[UK Election] Who are you going to vote for?
- Thread starter _Zd_Phoenix_
- Start date
-
Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.
edhe said:
Looks like negativity is doing pretty well though...Labour looks like it's collapsing...i'm getting very nervous
Yes, indeed they have, but only with a 36% popular vote, the lowest ever. Well, they do pride themselves on their low statistics 
Well after a night of watching it all sloooooooooooowly unfold i'm generally satisfied with what happened...however I wanted to see a few less specific Labour seats go and the Lib Dems making more inroads into the Tories, which just didn't happen.
The next four years will at least be interesting...
The next four years will at least be interesting...
Labour, LibDems, Conservatives, Veritas and BNP all claim that the result has been very good for them. Isn't that nice, everyone wins...
A few quotes from the BNP website:PsychoMoggieBagpuss said:
"The BNP has long led the way in propagating the total failure of the multi-cultural experiment:"
"Does the fact black and Asian candidates should represent black and Asian areas mean that Black and Asian candidates have a duty if elected to put the interests of their ethnic communities first when they act as politicians - therefore institutionalising and creating a legally acceptable system of racism against those from the indigenous White British communities?"
"Last week in Birmingham, a young white man, a student from a middle class background, was brutally murdered by three Blacks, apparently for no reason."
"The British state suppresses and attacks those whites and their political representatives and groups that campaign for white majority rule in this country as the South African state did against blacks."
"Just as the race laws in South Africa were used to remove the rights of blacks for political reasons - they do the same thing here with whites through the use of the Commission for Racial Equality."
"The corpulent provocateur Michael Moore, in his film Bowling for Columbine, currently delighting British audiences, spends an entire feature-length documentary investigating the "culture" of American gun violence without mentioning that blacks, who make up 13 per cent of the population, account for over half the murders (and murder victims, too). Once you factor them out, Americans kill at about the same rate as "nancy-boy" Canadians."
... of course _sometimes_ what they say is accurate, but the extreme discrimination shows in the choice of facts that the highlight.
oh, and a few quotes from news pages too...
http://www.swp.org.uk/SR/264/SR4.HTM said:
You can "put up" with Blacks, Mr. Griffin? How very decent of you.http://observer.guardian.co.uk/magazine/story/0 said:
http://www.usdaw.org.uk/equality/race_relations/1057257482_24277.html said:
Identity Magazine said:
Last edited:
edhe said:George Galloway
A shame that they didn't give Saddam Hussein a few days' leave so he could turn up to a rally, Bill Clinton style and salute George Galloway's courage, strength and indefagibility.
Really, Galloway is the sort of self-serving politician that taints every cause he's associated with, even the good ones.
iolair said:
What veritas and the BNP mean by that is they are happy they didn't lose the deposit, because honestly, they **** out everywhere else.
BNP...how displeased I was whenever a BNP candidate got more that 1000 votes. bastards.
Overall the night isn't exactly what I wanted to see...A reduced majority for Labour is quite good, however I'm not happy with perception that Blair has wounded the Labour party, when without Blairism there would not be the Labour party that there is today.
Naturally I'm a Lib Dem as I've said before, however I have massive respect for Tony Blair, as someone who I really think believes in what he does and has the capability to really do it. He has often been accused of being sycophantic, however he does not shy away from unpopular decisions, he does what he believes is for the best.
It's interesting that the media who have been the main protagonists of the acerbic battle against Blair are now the ones to characterise this reduction of the Labour party in the commons as Blair's loss...
It seems to me that in an election where with the amount of bile and anti-Labour feeling circulating publicly agaisnt the government, that last night's result was astounding. Despite the war, the Tories use of immigration an agitator and a continuing (all-be-it advanced) swing towards three party politics, Labour is still in Government with a healthy majority to affect change (although not for anything it wishes, which is likely to be a good thing in the case of ID cards but maybe less so on something such as the European constitution).
I'm really displeased that the Tories have gained so many seats back. Despite now having it's first black MP, more women MPs and it's first openly gay MP, the changes to the party are cosmetic and it is still the old upper-middle class white man that cracks the whip at Conservative HQ. I didn't particularly like Howard, but I'm concerned who will be there next.
However, even though the Tories are more prevalent than I thought still, in terms of share of the vote they haven't actually done that much better than last time. There is even talk of a change in the party with a more progressive agenda being pursued. I just hope that their idea of 'progressive' and mine are similar.
Lastly the Lib Dems. Oh the Lib Dems. Still crap, still with wishy washy leader.
I know that Sam said that they were the least wishy washy, with clearer policies than its rivals. But what was the main focus of their timid campaign? Iraq. Iraq which was not in the least bit well considered, but opportunism of the worst kind, in the fact that it made the party forget about all the other things it should be trying to get home to people.
It's the biggest Liberal Democrat part in the commons ever, and yet it should have been even better than it is. All of a sudden it had natural Liberal Democrats feeling as if they should indeed vote Liberal Democrat, as well as the added bouns of having Labour voters switching sides but with most still not comfortable with the Tories...and yet they didn't seem to gain all that much. They cut into Labour as predicted, but made absolutely no real gains against the Tories at all. For a decapitation strategy, the blade was ridiculously blunt.
In four years time it is doubtful that Labour will be as weakened as it is now, and it is likely that the Lib Dems will lose alot of votes back to them. And in Charles Kennedy they do not have the character or fire to be able to consolidate or to progress in particularly spectacular style. The era of three party politics is coming, but i'm really getting pissed off with the Lib Dems taking the long route.
Overall the night isn't exactly what I wanted to see...A reduced majority for Labour is quite good, however I'm not happy with perception that Blair has wounded the Labour party, when without Blairism there would not be the Labour party that there is today.
Naturally I'm a Lib Dem as I've said before, however I have massive respect for Tony Blair, as someone who I really think believes in what he does and has the capability to really do it. He has often been accused of being sycophantic, however he does not shy away from unpopular decisions, he does what he believes is for the best.
It's interesting that the media who have been the main protagonists of the acerbic battle against Blair are now the ones to characterise this reduction of the Labour party in the commons as Blair's loss...
It seems to me that in an election where with the amount of bile and anti-Labour feeling circulating publicly agaisnt the government, that last night's result was astounding. Despite the war, the Tories use of immigration an agitator and a continuing (all-be-it advanced) swing towards three party politics, Labour is still in Government with a healthy majority to affect change (although not for anything it wishes, which is likely to be a good thing in the case of ID cards but maybe less so on something such as the European constitution).
I'm really displeased that the Tories have gained so many seats back. Despite now having it's first black MP, more women MPs and it's first openly gay MP, the changes to the party are cosmetic and it is still the old upper-middle class white man that cracks the whip at Conservative HQ. I didn't particularly like Howard, but I'm concerned who will be there next.
However, even though the Tories are more prevalent than I thought still, in terms of share of the vote they haven't actually done that much better than last time. There is even talk of a change in the party with a more progressive agenda being pursued. I just hope that their idea of 'progressive' and mine are similar.
Lastly the Lib Dems. Oh the Lib Dems. Still crap, still with wishy washy leader.
I know that Sam said that they were the least wishy washy, with clearer policies than its rivals. But what was the main focus of their timid campaign? Iraq. Iraq which was not in the least bit well considered, but opportunism of the worst kind, in the fact that it made the party forget about all the other things it should be trying to get home to people.
It's the biggest Liberal Democrat part in the commons ever, and yet it should have been even better than it is. All of a sudden it had natural Liberal Democrats feeling as if they should indeed vote Liberal Democrat, as well as the added bouns of having Labour voters switching sides but with most still not comfortable with the Tories...and yet they didn't seem to gain all that much. They cut into Labour as predicted, but made absolutely no real gains against the Tories at all. For a decapitation strategy, the blade was ridiculously blunt.
In four years time it is doubtful that Labour will be as weakened as it is now, and it is likely that the Lib Dems will lose alot of votes back to them. And in Charles Kennedy they do not have the character or fire to be able to consolidate or to progress in particularly spectacular style. The era of three party politics is coming, but i'm really getting pissed off with the Lib Dems taking the long route.
_Zd_Phoenix_ said:
Meh. I expect that if the Tories got into power we'd see a few stupid bills to placate the backbenchers, though nothing on the scale of Section 28 or, say, the Hunting Bill, but really, when it comes to the Tories being 'the nasty party', I look at the Republicans and count our blessings.
_Zd_Phoenix_ said:
No, the Tories were opportunistic - trying to stand on every side of the Iraq issue at once and ending up in the ditch at the bottom of the moral low ground. The Lib Dems deserved to get votes, despite their hilarious incompetence on economic issues, for being the only party to stand up against the Orwellian politics of Labour and much of the Tories. Not just Iraq, but ID cards, elimination of habeas corpus, ASBOs, drugs, etc. etc. - I know the Lib Dems didn't campaign on those last two, but it was a refreshing change from the authoritarian campaigning of the mainstream parties.
Though I wouldn't have liked to get the Lib Dems in power - they'd almost certainly plunge us off the high diving board into the coming worldwide economic slowdown - at least it would have forced the mainstream parties to rethink their strategies.
Sam_The_Man said:
Oh you're completely right, large elements of the Repbulican party are blights on humanity IMO, and I pray (hmm ironic choice of language given what im talking about) that we never see anything like that over here again.
However, although I would never expect the Tories to go all out and bring in things that are completely and utterly hateful (although I don't think Section 28 would be as unlikely as you think, one bit of anti gay sentiment brought up by the media in the vein of Iraq hysteria and they'd be right back into it) I think that alot of the mild to mid social right wing people i nthe country are merely shutting up and grumbling into their Daily Mail's right now, and the thought of them being mobilised as they are so effectively inthe States is a terrifying thought.
The Tories were MORE opportunistic...'Are you thinking what we're thinking? foreigners are coming for your jobs and children'...however all you heard from the Lib Dems with any conviction in the last weeks of the campaign especially was 'IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ OH MY GOD LABOUR PEOPLE PLEASE VOTE FOR US IRAQ!!!!' which led to alot of people making protest votes, even more choosing to vote for the party that they agreed most with even though they never had before, but absolutely RUBBISH results agaisnt the Tories. They were so focused on Iraq and had such a plank as a leader that they were never going to make inroads into the Tories and probably won't be able to consolidate gains from Labour at the next election.
The point is that the Liberal Democrats TRIED to be opportunistic and were in a way, but actually made very little progress in the long term. They could have done so much better.
_Zd_Phoenix_ said:
The British are different from the Americans, though. The advent of globalisation has done a lot to change our characters, but deep down British people are too reserved to sign loyalty pledges and chant 'Four more years!'
I simply don't think you could mobilise any serious challenge to gay rights in this country. The anti-gay movement isn't as simple as not liking homosexuality. A lot of anti-gay campaigners in any modern country, not just America, are more concerned with their persecution complexes, rebellion against the 'liberal elite', cult teachings, and generally doing what they think their 'ideology' is about, than simply stopping people from sticking their building blocks in the wrong-shaped holes. And the Daily Heil aside, people in Britain don't care who the elite are, they don't want to cause a fuss and they certainly aren't going on any crusades.
Most of what I saw of the campaign was what I saw in the news and on the Question Time with the three leaders. And from what I saw, the Lib Dems were talking far more about domestic issues than the Tories. At least they had plans to actually change something, compared with the Conservative promise to cut 0.5% of GDP off the tax burden or whatever it was. Not to mention "we're going to fund our spending plans by cutting waste", which no government will ever, ever do without reducing the size of the state.
They can only go so far with a political ideology that went past its sell by date twenty years ago. High marginal tax rates = old and busted. New hotness = flat taxes.
Last edited: