General Election 2010 Page 110

Quote: Badge @ May 7 2010, 11:11 PM BST

Why are many people who say Gordon Brown has no right to cling onto power so keen to have the third placed leader and biggest loser of the election - Nick Clegg - adopt the kingmaker role and carry David Cameron to power?

View original

According to the Beeb, the Lib Dems' share of the vote was up 1%. Labour's was down 6.2%. Labour was the biggest loser.

I find it quite comforting that a Tory government will have its legislative agenda tempered by a LibDem partner. Don't you?

What's the difference between Nick Griffin and a bus?

A bus has got seats.

Quote: Steve Sunshine @ May 7 2010, 11:31 PM BST

Exit Polls?

Wasn't that one of Nick Grifins election promises?

View original

He also tried to bribe us with a nationwide Indian takeaway.

Quote: Kevin Murphy @ May 7 2010, 11:33 PM BST

According to the Beeb, the Lib Dems' share of the vote was up 1%. Labour's was down 6.2%. Labour was the biggest loser.

I find it quite comforting that a Tory government will have its legislative agenda tempered by a LibDem partner. Don't you?

View original

Well, who is the biggest loser is a question of semantics. They're all big losers because nobody's got what they wanted. I was just pointing out the irony.

And I am delighted there won't be an undiluted Tory government. That wasn't the shitty point I was trying to make, very badly.

But what about my punchline, eh? Eh?

Quote: Badge @ May 7 2010, 11:42 PM BST

But what about my punchline, eh? Eh?

View original

It was so funny I'm literally drowning in my own piss right now.

I'd go so far as to say it was Hislop standard.

Quote: Kevin Murphy @ May 7 2010, 11:58 PM BST

It was so funny I'm literally drowning in my own piss right now.

I'd go so far as to say it was Hislop standard.

View original

You honour me!

Quote: Godot Taxis @ May 7 2010, 6:12 PM BST

You think it's not true? Genuinely?

View original

Quote: DaButt @ May 7 2010, 6:55 PM BST

Yes, a statement that Americans didn't care about terrorism prior to 9/11 is laughably ignorant.

View original

Er, I was referring to my post, not Chip's.

Quote: Timbo @ May 7 2010, 7:29 PM BST

That's crazy talk Godot - next you will be saying that the US broke a UN embargo by selling arms to Iran in order to fund Nicaraguan contras.

View original

Quote: Kenneth @ May 7 2010, 10:21 PM BST

Unbelievable ignorance. You might as well suggest the US State Department and CIA gave money to the Taliban.

View original

Sorry fellas I must have my head up my arse. Next I'll be claiming that the CIA tried to destabilise democratically elected and popular governments in Chile, Iran, Guatemala, Cuba, Turkey, Brazil and Congo. I gotta watch more TV.

Quote: Scatterbrained Floozy @ May 7 2010, 3:05 PM BST

Yes it does! It's a ConDem government - A ConDemEnt.

View original

I'll take that with a pinch of salt...

Quote: Timbo @ May 7 2010, 3:48 PM BST

Is sit just me, or does John Major look and sound like he is computer generated?

View original

He alway was. Maggie Thatcher got ousted, so she had her boffins make him and the programs that run him.

Couldn't quite get the colour right though, he was a bit grey.

And I'm sure I saw pea juice on his chin.

Quote: sootyj @ May 7 2010, 10:39 PM BST

The BNP have gobbled up every scrap of protest vote going like a tramp going through the bins at McDonalds. At the first sign of a real election they get nothing.

View original

Your arrogant attitude toward the BNP highlights you as a prime Labour Minister candidate, sooty. Don't write them off as simply a protest vote. Their polling may not have done them any good yesterday, but to dismiss them so is deeply dangerous.

Quote: Aaron @ May 8 2010, 1:23 AM BST

Your arrogant attitude toward the BNP highlights you as a prime Labour Minister candidate, sooty. Don't write them off as simply a protest vote. Their polling may not have done them any good yesterday, but to dismiss them so is deeply dangerous.

View original

I thought they were harmless.

Quote: Kevin Murphy @ May 8 2010, 1:24 AM BST

I thought they were harmless.

View original

In small doses, yes, of course. But if you ignore them - or, more to the point, ignore the legitimate concerns of the electorate that the BNP then pick up on - then you give them more ground, and a better chance for seats and power.

Quote: Aaron @ May 8 2010, 1:27 AM BST

if you ignore them - or, more to the point, ignore the legitimate concerns of the electorate that the BNP then pick up on - then you give them more ground, and a better chance for seats and power.

View original

Is that really true?

"Bigotgate" was surely a case of Brown "ignoring the legitimate concerns of the electorate that the BNP then pick up on" and it did the BNP no good at all.

I didn't mention immigration.

I forget the specifics now, but those councillors and guys who got elected in east London a few years back didn't get in on a pure promise of shipping black people home. They ran their campaigns on every day stuff like graffiti and littering; issues that really affected the voters, but that for some reason the other parties weren't bothering with. And once they've got the electorate's confidence on small issues, they build credibility, they build grounding, and get more trust from the voters. And yes, immigration does come into it too: but it takes more than one single incident along those lines to lose people seats.

Anyway, point is this: one or two of them are harmless. But if you dismiss them as nothing more than a protest vote, then you miss issues which real people do really care about. It mightn't make an immediate difference, but it builds over time. They'll have no trouble getting seats if we move to PR.

I think that in some ways, the BNP are like internet trolls. They seem to gain most power from the outrage they generate; although there are always some disenfranchised, misguided souls who find something to agree with in the rants. In this campaign they tried to present themselves as more reasonable, the public weren't so upset, and the BNP's seats fell.

Quote: Aaron @ May 8 2010, 1:27 AM BST

In small doses, yes, of course. But if you ignore them - or, more to the point, ignore the legitimate concerns of the electorate that the BNP then pick up on - then you give them more ground, and a better chance for seats and power.

View original

Ooh the argument of the sophisticated racist. I may not support the BNP but if you don't pay attention to my nuanced dislike of foreigns they'll get in or have a revolt or something.

And of course the electorate's concerns. It turns out about 1% of the UK electorate are stupid enough to think immigration is the primary issue. The other 99% kinda got it's the economy stupid.

Immigration wasn't an issue when we were all rich and hiring Polish builders.

Quote: Aaron @ May 8 2010, 1:54 AM BST

I forget the specifics now, but those councillors and guys who got elected in east London a few years back didn't get in on a pure promise of shipping black people home. They ran their campaigns on every day stuff like graffiti and littering; issues that really affected the voters, but that for some reason the other parties weren't bothering with.

View original

Well the main thing was key holding and inheriting council flats within families. That and crime.

And of course legimitimising racism.

The problem for them is 2 fold.

1 People quickly realise inheriting council flats is pretty pointless if you have more than 1 kid and the BNP have no realistic plan to build anymore.

2 People in the UK are by and large not that stupid. Especially on empty gesture politics around crime.

The sad thing was the BNP did well when they went after the BNP as the new party of the working class. A kind of rough socialism akin to Labor in the 70s. They started to win popularity and then blew it.