Org Mobile Site
I think I finally get it. British conservatives, aka Tories, go nuts when American conservatives declare themselves to be of like ilk. I used to find this mildly insulting, as though being associated with anything American was somehow gauche.
But now, I think I finally get it. British Tories are what American Republicans claim to be, they live the principles of fiscal conservatism and limited government that we only get as campaign slogans.
So, here's a Brit MEP, Dan Hannan, letting Gordon Brown have it in spades. Now, if only he could get Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell, Nancy Pelosi and John Boehner in a room and let them have it too...
Hannan in 2010!
But now, I think I finally get it. British Tories are what American Republicans claim to be, they live the principles of fiscal conservatism and limited government that we only get as campaign slogans.
So, here's a Brit MEP, Dan Hannan, letting Gordon Brown have it in spades. Now, if only he could get Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell, Nancy Pelosi and John Boehner in a room and let them have it too...
Hannan in 2010!
Took'um 233 years but they are finally coming back to recliam us.
Originally Posted by :
Any chance we could get Dan Hannan to run for U.S. Senate next year?
Maybe make him an honorary Minnesotan. I hear they have a vacancy. But maybe Mr. Hannan likes the bigger stage of EU Parliament better.Any chance we could get Dan Hannan to run for U.S. Senate next year?
Side note: I also get a kick out of Prime Minister's Question Time , shown delayed on C-SPAN; I can't think of a single American poli who could stand up to the withering (if politely-worded) criticisms levelled, by all sides, there.
Have him, with the blessings not only of the UK but of Europe - he has not only failed to get a chance at a UK parliamentary seat but he has got kicked out of the right of centre European party grouping for being an obtrusive idiot. Have him, do us all a favour.
Much of what he says is standard by the book rubbish. For instance it is quite lovely for the Tories to cry about the need for borrowing and the 'failure' of fixing the 'boat' when we were in clear waters but they don't state why that was impossible - moreover why that analysis is profoundly wrong. If there was a need to fix anything it was the schools and hospitals, infrastructure and public services which the Tories destroyed over a 18 year period.
It is infuritating to have people who would have cut public services even more over the last decade, then demand even better results from services they would have devastated further - and then cry about the means used to make the services better. He is a politician who would love to have everything in private hands, to have the state crippled and people fending completely for themselves, it is why he is an outcast in the UK and Europe, so in that regards he would very much fit over there in the US.
Much of what he says is standard by the book rubbish. For instance it is quite lovely for the Tories to cry about the need for borrowing and the 'failure' of fixing the 'boat' when we were in clear waters but they don't state why that was impossible - moreover why that analysis is profoundly wrong. If there was a need to fix anything it was the schools and hospitals, infrastructure and public services which the Tories destroyed over a 18 year period.
It is infuritating to have people who would have cut public services even more over the last decade, then demand even better results from services they would have devastated further - and then cry about the means used to make the services better. He is a politician who would love to have everything in private hands, to have the state crippled and people fending completely for themselves, it is why he is an outcast in the UK and Europe, so in that regards he would very much fit over there in the US.
Originally Posted by JAG:
]
He is a politician who would love to have everything in private hands, to have the state crippled and people fending completely for themselves, it is why he is an outcast in the UK and Europe, so in that regards he would very much fit over there in the US.
Wow...]
He is a politician who would love to have everything in private hands, to have the state crippled and people fending completely for themselves, it is why he is an outcast in the UK and Europe, so in that regards he would very much fit over there in the US.
I'll ignore that however and respond to the rest of your statement, what he said about productive jobs is quite right. Real goods and services, and esp goods. Services can only be paid in goods. Goods are the only real thing, and in a financial crisis, they are even more important. Government jobs get paid by the good generated from productive jobs, most do not produce anything real and tangible themselves. (except tons of paperwork
) At the end of the day, food and water is real, and you need them to survive. Wood, iron, and minerals are necassary for the building of new infastructure and buildings to increase production. Those are the jobs that really need creating. Those are the really important jobs, the base from which the others build. When your base is weak, you focus compeltely on repairing it, not piling more on top of it. Time to go back to basics.Originally Posted by JAG:
Have him, with the blessings not only of the UK but of Europe
Look at it on the bright side: this time, Hannan managed to go through an entire speech without comparing his opponent to Hitler.Have him, with the blessings not only of the UK but of Europe
Rad. Brown is a Turd.
All I can say is if Jag hates him, he must be quality. All I need is Idaho to run him down and I'd seriously consider paying his airfare myself.
Originally Posted by JAG:
Have him, with the blessings not only of the UK but of Europe - he has not only failed to get a chance at a UK parliamentary seat but he has got kicked out of the right of centre European party grouping for being an obtrusive idiot. Have him, do us all a favour.
Much of what he says is standard by the book rubbish. For instance it is quite lovely for the Tories to cry about the need for borrowing and the 'failure' of fixing the 'boat' when we were in clear waters but they don't state why that was impossible - moreover why that analysis is profoundly wrong. If there was a need to fix anything it was the schools and hospitals, infrastructure and public services which the Tories destroyed over a 18 year period.
It is infuritating to have people who would have cut public services even more over the last decade, then demand even better results from services they would have devastated further - and then cry about the means used to make the services better. He is a politician who would love to have everything in private hands, to have the state crippled and people fending completely for themselves, it is why he is an outcast in the UK and Europe, so in that regards he would very much fit over there in the US.
he got kicked out of a party that the Cons have pledged to remove themselves from anyway.Have him, with the blessings not only of the UK but of Europe - he has not only failed to get a chance at a UK parliamentary seat but he has got kicked out of the right of centre European party grouping for being an obtrusive idiot. Have him, do us all a favour.
Much of what he says is standard by the book rubbish. For instance it is quite lovely for the Tories to cry about the need for borrowing and the 'failure' of fixing the 'boat' when we were in clear waters but they don't state why that was impossible - moreover why that analysis is profoundly wrong. If there was a need to fix anything it was the schools and hospitals, infrastructure and public services which the Tories destroyed over a 18 year period.
It is infuritating to have people who would have cut public services even more over the last decade, then demand even better results from services they would have devastated further - and then cry about the means used to make the services better. He is a politician who would love to have everything in private hands, to have the state crippled and people fending completely for themselves, it is why he is an outcast in the UK and Europe, so in that regards he would very much fit over there in the US.
incidentally, the same pledge which brought furore from the EUro enthusiasts as being a move towards the fascist fringes of EUro politics, examples of this fringe which have now joined the ECP party.
hannan believes in localism rather than centralisation in politics, as well as democratic accountability in all elements of governance, which are viewpoints i have a lot of time for.
it is infuriating to have so few people asking what we got for our 217 billion GBP extra annual public expenditure over the last 12 years, and while he is a pariah in europe he is not necessarily out of step with britain, and that we bear similarity to the US should be news to no-one.
Aside from him being an idiot or great... theres another angle ill focus on...
Im sure you have plenty of fiscal conservatives over in america... or at least when the Republicans are not in power...
Admittedly the last few years we did have of conservative goverment were fiscal conservative but i suspect our tories will talk a good talk then forget all about it once they gain power..
Vuk isn't what jag said basically true... although by the state crippled i took it to mean powerless... which fits right in with you thinking.. doesn't it ?
and the people fending for themselves part... isn't that the whole point of the free market...
Basically to me jag said his free market thinking would make him fit right in with the USA... you should be delighted with the staement as far as im concerned!
If you were a socailist i could understand your annoyance somewhat...
Im sure you have plenty of fiscal conservatives over in america... or at least when the Republicans are not in power...
Admittedly the last few years we did have of conservative goverment were fiscal conservative but i suspect our tories will talk a good talk then forget all about it once they gain power..
Vuk isn't what jag said basically true... although by the state crippled i took it to mean powerless... which fits right in with you thinking.. doesn't it ?
and the people fending for themselves part... isn't that the whole point of the free market...
Basically to me jag said his free market thinking would make him fit right in with the USA... you should be delighted with the staement as far as im concerned!
If you were a socailist i could understand your annoyance somewhat...
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly:
Aside from him being an idiot or great... theres another angle ill focus on...
Im sure you have plenty of fiscal conservatives over in america... or at least when the Republicans are not in power...
Admittedly the last few years we did have of conservative goverment were fiscal conservative but i suspect our tories will talk a good talk then forget all about it once they gain power..
Vuk isn't what jag said basically true... although by the state crippled i took it to mean powerless... which fits right in with you thinking.. doesn't it ?
and the people fending for themselves part... isn't that the whole point of the free market...
Basically to me jag said his free market thinking would make him fit right in with the USA... you should be delighted with the staement as far as im concerned!
If you were a socailist i could understand your annoyance somewhat...
Either you are wrong, or he has a very awkward way of phrasing things. When you say that the government is crippled, it means that it is in someway broken and powerless. That is not what capitalists want, they want the government to be very strong in its appropriate functions, not weak or crippled. The difference is not the health of the government, it is what those functions are. That is why I got offended.Aside from him being an idiot or great... theres another angle ill focus on...
Im sure you have plenty of fiscal conservatives over in america... or at least when the Republicans are not in power...
Admittedly the last few years we did have of conservative goverment were fiscal conservative but i suspect our tories will talk a good talk then forget all about it once they gain power..
Vuk isn't what jag said basically true... although by the state crippled i took it to mean powerless... which fits right in with you thinking.. doesn't it ?
and the people fending for themselves part... isn't that the whole point of the free market...
Basically to me jag said his free market thinking would make him fit right in with the USA... you should be delighted with the staement as far as im concerned!
If you were a socailist i could understand your annoyance somewhat...
Originally Posted by Don Corleone:
All I can say is if Jag hates him, he must be quality.
He is - he really is. Unfortunately, Don, I have already claimed him for Germany. It is very nice to have a man in the European Union who speaks for my interests more than my own policitians do.All I can say is if Jag hates him, he must be quality.
EDIT: Subscribe to his YouTube channel and to Europarl's. It is very much worth it.
I have only just bothered to watch the video of Hannan's address to GB, and by god, that was an awesome speech that was spot-on in everything he said!
Originally Posted by Furunculus:
hannan believes in localism rather than centralisation in politics, as well as democratic accountability in all elements of governance, which are viewpoints i have a lot of time for.
Localism and centralisation aren't universal arguments that can be applied across the board. On the one hand, certain issues are better dealt with at local or higher levels - neighbourhood beats don't really need the supervision of national government, but it would be absurd to let local authorities have a significant say in allocation of tax money. On the other hand, people don't want to be too involved in government, as they'd prefer to appoint a competent administration, then let them take care of things without their personal supervision - the overwhelming rejection of a regional government for the northeast being the object example, with the decisive argument being that any government will be wasting money, so the fewer levels there are, the better.hannan believes in localism rather than centralisation in politics, as well as democratic accountability in all elements of governance, which are viewpoints i have a lot of time for.
Right now, other than the local councils, each constituency maintains one MP, whom they can personally moan at if they so wish. The largest grouping of these scapegoats runs the national government. That's enough democratic accountability for me.
the rejection of regional government was three fold:
> it would just be another layer of government. (already have local and national, neither of which would change)
> it wouldn't result in any meaningful addition to the prinicple of localism. (regional gov't does nothing to put more power in those hands who can usefully wield it, i.e. local MP's
> it was an artificial construct. (there was no connection to a regional representative, he didn't belong to your county, and cared nothing for your town).
I opposed labours regional Gov't, it was a terrible idea, but that does nothing to devalue properly implemented localism.
> it would just be another layer of government. (already have local and national, neither of which would change)
> it wouldn't result in any meaningful addition to the prinicple of localism. (regional gov't does nothing to put more power in those hands who can usefully wield it, i.e. local MP's
> it was an artificial construct. (there was no connection to a regional representative, he didn't belong to your county, and cared nothing for your town).
I opposed labours regional Gov't, it was a terrible idea, but that does nothing to devalue properly implemented localism.
Originally Posted by Furunculus:
the rejection of regional government was three fold:
> it would just be another layer of government. (already have local and national, neither of which would change)
> it wouldn't result in any meaningful addition to the prinicple of localism. (regional gov't does nothing to put more power in those hands who can usefully wield it, i.e. local MP's
> it was an artificial construct. (there was no connection to a regional representative, he didn't belong to your county, and cared nothing for your town).
I opposed labours regional Gov't, it was a terrible idea, but that does nothing to devalue properly implemented localism.
So what would properly implemented localism be?the rejection of regional government was three fold:
> it would just be another layer of government. (already have local and national, neither of which would change)
> it wouldn't result in any meaningful addition to the prinicple of localism. (regional gov't does nothing to put more power in those hands who can usefully wield it, i.e. local MP's
> it was an artificial construct. (there was no connection to a regional representative, he didn't belong to your county, and cared nothing for your town).
I opposed labours regional Gov't, it was a terrible idea, but that does nothing to devalue properly implemented localism.
devolve power from central government and quangos to local government and town halls, not create an artificial middle layer than has no national or local acceptance and little power to achieve anything.
this would include a greater proportion of local spending paid for by local taxation and allocatable according to local priorities.
it would also include elected police chiefs as one example of gov't services under local control.
wales has already demonstrated that it is possible to reabsorb the functions of quangos back into democratically accountable gov't.
does it create the possibility of a BNP member being elected as police commisioner? yes it does.
but have a little faith, this is britain not albania, and the commisioner would still have to act in accordance to the laws of the land.
it may not appeal to you, in which case i'd recommend you brace yourself, because a good deal of it is going to happen in the next five years.
this would include a greater proportion of local spending paid for by local taxation and allocatable according to local priorities.
it would also include elected police chiefs as one example of gov't services under local control.
wales has already demonstrated that it is possible to reabsorb the functions of quangos back into democratically accountable gov't.
does it create the possibility of a BNP member being elected as police commisioner? yes it does.
but have a little faith, this is britain not albania, and the commisioner would still have to act in accordance to the laws of the land.
it may not appeal to you, in which case i'd recommend you brace yourself, because a good deal of it is going to happen in the next five years.
It would be bad for the UK to lose their politician. Not that the british press is allowed to talk to him anyway, he's better of in a country.
Well he slapped down the Great Leader there didn't he?
Labour are going to be wiped out come the next election. They'll be lucky to get 100 seats. It's just like 1978 all over again. Unfortunatley this time it looks as though their core supporters will probably vote BNP not Tory.
Every single labour administration has left the country in a more parlous state than when they found it. Every single labour administration has been ejected from office with unemployment higher than when in entered office.
Havn't a clue. Couldn't run a bath. Hapless, hopeless and deluded.
@ Don I think we'll keep him and send George Galloway instead. Obama will love him.
Labour are going to be wiped out come the next election. They'll be lucky to get 100 seats. It's just like 1978 all over again. Unfortunatley this time it looks as though their core supporters will probably vote BNP not Tory.
Every single labour administration has left the country in a more parlous state than when they found it. Every single labour administration has been ejected from office with unemployment higher than when in entered office.
Havn't a clue. Couldn't run a bath. Hapless, hopeless and deluded.
@ Don I think we'll keep him and send George Galloway instead. Obama will love him.
Originally Posted by InsaneApache:
Labour are going to be wiped out come the next election. They'll be lucky to get 100 seats. It's just like 1978 all over again. Unfortunatley this time it looks as though their core supporters will probably vote BNP not Tory.
Same here, but it would be a shame if they go to BNP scum (yes I once said that I would vote BNP if I was british, a look on their website cured me forever). The UK needs a populist rightwing movement like our flaming mozart, the 'decent' right. My boy is going strong.Labour are going to be wiped out come the next election. They'll be lucky to get 100 seats. It's just like 1978 all over again. Unfortunatley this time it looks as though their core supporters will probably vote BNP not Tory.
(yes I once said that I would vote BNP if I was british, a look on their website cured me forever).
Good! the BNP are scum... pure and simple!
I think the labour only having 100 seats is way out from what it will be... personally i don't see them finishing with less than 200... still of course a major loss but that would be a lowest estimate...
I don't think the BNP will make paticularly huge gains... the sun and the daily mail will probably help whip them up a bit but with a bit of time since the terrorist attacks i don't feel many will fall for thier crap...
Good! the BNP are scum... pure and simple!
I think the labour only having 100 seats is way out from what it will be... personally i don't see them finishing with less than 200... still of course a major loss but that would be a lowest estimate...
I don't think the BNP will make paticularly huge gains... the sun and the daily mail will probably help whip them up a bit but with a bit of time since the terrorist attacks i don't feel many will fall for thier crap...
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly:
(yes I once said that I would vote BNP if I was british, a look on their website cured me forever).
Good! the BNP are scum... pure and simple!
I think the labour only having 100 seats is way out from what it will be... personally i don't see them finishing with less than 200... still of course a major loss but that would be a lowest estimate...
I don't think the BNP will make paticularly huge gains... the sun and the daily mail will probably help whip them up a bit but with a bit of time since the terrorist attacks i don't feel many will fall for thier crap...
My youngest lad and his family live in a council house. It's a rough estate too. Talking with him and some of his friends is alarming. Not one is prepared to vote Labour. All of them have done in the past. Guess who they intend to vote for? Something I'm hearing more and more these days. Something I never heard twenty years ago. That's the Blair legacy.(yes I once said that I would vote BNP if I was british, a look on their website cured me forever).
Good! the BNP are scum... pure and simple!
I think the labour only having 100 seats is way out from what it will be... personally i don't see them finishing with less than 200... still of course a major loss but that would be a lowest estimate...
I don't think the BNP will make paticularly huge gains... the sun and the daily mail will probably help whip them up a bit but with a bit of time since the terrorist attacks i don't feel many will fall for thier crap...
Originally Posted by InsaneApache:
Well he slapped down the Great Leader there didn't he?
Labour are going to be wiped out come the next election. They'll be lucky to get 100 seats. It's just like 1978 all over again. Unfortunatley this time it looks as though their core supporters will probably vote BNP not Tory.
Every single labour administration has left the country in a more parlous state than when they found it. Every single labour administration has been ejected from office with unemployment higher than when in entered office.
Isn't it a bit harsh to assess from a historical viewpoint the endpoint of the Labour government? What happened between 1997-2005? Also, as the economy is overwhelmingly the most important factor in any election, wouldn't it be almost inevitable that the final days of any government would be economically shaky? The Major government might be an exception, but in his case the downturn took place through most of his administration, with the upturn happening right at the end - I doubt his government would have fallen had it been like 1997 all the way through.Well he slapped down the Great Leader there didn't he?
Labour are going to be wiped out come the next election. They'll be lucky to get 100 seats. It's just like 1978 all over again. Unfortunatley this time it looks as though their core supporters will probably vote BNP not Tory.
Every single labour administration has left the country in a more parlous state than when they found it. Every single labour administration has been ejected from office with unemployment higher than when in entered office.
Originally Posted by Fragony:
Same here, but it would be a shame if they go to BNP scum (yes I once said that I would vote BNP if I was british, a look on their website cured me forever). The UK needs a populist rightwing movement like our flaming mozart, the 'decent' right. My boy is going strong.
The old style Tories and socialists are dead. All that is left is different flavours of Thatcherism, which is the accepted wisdom. However, Britain isn't yet ready to fully buy into liberalism, so there are still scraps of wanting to invest in government services, with the NHS being the most sacred of the cows. The defining feature of Brown's administration is the increase in data gathering, because he doesn't trust the government departments to efficiently spend their allocated money. Which I don't really blame him for, as they are indeed wasteful, but it does increase bureaucracy and its expenditure while also stressing out civil servants and decreasing their efficiency. I suppose the boon of the Brown government is that we'll have a better idea than ever of how government effs up, so we can avoid these mistakes in the future.Same here, but it would be a shame if they go to BNP scum (yes I once said that I would vote BNP if I was british, a look on their website cured me forever). The UK needs a populist rightwing movement like our flaming mozart, the 'decent' right. My boy is going strong.
Originally Posted by :
What happened between 1997-2005?
We're paying the price for it now.What happened between 1997-2005?
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly:
Good! the BNP are scum... pure and simple!
Their potential voters aren't, better wise upGood! the BNP are scum... pure and simple!
Originally Posted by InsaneApache:
Well he slapped down the Great Leader there didn't he?
Labour are going to be wiped out come the next election. They'll be lucky to get 100 seats. It's just like 1978 all over again. Unfortunatley this time it looks as though their core supporters will probably vote BNP not Tory.
Every single labour administration has left the country in a more parlous state than when they found it. Every single labour administration has been ejected from office with unemployment higher than when in entered office.
Havn't a clue. Couldn't run a bath. Hapless, hopeless and deluded.
@ Don I think we'll keep him and send George Galloway instead. Obama will love him.
Well he slapped down the Great Leader there didn't he?
Labour are going to be wiped out come the next election. They'll be lucky to get 100 seats. It's just like 1978 all over again. Unfortunatley this time it looks as though their core supporters will probably vote BNP not Tory.
Every single labour administration has left the country in a more parlous state than when they found it. Every single labour administration has been ejected from office with unemployment higher than when in entered office.
Havn't a clue. Couldn't run a bath. Hapless, hopeless and deluded.
@ Don I think we'll keep him and send George Galloway instead. Obama will love him.
While I know it was not at all your intent, the conotations of the original term are sexist. I have attempted to replace the term in as minimally changed a fashion as possible. SF
My youngest lad and his family live in a council house. It's a rough estate too. Talking with him and some of his friends is alarming. Not one is prepared to vote Labour. All of them have done in the past. Guess who they intend to vote for? Something I'm hearing more and more these days. Something I never heard twenty years ago. That's the Blair legacy.
I hear the lets vote BNP from quite a few young people... fortunately these are usually the people who don't bother to register to vote and haven't usually got the intelligence to convince anyone with half a brain..
The trouble with personal experience is it tends to limit you to seperate regions with different reactions to labour... my labour mp actually made gains in his majority last election!! when nationally theres was a decent percentage swing away from labour... so my experiences are probably not the usual but im sure you would find a fair few labour voters round my area... i fully expect him to be re-elected next election..
I think the main thing holding the BNP back from the gains you expect is the lazyness of thier voters, i know several people who come up with the lets vote BNP line and im pretty sure not one of them is registered to vote..
Something I'm hearing more and more these days. Something I never heard twenty years ago. That's the Blair legacy.
I agree somewhat... but probably for different reasons than you...
Labours shift to the centre ground (though we should give Kinnock a share of the credit/blame for this as well) caused alot of people who want left wing governance to be annoyed and looking for an alternative... i personally went for the lib dems but for some people the alternative was BNP
The iraq war... a much disliked war... especially among the leftys who voted for labour... again LD is the better alternative if you didn't like the war but some choose BNP instead
The terrorist attacks... obviously if you have an anti muslim agenda and a muslim does something bad it is a boost to your agenda....
Spin and general dislike of politicians... im not sure about the spin but i have been told that labour do it far more than previous goverments, this and the corruption always associated with politicians make people look for something different... BNP are radically different to regular politicians and so appeal to people...
Their potential voters aren't, better wise up
I would happily call a percentage of thier vote scum... thinking on it i think you could group bnp voters under the headings scum and idiot... but as i have said in the past... thier policys don't nessecarily reflect all of thier voters desires...
For example protest votes and the like...
I hear the lets vote BNP from quite a few young people... fortunately these are usually the people who don't bother to register to vote and haven't usually got the intelligence to convince anyone with half a brain..
The trouble with personal experience is it tends to limit you to seperate regions with different reactions to labour... my labour mp actually made gains in his majority last election!! when nationally theres was a decent percentage swing away from labour... so my experiences are probably not the usual but im sure you would find a fair few labour voters round my area... i fully expect him to be re-elected next election..
I think the main thing holding the BNP back from the gains you expect is the lazyness of thier voters, i know several people who come up with the lets vote BNP line and im pretty sure not one of them is registered to vote..
Something I'm hearing more and more these days. Something I never heard twenty years ago. That's the Blair legacy.
I agree somewhat... but probably for different reasons than you...
Labours shift to the centre ground (though we should give Kinnock a share of the credit/blame for this as well) caused alot of people who want left wing governance to be annoyed and looking for an alternative... i personally went for the lib dems but for some people the alternative was BNP
The iraq war... a much disliked war... especially among the leftys who voted for labour... again LD is the better alternative if you didn't like the war but some choose BNP instead
The terrorist attacks... obviously if you have an anti muslim agenda and a muslim does something bad it is a boost to your agenda....
Spin and general dislike of politicians... im not sure about the spin but i have been told that labour do it far more than previous goverments, this and the corruption always associated with politicians make people look for something different... BNP are radically different to regular politicians and so appeal to people...
Their potential voters aren't, better wise up
I would happily call a percentage of thier vote scum... thinking on it i think you could group bnp voters under the headings scum and idiot... but as i have said in the past... thier policys don't nessecarily reflect all of thier voters desires...
For example protest votes and the like...
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly:
My youngest lad and his family live in a council house. It's a rough estate too. Talking with him and some of his friends is alarming. Not one is prepared to vote Labour. All of them have done in the past. Guess who they intend to vote for? Something I'm hearing more and more these days. Something I never heard twenty years ago. That's the Blair legacy.
I hear the lets vote BNP from quite a few young people... fortunately these are usually the people who don't bother to register to vote and haven't usually got the intelligence to convince anyone with half a brain..
I think the main thing holding the BNP back from the gains you expect is the lazyness of thier voters, i know several people who come up with the lets vote BNP line and im pretty sure not one of them is registered to vote..
i have heard it too, from people who live in urban england.My youngest lad and his family live in a council house. It's a rough estate too. Talking with him and some of his friends is alarming. Not one is prepared to vote Labour. All of them have done in the past. Guess who they intend to vote for? Something I'm hearing more and more these days. Something I never heard twenty years ago. That's the Blair legacy.
I hear the lets vote BNP from quite a few young people... fortunately these are usually the people who don't bother to register to vote and haven't usually got the intelligence to convince anyone with half a brain..
I think the main thing holding the BNP back from the gains you expect is the lazyness of thier voters, i know several people who come up with the lets vote BNP line and im pretty sure not one of them is registered to vote..
but i don't think it will translate into many more BNP votes, because while people want a political party that takes the problem of un-controlled immigration seriously, they don't want to have to vote BNP to achieve it.
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly:
I would happily call a percentage of thier vote scum... thinking on it i think you could group bnp voters under the headings scum and idiot... but as i have said in the past... thier policys don't nessecarily reflect all of thier voters desires...
For example protest votes and the like...
Protest voters indeed, but also a lot of people that don't feel represented. Of there is no place for the populist right people have no choice but going for the extremists. We don't have party's like the BNP here thankfully, we have Geert! And no don't do it don't compare my boy to the BNP because that would be way of. I would happily call a percentage of thier vote scum... thinking on it i think you could group bnp voters under the headings scum and idiot... but as i have said in the past... thier policys don't nessecarily reflect all of thier voters desires...
For example protest votes and the like...
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO