not socialist...
Do you get it yet?
'Inheritance Tax' - if I have paid tax on my money why can't I give it to my kids without paying more tax?
If a tiny disagreement on this can switch you between 'socialist' and 'individual rights and freedom' then I have do doubt your rationality.
Poor argument but I'm getting used to it from you.
How old are you, you didn't say.
Conservatives 27%
UKIP 17%
Lab 16%
Third place. THIRD PLACE.
Newsflash for you, in 2006 I was set to vote Tory. Blair was maddening me, Lib Dems had problems with Ming and I was impressed by the direction David Cameron took.
However, I went off them when they looked at Britain as a whole and decided to prioritize a tax cut for peope who already stood to inherit hundreds of thousands of pounds. Rewarding luck rather than work goes against what I feel is fair.
So there you have it, for all your incorrect assumptions about what I am and what I believe I'm a floating voter who on balance wants the Labour Party to win but only if they improve beyond all recognition from where they are now.
BNP are socialists - their supporters would *never* vote tory.
Tell me this Simon - what would it take for you to vote tory (obviously without the tories abandoning being tory...) ?
If you have no answer then you answer your own question as to why BNP voters didn't vote tory - if you do have an answer, I would be very pleased to read it.
Do you really think I care, insult away boys xxx
I've said already, Thatcher had no probelm picking up working class votes so your answer is historically flawed.
Oh yes the fabled Tory controlled immigration that they've been going on about for years without ever coming up with a figure.
The Tory's what? Did you mean the Tories? Well, frankly, these inbred cretins inherit their political affiliation "my grandfather always voted Labour, my father always voted Labour, and I always voted Labour". These people would be betraying their ancestors if they even thought about voting Tory.
With regards to the BNP being closer to the Tories, it really doesn't matter what YOU think. Clearly those Labour supporters who voted BNP did so because THEY believe the BNP are closer to their core beliefs. In my personal experience, most of the racist people I've had the misfortune to meet have been Labour supporters. BTW, the Tories aren't anti-immigration. They are for controlled immigration. There is a difference.
Labour lost an EU seat to the BNP - you explain it.
Labour are in government and take the blame for the disenchantment people feel. That's step 1 explained.
Step 2 is they chose the BNP over the Tories who offer a similar anti-EU and anti-immigration platform.
You explain that.
You are an idiot - that is a fact, not an insult.
Labour lost an EU seat to the BNP - you explain it.
BNP anti-immigration - Tory anti-immigration
BPN anti-EU - Tory anti-EU
Maggie Thatcher got the working class vote so why not the current lot?
keep apologising. The country is abandoning Labour and you'll use any excuse / reason to say "Hey we're great". Are you watching the BBC, you wont like the comments.
So I ask again, why aren't these people choosing the Tory's?
This is the region where there name on the ballot paper was folded over, if they can argue that they lost 26,000 votes as a result (2.1%) then they would have a case for a revote.
Come on Mr Intellectual what's your answer?
You ain't got much to be proud of either if people turn to the BNP and not your lot.
Why did you give a labour seat to the BNP?
also, is the bbc's 'magic wall' not a bit rubbish?
http://fsn.typepad.com/blog/2009/06/eu-elex-coverage-bbc-magic-wall-vs-cnn-hologram.html
Also there is no point in discussing anything with "Keep the Bullingdons Out" I dont mind people being rude, I am often rude myself. I do have an issue with people being thick though, its such a waste.
The apologist wont accept that. UKIP are also taking a big slice of everybodies vote, but being a right wing party probably more Tory votes.
Conservatives leading the popular vote.
According to BBC "Centre-right parties have gained ground in elections to the European Parliament, initial results and exit polls suggest."
Red+green = Brown. (a loser in a loser's colour. Hahahahahahahahahahaha).
Still, her bum still looks big in it, so I guess she decided not to follow through her threat. Labour supporter makes threats, doesn't follow them through: how familiar.
From the BBC:
"Early indications from the East of England suggest the party could have slipped to fifth or even sixth place."
With regards the BNP, I have always thought by smoking them out into public meetings and let them argue their case, it would show how feeble and small minded their policies are.
In fact, you could say the same for Cameron and his lack of policy announcements. They can only go so far in the next 12 months, with the "we cannot tell you what it will be because A:Labour will rob it B:We need to see the books first"....eventually he will have to show his hand.
remember when Bush and Gore were neck and neck way back when? Several British newspapers, politicians and media people advised the American's not to vote for Bush - so - what did they do? - they voted for Bush.
Not a pleasnat prospect though, all the same.
8:11pm: Sir Peter Viggers starts crying.
8.02pm: Pizza and George Osborne have arrived at CCHQ.
Glad they've found a use for him now Ken Clarke's doing the economy bit
Spoiling for a fight much?
By the way,where are the trolls....are they out celebrating already?