British Politics [Archive]

Strensall

29-08-2004, 18:40

Are you more pro-market or more socialist then them [the Lib Dems]?

Well, I'm soft of half market, half distributist... That's why the BNP's economics appeals to me. I like the old style Liberal social policy (let society work things out on its own), which the Lib Dems have turned to what I like to describe as 'Authoritarian Equality', which I don't agree with. I also don't like the European Union in its present form. Free Trade DOES NOT require political or monetary union, or an economic straightjacket. As far as immigration, race is a non-issue to me. However, I think we should only allow immigrants that are well-educated and don't have AIDS. We should only take those who will 'bring the average up'.

Basically I'm a non-BNP moderate nationalist. They aren't my favourite political party, but I don't think they are racist neo-nazis either. Some things they say are good (like "To hell with foreign aid and asylum seekers, we don't have enough beds in our hospitals and our old people die of hypothermia in the winter."), but there are other things I don't like, such as strengthening section 28 (gays are British too!)

Comments on my political stance are welcome. And BTW I voted 'other' on the poll.

Sanctaphrax

29-08-2004, 18:44

You forgot the Monster Raving Loony Party!!!
how could you???

Dacowookies

29-08-2004, 19:01

liberal democrats
i think they're more labour than "new" labour these days..
nice thread, it'll be interesting to see the final poll results

Volouniac

29-08-2004, 19:14

I'd vote Lib Dem, or Labour under Brown.
I find Blair's Labour and Conservatives awful. As for UKIP, they're just a joke really. The Greens I'd like to vote for but don't trust them with the economy.

Volouniac

29-08-2004, 19:15

You forgot the Monster Raving Loony Party!!!
how could you???

Is their leader still a cat?

Dacowookies

29-08-2004, 19:22

Is their leader still a cat?
i think he's dead

Refused Party Program

29-08-2004, 19:25

RIP fluffles. :(

Volouniac

29-08-2004, 19:58

i think he's dead

Gutted.

Strensall

29-08-2004, 20:10

You forgot the Monster Raving Loony Party!!!

I'm sorry, I guess thats what Other is for. Just wondering, but all those who voted 'other' are MRP voters, and how many just spoil their papers?

Looking at the results, future elections are rarely going to produce a majority... do you think we will see a change to PR to overcome this? The two biggest parties are the Lib Dems and the BNP... this supports my idea that British politics is becoming more polarised. Maybe this is because since 1997 Labour and Conservatives have grown so similar?

Refused Party Program

29-08-2004, 20:12

Spoiling your ballot paper is pointless. It will only be ignored. You might as well not bother.

Even if you'd have gotten a large number of votes in this poll, it's hardly representative.

Strensall

29-08-2004, 20:26

Even if you'd have gotten a large number of votes in this poll, it's hardly representative.

Very true. This board is obviously far younger than the national average age, and is only representative of the people on here. I don't think it is in anyway representative of the UK. I do think, however, that as the old die off the votes for Labour and Conservatives will get less though. The young seem far more polarised, but then thats maybe thats because we mellow as we get older.

Old Harry

29-08-2004, 20:31

Tony Blair isn't going to be deposed as leader of the labour party.
The Lib Dems are just a bunch of yes men who cannot possibly live up to all the promises they have already made (and they are making more all the time).
The BNP are nazis plain and simple.
UKIP are a bit too right wing for my tastes.
The Tories, while having the charisma of gnats do seem to have the right ideas and in a year they are who I will probably vote for.
Even if i move to Scotland I won't vote for any scottish politicians because they are the reason that students like me will have to pay tuition fees.
As for Irish politics they are too left wing for me. I look for a more moderate political system.
Other socialists just don't have enough power to support themselves if they get into government.

Old Harry

29-08-2004, 20:33

The monster raving looney party dissolved when their last leader, a man in a gorilla suit died of cancer.

Yerevann

29-08-2004, 20:42

Quote from "New Aryan State"..."Europe needs us more than we need them"

Admittedly I don't have the EXACT figures with me, but there are approximately 60 million people in the UK and approximately half a billion people in the EU. Who needs who again?

Strensall

29-08-2004, 21:01

Admittedly I don't have the EXACT figures with me, but there are approximately 60 million people in the UK and approximately half a billion people in the EU. Who needs who again?

Britain has a higher GDP per capita than Europe, hence we contribute more than we recieve. If we pulled out, France and Germany may find themselves having to contribute 50% more make up the gap in supporting the Eastern nations who have just joined. Spain and Portugal would recieve less aid as they would probably find themselves above the average... they may even find themselves being net contributors or breaking even. It would drop like a pack of cards without us. We also buy more from Europe than we sell to them.

If free trade stopped we could find other markets for the little we export or change our few factories to produce stuff we used to get from Europe. Europe, on the other hand, would have a harder time trying to export everything that Britain normally imports from them, as this is actually quite a quantity of product. Also, if we stopped spending so much on European goods image the boost to our national economy.

Also, we would gain 100% of the revenue from Scotland's North Sea oil and gas, and 100% of the revenue of our fish stocks. Unemployment would drop in Britain, as we had to refish our waters, unemployment in Spain and Portugal would rise as their fishermen became redundant, as these are the main two nations fishing our waters (as they are allowed to under EU rules).

Trust me, the EU is better off with us than without us, otherwise they'd have kicked us out a long time ago. We all know Europe hates the Brits.

Wateva names r untaken

29-08-2004, 21:37

Wow u got the knowledge.

Strensall

29-08-2004, 21:40

Wow u got the knowledge.

You mean me? If so, thanks.

The poll results are interesting, although I doubt they are anything like representative.

Wateva names r untaken

29-08-2004, 21:49

Yes The BNP, like the monster raving looney party is a rebellion vote

Strensall

29-08-2004, 21:54

I think thats a big part of it. People are voting them to rebel against enforced multiculturalism and political correctness. Only a minority are voting for them for ideological reasons.

You could say the same about Labour and Tories in the past though, most people vote for one as rebellion against the other, not for any ideological reasons.

Mexico and Granada

29-08-2004, 21:57

the British national party is the strongest and the best. The United KINGDOM needs this PARTY TO HAVE A better country.

Siljhouettes

29-08-2004, 22:21

They aren't my favourite political party, but I don't think they are racist neo-nazis either.
The BNP are Nazis. Their founder described Hitler as his idol.

Strensall

29-08-2004, 22:27

The BNP are Nazis. Their founder described Hitler as his idol.

And Labour were founded as a Socialist party, but that doesn't make them so.

Tyndall has gone, as has his supporters because apparently Griffin is "a sell out to the white race", due to the fact [b]legal non-white immigrants will not be forced to leave under a BNP government. Tyndall supporters now run the White Nationalist Party, which you can ridicule... I mean look at here: http://www.white.org.uk

These guys are the real race haters.

Purly Euclid

29-08-2004, 22:41

Britain has a higher GDP per capita than Europe, hence we contribute more than we recieve. If we pulled out, France and Germany may find themselves having to contribute 50% more make up the gap in supporting the Eastern nations who have just joined. Spain and Portugal would recieve less aid as they would probably find themselves above the average... they may even find themselves being net contributors or breaking even. It would drop like a pack of cards without us. We also buy more from Europe than we sell to them.

If free trade stopped we could find other markets for the little we export or change our few factories to produce stuff we used to get from Europe. Europe, on the other hand, would have a harder time trying to export everything that Britain normally imports from them, as this is actually quite a quantity of product. Also, if we stopped spending so much on European goods image the boost to our national economy.

Also, we would gain 100% of the revenue from Scotland's North Sea oil and gas, and 100% of the revenue of our fish stocks. Unemployment would drop in Britain, as we had to refish our waters, unemployment in Spain and Portugal would rise as their fishermen became redundant, as these are the main two nations fishing our waters (as they are allowed to under EU rules).

Trust me, the EU is better off with us than without us, otherwise they'd have kicked us out a long time ago. We all know Europe hates the Brits.
It is true that, right now, the EU needs the UK more than the UK needs Europe. But these are just the embryonic stages of the EU. After WWII, Japan needed the US more than the US needed Japan. Today, we are economically joined at the hip. Japan is the contry where the most investment dollars go, after Mexico.
The UK and the continent have comparative advantages to eachother, especially with the big expansion in Eastern Europe. It'd be unwise for the UK to drop out of the EU now, but rather, intergrate with it further. After all, the UK has a lot to gain economically, and even socially. English has become a type of franca lingua on the continent, which is better status than many languages enjoy. The UK is in a special position to gain from the EU, and it shouldn't loose it by cutting itself from the EU.

Strensall

29-08-2004, 22:44

It is true that, right now, the EU needs the UK more than the UK needs Europe. But these are just the embryonic stages of the EU. After WWII, Japan needed the US more than the US needed Japan. Today, we are economically joined at the hip. Japan is the contry where the most investment dollars go, after Mexico.
The UK and the continent have comparative advantages to eachother, especially with the big expansion in Eastern Europe. It'd be unwise for the UK to drop out of the EU now, but rather, intergrate with it further. After all, the UK has a lot to gain economically, and even socially. English has become a type of franca lingua on the continent, which is better status than many languages enjoy. The UK is in a special position to gain from the EU, and it shouldn't loose it by cutting itself from the EU.

Japan and the US don't need a political union to prosper though. They don't need common laws either. This is my point of view with Europe.

Europe: Yes! EU: No!

Purly Euclid

29-08-2004, 23:24

Japan and the US don't need a political union to prosper though. They don't need common laws either. This is my point of view with Europe.

Europe: Yes! EU: No!
I agree that the EU needs to reform its governance structure to better suit its members. However, there are important things that EU critics forget. First off, each member state of the EU will retain a very generous degree of sovereignty. Right now, there is no nation in which Brussels dictates all of its edicts without any consent of the local government. At present, the EU as a government isn't that big. It's entire employee roster is just 1% of the government of France. Have of its budget goes to these employee's salaries, alone, while the other half go to agricultural subsidies.
The reason that governments get big is because their member states concede to it. The US is a classic example. Our first constitution, the Articles of Confederation, kept us in a union even looser than the EU. Each member had its own currency, taxation, military, and could make land claims. There was a central government, but it was extremely weak. The states then chose to form a tighter bond, and our modern constitution was born. The government maintained the army and the navy, made war and peace, and regulated the post office, but otherwise, the states were autonomous. Then came the Great Depression, when most, if not all of the states, went bankrupt. The government stepped in to become the uber nanny we all know and love today.
Such concessions could never happen in Europe. The fundemental difference between the 13 colonies and the European states is that the colonies-turned-states were horribly young and weak. Some of the states in Europe have existed for a thousand years. Even if joining the EU means less say in foreign policy matters, it should leave domestic matters intact, especially with the presence of such a powerful state as Great Britain.

Strensall

29-08-2004, 23:44

it should leave domestic matters intact

It should, but unfortunatly it doesn't.

Between 55% and 70% of all legislation going through Westminster, now originates in Brussels.

The European Court can and does overrule court decisions by the highest court in Britain.

Market traders are brought to court for using Imperial weights and measures.

Our fishing fleet has been destroyed by Spanish and Portuguese fishermen using their 'right' to fish our waters. We have a right to fish theirs too though... oh no wait! They have been over fished. No more fishing there, Britain.

The Human Rights Act has done nothing to improve human rights in Britain, it has just caused a boom in compensation payouts.

..... I could go on. If loss of sovereignity and a 'short-term' economic loss on this scale is the price for what you say is a long term economic benefit, then its a price that I and a huge number of my countrymen are not willing to pay.

When we signed up to the Free Trade agreement at Maastricht all those years ago this is not what we agreed upon. Our progession into Europe is fundamentally undemocratic. If we had been told what was in store for us the NO vote would have been an overwhelming majority.

will retain a very generous degree of sovereignty

Do you think the people of Britain are somewhat incapable of governing themselves 100% or just think it would be in our best interests to let Brussels do a load of it.

Malthouse

30-08-2004, 00:12

I haven't voted in the above poll - If there were to be a vote next week I'd be really stuck who to vote for. Ok so how about I say what's important to me, and someone out there can tell me who they think I should vote for...

I guess my problem is that somehow I want *everything* (and that of course is impossible)

I want reasonable taxes, but I want good government-funded healthcare and great education. I think University should be free (which it could be if you dropped this government target of 50% of kids going to Uni. They argue that Uni graduates on average earn more money....so if everyone went to Uni, would everyone earn more money?? Of course not)

We've also really lost our way on the issue of immigration. We desperatly need skilled, english speaking workers. The problem is we need to be more selective and restore faith in the system.

So I guess I sound more conservative so far. But I haven't forgiven them for the state they left public services in when they left power. Remember those days of patients waiting 48 hours on hospital trolleys? At least it's a bit better now.

AJ.

Purly Euclid

30-08-2004, 00:33

[quote]Between 55% and 70% of all legislation going through Westminster, now originates in Brussels.
The keyword being originated. The local governments need to pass and enforce it first.
The European Court can and does overrule court decisions by the highest court in Britain.
This holds water depending only on what the nature of the cases are. The US Supreme Court has been overruled by NAFTA a few times, but it wasn't anything serious.
Market traders are brought to court for using Imperial weights and measures.
Why's that a bad thing? We should do that in the US, too.
Our fishing fleet has been destroyed by Spanish and Portuguese fishermen using their 'right' to fish our waters. We have a right to fish theirs too though... oh no wait! They have been over fished. No more fishing there, Britain.
You're falling into the protectionist trap. This backfires on those who implement it, sooner or later. Japan subsidized its economy heavily from 1950-1980s. When their economy collapsed in 1990, Japan continued these practices. Today, PM Koizumi has lifted the biggest ones, and Japan is a booming economy. Don't fall into the same trap they did.
The Human Rights Act has done nothing to improve human rights in Britain, it has just caused a boom in compensation payouts.
In industrialized nations, these edicts passed today serve merely as reminders. There is little else any industrialized nation can do to promote human rights.
Do you think the people of Britain are somewhat incapable of governing themselves 100% or just think it would be in our best interests to let Brussels do a load of it.
I think neither. Should the UK become a fully intergrated member of the EU, it would use the euro, and maybe in the future, have less an influence in foreign policy and military affairs (along with Brussels facilitating interstate commerce). Other than that, the UK will still be able to raise taxes, fund education, its own social programs, support a military (though it'd be largely a defensive force), and regulate intrastate commerce, like it does today. In the distant future, the European Union may be more powerful, but only if the states concede to it. Right now, every country has a vested interest in managing its own affairs, and it'd be unlikely for a powerful EU into states' affairs for at least another half-century. But even if that happens, the UK will be one of Europe's largest single voting blocs, and has one of Europe's best economies.

Lunatic Goofballs

30-08-2004, 00:35

I like how Robin WIlliams describes The House of Commons as being "Like Congress with a two drink minimum."

Markodonia

30-08-2004, 00:37

The monster raving looney party dissolved when their last leader, a man in a gorilla suit died of cancer.

Lies! I should know, I'm a member! Lord Hope and Boney Maroney have been the party leaders ever since Catmandoo was sadly run over :(

Vote insanity, you know it makes sense!
http://www.omrlp.com/

...actually, I'm voting Liberal Democrat, but I'll try and persuade anyone who refuses to vote for any other party to vote Loony in constituencies where they have a candidate standing :D

Englandy

30-08-2004, 00:48

Strensall

30-08-2004, 04:40

The keyword being originated. The local governments need to pass and enforce it first.

This maybe so, but the EU fines governments who do not bring into law its resolutions. So it's do or pay.

Why's that a bad thing? We should do that in the US, too

I believe people have a right to use whatever system of measures they like. Either way, no government, national or otherwise, should take its citizens to court for using a measurement which is the norm to the majority of the populace. The EU only enforce this to remove Britains trade advantages in America anyway. Its not like French or Germans come to our market towns for their apples on a saturday morning is it?

You're falling into the protectionist trap. This backfires on those who implement it, sooner or later. Japan subsidized its economy heavily from 1950-1980s. When their economy collapsed in 1990, Japan continued these practices. Today, PM Koizumi has lifted the biggest ones, and Japan is a booming economy. Don't fall into the same trap they did.

This isn't even a protectionist or free-market issue. Its whether or not the people entitled to fish off the coast of Scotland should be British or Iberian.

I think neither. Should the UK become a fully intergrated member of the EU, it would use the euro, and maybe in the future, have less an influence in foreign policy and military affairs (along with Brussels facilitating interstate commerce). Other than that, the UK will still be able to raise taxes, fund education, its own social programs, support a military (though it'd be largely a defensive force), and regulate intrastate commerce, like it does today. In the distant future, the European Union may be more powerful, but only if the states concede to it. Right now, every country has a vested interest in managing its own affairs, and it'd be unlikely for a powerful EU into states' affairs for at least another half-century. But even if that happens, the UK will be one of Europe's largest single voting blocs, and has one of Europe's best economies.

Well, you are entitled to your viewpoint and I respect that even more than I disagree with it. I just think the British have been misled into something they never were told about, wanted or voted for.

Bnp All The Way! Why Should British People Become Second Class To All The Bloody Immigrants!!! Sure Let Them Come To England But Why Should They Get Every Benifit? Family Tax Credits? They Dont Work For A Living They Just Claim Of The Gov!! Make Them Work For A Living Like The Rest Of Us Have Too.

Don't Capitalise Every Word In A Sentance, It Makes You Look Stupid :D

We've also really lost our way on the issue of immigration. We desperatly need skilled, english speaking workers. The problem is we need to be more selective and restore faith in the system.

Yes, at last someone I agree with! What we need is to decide upon criteria immigrants must reach before they are allowed in. Such as:

- Not having AIDS (seen as 85% of the people recieving medicine for AIDS in British hospitals courtesy of the tax payer are not citizens)

- Having qualifications eg doctors, nurses, builders, plumbers.

- Young enough so that they contribute more than they recieve in pensions.

- English speaking (or Welsh, Scots, Cornish for that matter).

Unspecified Paradise

30-08-2004, 12:53

Tyndall has gone, as has his supporters because apparently Griffin is "a sell out to the white race", due to the fact [b]legal non-white immigrants will not be forced to leave under a BNP government. Tyndall supporters now run the White Nationalist Party, which you can ridicule... I mean look at here: http://www.white.org.uk

The whole site is comedy genius! Here's one thing that made me laugh: one of their stated policies is "The guarantee that Ulster shall remain forever a part of Great Britain ". Now I could be wrong, but I thought that the reason our country is called "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" is that Ulster, whilst being part of the UK, is not and never has been a part of Great Britain.

The Land of Glory

30-08-2004, 13:26

Why is there a drift in this thread that Kilroy-Silk is a celebrity, not an ex-politician? He used to be an MP for crying out loud, ye eejits.

And I hate it how everyone insists that we'll have the Euro by X. Why should we have it ever anyway? Because the government tells us it's best? So we become poorer and less able to compete individually? So Europe can unite as one as the great aryan nation/union of socialist states it is?

Strensall

30-08-2004, 22:44

The whole site is comedy genius! Here's one thing that made me laugh: one of their stated policies is "The guarantee that Ulster shall remain forever a part of Great Britain ". Now I could be wrong, but I thought that the reason our country is called "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" is that Ulster, whilst being part of the UK, is not and never has been a part of Great Britain.

Absolutely right. They are a bunch of nutjobs and extremists, and any no political party would want them as members. To stand as 'nationalists' and not understand what constitutes part of our country is a joke.

Why is there a drift in this thread that Kilroy-Silk is a celebrity, not an ex-politician? He used to be an MP for crying out loud, ye eejits.

Yeah, I know he was a Labour MP but nowadys he is more of a celebrity than a politician and he has only got where has in UKIP due to his TV show and newspaper columns. He basically led their electoral challenge after being in the party a matter of months, and it is only because he is a famous face, not a gifted politician.

Purly Euclid

31-08-2004, 00:09

This maybe so, but the EU fines governments who do not bring into law its resolutions. So it's do or pay.
I wonder how much.

I believe people have a right to use whatever system of measures they like. Either way, no government, national or otherwise, should take its citizens to court for using a measurement which is the norm to the majority of the populace. The EU only enforce this to remove Britains trade advantages in America anyway. Its not like French or Germans come to our market towns for their apples on a saturday morning is it?
There are all sorts of historical precedents to try and standardize weights and measures for commerce. As far as I see it, it is a government's legal perrogative to enforce weights and measures. It'd be very confusing if one guy was measuring in imperial units, and another guy in cubits.

This isn't even a protectionist or free-market issue. Its whether or not the people entitled to fish off the coast of Scotland should be British or Iberian.
It depends how far from the shore. If it is less than 12 nautical miles, something is terribly wrong.

Well, you are entitled to your viewpoint and I respect that even more than I disagree with it. I just think the British have been misled into something they never were told about, wanted or voted for.
I understand. We'll agree to disagree.

Strensall

31-08-2004, 17:57

There are all sorts of historical precedents to try and standardize weights and measures for commerce. As far as I see it, it is a government's legal perrogative to enforce weights and measures. It'd be very confusing if one guy was measuring in imperial units, and another guy in cubits.

I wouldn't want to buy something in cubits because I don't know what a cubit is. I'd either learn what a cubit is or buy elsewhere. I would not, however, want to infringe upon someone's right to sell in cubits however much they are irrelevant to the youngest half of the populace, because to the other half they may well be the norm. Within 20 to 30 years the majority of the population will be using metric units because that is what the schools are teaching. Locking people up for something so trivial is highly authoritarian and judgemental.

It depends how far from the shore. If it is less than 12 nautical miles, something is terribly wrong.

While I'm not sure of the distances, the stocks used to be within British Sovereign Waters, which used to be an exclusion zone for foreign fishing boats before we joined the then European Community. Since we joined, we have only been allowed to take a certain amount of fish, which has resulted in a 70% cut in the numbers of our fleet. This has also had knock-on effects to the packaging industry. The total amount of fish taken, however, has increased, because other nations have also been fishing their quotas (all quotas together > total fished by Britain prior to joining the EC), which has led a situation where the fish stocks are going down year on year, rather than the sustainable fishing the British used achieve.

I understand. We'll agree to disagree.

Agreed.

Conceptualists

31-08-2004, 18:01

While I'm not sure of the distances, the stocks used to be within British Sovereign Waters, which used to be an exclusion zone for foreign fishing boats before we joined the then European Community. Since we joined, we have only been allowed to take a certain amount of fish, which has resulted in a 70% cut in the numbers of our fleet. This has also had knock-on effects to the packaging industry. The total amount of fish taken, however, has increased, because other nations have also been fishing their quotas (all quotas together > total fished by Britain prior to joining the EC), which has led a situation where the fish stocks are going down year on year, rather than the sustainable fishing the British used achieve.
Which iirc is one reason why a few Scots think they should have a voice in Europe (independent of the UK), as they feel Blair sold them down the river over the fishing because he didn't care about them.

Strensall

31-08-2004, 18:05

Which iirc is one reason why a few Scots think they should have a voice in Europe (independent of the UK), as they feel Blair sold them down the river over the fishing because he didn't care about them.

Blair would exchange a few thousand unemployed Scots for the position 'President of Europe' any day I'm sure.

I don't think the solution is for Scotland to become independant*, as the British Isles are greater than the sum of their parts. Its basically the exact opposite of the EU but on a smaller scale :D

* But if thats what they want I wouldn't want to stop them having it.

Conceptualists

31-08-2004, 18:08

Blair would exchange a few thousand unemployed Scots for the position 'President of Europe' any day I'm sure.

I don't think the solution is for Scotland to become independant*, as the British Isles are greater than the sum of their parts. Its basically the exact opposite of the EU but on a smaller scale :D

* But if thats what they want I wouldn't want to stop them having it.

Not independence as in splitting from the UK, but just an independent voice in Europe.

But I agree that Blair would do anything for more power.

Aust

31-08-2004, 18:47

The Pyrenees

31-08-2004, 19:30

I won't vote for the current Labour government, though I think they have done lots for this country. I'm very grateful of the good work they have done with the minimum wage, working family tax credits etc, but I can't abide what they've done in the last parliament, slowly being sucked into the 'American Way', which seems to me more and more like fascism. I would have voted for them in 1997, but no more. They've managed to lose the optimism that the country had for a sleaze-free, honest political landscape for the new century.

I couldn't vote Tory. Despite the concerted efforts of a central office (acting in good faith, I think) to delete racism from the party, they are still a party of low-level xenophobes and racists. If they want to be slightly unpleasant in their views to foreigners, that's they're choice, but I'd hate for other countries to see Great Britain as that sort of state. They're also moralists, royalists and anti-european. And homophobic- section 28, campaigning against equal age of consent etc.

UKIP- no way. Barely hidden racism, paternalism, moralism, the party will destroy our economy and reduce British Society to a 'might is right', paternalistic society where morality is based on whatever the Daily Mail want rather than some basis that allows people to act as makes them happy, providing it doesn't hurt anyone else.

BNP- Nazis.

Respect- I'd like to vote for them out for comedy reasons, but they're the New Far Left, and have slightly peculiar authoritarian leanings in my opinion. Though I agreed with George Galloway over the war, I think it was for different reasons. He's happy to associate with fascist dictators- then I'd rather he didn't lead the country.

I'm gonna choose Lib Dems. In fact, I recently became a member of the party. They don't seem to want to make it too hard to start a business, yet they'll protect those who can't protect themselves. They offer a better health service based not on consumerism but equality. They won't box us out of Europe with petty xenophobia, they seem to weigh up arguments and take the logical course of action, rather than the dogmatic or moralistic. More than anything, they seem like thoroughly nice chaps and ladies, the sort of person I'd like to represent me.

The Pyrenees

31-08-2004, 19:43

Bnp All The Way! Why Should British People Become Second Class To All The Bloody Immigrants!!! Sure Let Them Come To England But Why Should They Get Every Benifit? Family Tax Credits? They Dont Work For A Living They Just Claim Of The Gov!! Make Them Work For A Living Like The Rest Of Us Have Too.

I'll ignore the capitalisation and spelling and just address the raw, hard facts.

1. If an asylum seeker doesn't claim asylum within 24 hours of arriving in Britain, they get no benefits. Zip. Non. Never. Not a dot.

2. Many (if not most) asylum seekers and immigrants WANT to work. It is illegal for an asylum seeker to work. Full stop. So even if they wanted to work, they couldn't. The reason? Right-wing legislators (Mssrs Blunkett et al) have banned them from doing so.

3. "Make Them Work For A Living Like The Rest Of Us Have Too."
Actually, you don't HAVE to. You, also, could claim off the State. If you did so, you would recieve more money than any asylum seeker. Not only that, but you could choose where you live, who you live with, where you shop, what you do in your spare time. If you wanted to, you could look for a job. Not only that, but you would be paid to look for a job, and the Government would actively help you find a job.

Compare and contrast with an asylum seeker. They can't work, even if they are very talented and want to. They are told where to live. They are given vouchers amounting to less than £50 a week for food and clothes etc. They must use these at government selected shops. This is if they're NOT in a 'secure detention centre' (read: low security prison) or prison (not for committing a crime, just because the government won't let them work and therefore find their own accomodation). In prison an asylum seeker is incarcerated for 23 hours a day. They live in a single room (where they also eat and shit) and they are forced to clean out their own excrement from a bucket in the corner. I wouldn't count this as 'First Class' citizenship (which you infer if you say other Britons are 'second class citizens' to them). Don't you think that they'd work if we just let them.

This reflects on our society. What level have we sunk to?

Strensall

01-09-2004, 00:01

Compare and contrast with an asylum seeker. They can't work, even if they are very talented and want to. They are told where to live. They are given vouchers amounting to less than £50 a week for food and clothes etc. They must use these at government selected shops. This is if they're NOT in a 'secure detention centre' (read: low security prison) or prison (not for committing a crime, just because the government won't let them work and therefore find their own accomodation). In prison an asylum seeker is incarcerated for 23 hours a day. They live in a single room (where they also eat and shit) and they are forced to clean out their own excrement from a bucket in the corner. I wouldn't count this as 'First Class' citizenship (which you infer if you say other Britons are 'second class citizens' to them). Don't you think that they'd work if we just let them.

To be fair, I can't actually understand why they want to come here. Asylum Seekers are treat like shit and it isn't fair on them, and what's worse, it isn't fair on their country of origin. Most of them are men of working age, which only saps the productivity of wherever they came from. If we're not importing doctors and nurses from Third World countries, then we're taking the most productive sector of society and not letting them work. Most of the asylum applications are rejected (9 in 10) but only 1 in 10 of those rejected leaves the country (deported or otherwise). So 81 in 100 asylum seekers arriving here are either staying illegally or given 'leave to remain', but I don't know whether this gives them rights to work or not.

What I think we need to do is stop them coming in the country. We need to regain control of our borders and only take immigrants which we know will improve Britain (such as those that can speak the language, have a decent education and not be infected with diseases). We need to do this BEFORE THEY GET HERE. That way the xenophobes and racists can't complain and the liberal-left can't be criticised for failing to halt illegl immigration. Sure, the vast majority of asylum seekers wouldn't get in but then maybe it would force them to do something to improve their country rather than run at the first sign of trouble. Britain wasn't always a great country to live in, but the British fought and bled to make it better for their descendants and those descendants deserve to be first in the queue.

I don't think anyone can reasonably argue against that, but if anyone does disagree then I am more than welcome to give it a debate.

Thanks everyone for keeping the debate formal and clean (exceptions to our resident BNP-voter Englandy - come on BNP, we know you can do much better)

Bodies Without Organs

01-09-2004, 00:13

The whole site is comedy genius! Here's one thing that made me laugh: one of their stated policies is "The guarantee that Ulster shall remain forever a part of Great Britain ". Now I could be wrong, but I thought that the reason our country is called "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" is that Ulster, whilst being part of the UK, is not and never has been a part of Great Britain.

You obviously didn't see their site when they stated that they intended to maintain the UK's long-standing separation of church and state: they didn't appear to have worked out who held the position of Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

Aha: found the text of an interview wherein this was pointed out to them:

BNP Guy: We are a secular party, and will continue to uphold this country's proud tradition of separating church and state.

BBC reporter (perfect pause): Do you know who the head of the
_Church_of_England_ is?

BNP Guy: Uh, yes...

BBC: Do you know who the head of state is?

BNP: Yes.

BBC (another perfect pause): So you are aware that they are the same person.

Bodies Without Organs

01-09-2004, 00:20

To be fair, I can't actually understand why they want to come here.

Possibly something to do with the fact that they face death or persecution* in their own country.

* Worse persecution than that which certain people exercise on them in the UK.

Strensall

01-09-2004, 11:35

So you are aware that they are the same person.

The Queen does each job separately of the other, but you are right, it isn't really a maintainable position when a large number of the country are not even Christian, nevermind CoE. I would be in favour of Charles not becoming head of the Church of England when he becomes King. It should be left to someone completely neutral.

But, at present I would still describe us as a secular country. Religion does not affect the law or government proceedings, regardless of the religion of the head of state and her position within the church. Would the USA cease to be secular if it appointed a priest or vicar as its next president? No, because you can do both jobs without being affected by the other.

The BBC try to use semantics to make fools out of the BNP but it will backfire on them when their Royal Charter cannot be renewed. The BBC should be neutral towards EVERY political party however much they are against the current status-quo in the country. The only justification you can have for a public broadcaster is that it can provide its services (inform and entertain) without compromising it's political neutrality. I'm not particularly in favour of the TV License but if the BBC was truely unbiased then I would not be too bothered about paying for it.

Myrth

01-09-2004, 12:11

The only useful purpose the BNP serve is to steal votes away from the Conservatives and the UKIP. Other than that, they're a powerless, hopeless and wholly pointless political party.

Strensall

01-09-2004, 12:24

The only useful purpose the BNP serve is to steal votes away from the Conservatives and the UKIP.

Its true, the BNP do take votes primarily from the Conservatives but UKIP was plugged by the media so much prior to the election to take votes from the BNP, as UKIP are essentially just a more capitalist, pro-globalisation BNP. Its a safer bet for the Right-wing papers such as the Mail, the Sun who (and lets face it) would pretty much support most BNP social policies whereas suffer under their economic ones. Under UKIP, they'd get the nationalist social policies they support without having to suffer under a more distributist economic policy.

Other than that, they're a powerless, hopeless and wholly pointless political party.

No political party is pointless (even the Monster Raving Loony Party), but with the decline of Labour, the Lib Dems will pick up votes, and the decline of the Conservatives, the BNP will pick up votes. It all depends on how much the electorate see UKIP as a better replacement for the Conservatives, and this is why the media support them so much.

Neudegg

01-09-2004, 12:34

Its all very well having the right old stab at Tony Blair, but look at it logically. The Lib Dems won't get in, alone with the Green Party etc. etc. Your choice is mainly between Labour and the Tories. Can any of you see the Conversative party leading Britain into a good future? I think not!

Like all British Prime Ministers you have to stand with the United States. As much as all of us hate it, you don't want to anger the most powerful nation in the world. As annoying as they are, being friends with them pays off in the long term.

If you actually look at what Tony Blair and the Labour party has done for the United Kingdom on internal policies only, you should conclude that it has done us good when compared to the pre-1997 years. You may not like Tony Blair, but can you imagine anyone else in government?

TheLandThatHopeForgot

01-09-2004, 12:42

Bush's poodle.

When I turn 18 I'm voting for UKIP.

I thought it was 16 to vote?

Neudegg

01-09-2004, 12:45

I thought it was 16 to vote?

Nope 18. Although you can join most political parties at 15.

Aust

01-09-2004, 12:53

The scary thing is that other than the Lib Dems, how many vote the BNP have picked up!

The Holy Word

01-09-2004, 13:30

Its true, the BNP do take votes primarily from the Conservatives That's because you take away the "race" stuff from the BNPs manifesto and they're essentially just right wing Tories. Says something about them being a supposed "alternative" to the political mainstream.

The scary thing is that other than the Lib Dems, how many vote the BNP have picked up!I'd be cynical. Most sites with polls like this suddenly notice an upsurge in new members.

Conceptualists

01-09-2004, 13:31

Its true, the BNP do take votes primarily from the Conservatives but UKIP was plugged by the media so much prior to the election to take votes from the BNP, as UKIP are essentially just a more capitalist, pro-globalisation BNP. Its a safer bet for the Right-wing papers such as the Mail, the Sun who (and lets face it) would pretty much support most BNP social policies whereas suffer under their economic ones. Under UKIP, they'd get the nationalist social policies they support without having to suffer under a more distributist economic policy.

I think the European elections UKIP 'stole' votes more or less equally from each of the three main parties.

No political party is pointless (even the Monster Raving Loony Party),

Wasn't Screaming Lord Sutch [?] the first to propose things like passports for pets (which have gone from being silly to serious for a few people) and said a few other things that have become serious issues (I think abortion was one of them).

However this is here say, so it may not be true.

But, at present I would still describe us as a secular country. Religion does not affect the law or government proceedings

Dispite the fact that Catholics are still barred from marrying the monarch, and until recently not even allowed to be Prime Minister (and not to long ago banned from going to University [although not not allowed to take the examss] or going into various professions).

Nebbyland

01-09-2004, 14:15

OK a few facts...

The UKIP polled third in the european elections...

Last year the UKIP recieved the third largest amount of money in donations of any UK political party.

The UKIP are a real party, they do have a chance of gaining mp's no other forth party does at the moment nor realistically has done since the greens in the late 80's and that is just a matter of opinion.

They terrify me for a lot of reasons, their xenophobia has previously been mentioned in true NS stylie here's some back up links ...

http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Temp/Temp-UKIndependenceParty-AlternativeToBNP-RobertE.htm

http://www.richmondandtwickenhamtimes.co.uk/views/letters/display.var.506109.0.why_people_think_ukip_is_extremist.php

I particularly like the latter as it's from my local paper...

Google for ukip bnp pact

Personally I've never voted for someone who's got in except Ken Livingstone.

I'll be voting Labour again, because I abhore the way they treated the bbc over the dodgy dossier, I disagree with a lot of their decisions over the war, they are still the best of a bad bunch...

I grew up under the milk snatcher and am still afraid of the tories coming back.

Libertovania

01-09-2004, 14:16

That's because you take away the "race" stuff from the BNPs manifesto and they're essentially just right wing Tories. Says something about them being a supposed "alternative" to the political mainstream.
I don't think that's right. Have you seen this?

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

There isn't a pro-free market party in Britain except a portion of the conservative party with little influence. Most are a mixture of mercantilism and socialism.

The Holy Word

01-09-2004, 14:38

I don't think that's right. Have you seen this?

http://www.politicalcompass.org/ I thought you've previously argued that the political compass site is highly inaccurate.

There isn't a pro-free market party in Britain except a portion of the conservative party with little influence. Most are a mixture of mercantilism and socialism.The BNP aren't free marketers in the way you'd see it- but the portion of the Conservative party you're talking about are different then the ones that resemble the BNP most closely- they tend to be nationalist and protectionist in terms of their economic policy.

These are all quotes from an interview with Edgar Griffin, father of the BNP leader after he was expelled from the Conservatives for having links with the BNP. Up till the story broke he was on Iain Duncan Smith's Campaign Team. (Full text of the interview can be found at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1507318.stm)

"If black people wish to be repatriated then they should be assisted - of course - that is Tory grassroots opinion"

"They are ordinary Tory views - there is nothing startling or extraordinary about my views - they are perfectly normal."

Strensall

01-09-2004, 15:42

That's because you take away the "race" stuff from the BNPs manifesto and they're essentially just right wing Tories. Says something about them being a supposed "alternative" to the political mainstream.

Not true. Socially, they have quite a lot of similarities, such as trying to conserve the traditional moral values of the country, but they are essentially a 'socialist' party, but in a non-welfare way. They have a very radical view on the economy, but essentially its a good system. The only people who would really dislike it are the ultra-rich, who are just a virus to the planet anyway. Check here for an overview of the BNP economy. I'd say its easily the best part of the party. http://www.bnp.org.uk/policy/martell_economics.htm

Dispite the fact that Catholics are still barred from marrying the monarch, and until recently not even allowed to be Prime Minister (and not to long ago banned from going to University [although not not allowed to take the examss] or going into various professions).

I remember reading something about Catholics not being able to marry the monarch, but as far as 99.99% of the country are concerned we are as good as secular. Its been a long time since there were laws specifically against Catholics for the general population. The monarchy is a special case...

Bodies Without Organs

01-09-2004, 16:25

Religion does not affect the law or government proceedings, regardless of the religion of the head of state and her position within the church.

Explain to me why then the blasphemy laws in the UK only cover the Christian faith?

The Holy Word

01-09-2004, 16:45

Not true. Socially, they have quite a lot of similarities, such as trying to conserve the traditional moral values of the country, but they are essentially a 'socialist' party, but in a non-welfare way. They have a very radical view on the economy, but essentially its a good system. The only people who would really dislike it are the ultra-rich, who are just a virus to the planet anyway. Check here for an overview of the BNP economy. I'd say its easily the best part of the party. http://www.bnp.org.uk/policy/martell_economics.htmLet's look at the evidence. You've already accepted that the BNP mainly take votes at the Tory party. Nick Griffin has never denied his father's views that the BNPs views are no different then the Tory party grassroots. They heavily target Countryside Alliance marchs in an attempt to get support. They're led by someone who's only job has been one his mummy and daddy got him. They're Tories in jackboots.

Aust

01-09-2004, 17:04

I'd be cynical. Most sites with polls like this suddenly notice an upsurge in new members.
Yes, but still it's worrying. Though it is hartning that the Lib Dmes have got most of the votes. Of course I wouldn't trust this poll as far as I can throw it but still...

AlanBstard

01-09-2004, 17:12

I'm not quoting the program but I'm copying the idea.
The only reason anybody supports the EU is so political leaders can fight against it. Think about it. British farmers do badly (not that I've got anything against farmers) who do we blame? not the government!
"Its those cow murdering dirty frenchies thats the problem! Who our brave boys at the europian parliament are so busy fighting against!"
much better then saying
"its probably the French's looser animal rights laws. We are arranging a "summit" to sort this problem out."
or even
"I'm sorry the civil service cocked-up but we don't want you to think we have no control over anything so the Agriculture Minister has resigned as it was his fault. (well it must have been some ones, why not him)"

Oh and why do you want the Lib dems in power. All they do is pledge money they don't have to the old folks and Education. Thus ensnaring anyone who knows nothing about politics or does but (or as it happens in South Yorkshire) doesn't have the stomach to vote against the status qo (eg vote consevative or Socialist Labour) so they vote Lib dem. The political equivilent of the scone. Neither bread nor cake. Just there when you can't make up mind what to have with your milky tea. So apart from disolving the monarchy and over a thousands year of history, turning the house of commons into a museum, giving land to Gypsies and selecting a balding scotsman with "health problems" as a possible prime minister what have they sugguested thats useful. Its only a shame the Liberal party didn't turn into something interseting. If I were you I'd be feeling slightly foolish. Although your not me so you probably won't.

P.S. You know the story...vote tory

Conceptualists

01-09-2004, 17:15

To Alan. Love your show.

Strensall

01-09-2004, 23:14

Explain to me why then the blasphemy laws in the UK only cover the Christian faith?

The law is yet to be repealed. Its not still enforced, and other laws (many of them European in origin) would prevent any action taken against, say, a devil-worshipper (such as the Human Rights Act)

When I said laws, I should have said 'laws that are enforced'. I'm sure if we looked deep enough into the law we'd be forced to go practice shooting the longbow on a Sunday like in the Agincourt period, or realisticly be able to get away with shooting a Scotsman within the walls of York. So maybe we aren't 100% secular, but it doesn't mean we're some sort of middle aged theocracy or anything. I'm not going to be tortured for taking the laws name into vain or forced into doing something because 'the Bible says so'. If you looked at relevant and enforced laws only, I'm sure you'd find that religion has not placed a part in them being drawn up, except laws preventing religious discrimination.

Its only a shame the Liberal party didn't turn into something interseting.

They are still around.. Some members of the old Liberal Party refused to join with the SDP (as did some SDP members) and kept the old party alive. At the moment it's pretty much unelectable, I don't even know if it stands anywhere, but it isn't gone. I've recently read over their policies, and they do sound pretty good, although very, very capitalist. Maybe a little much for my liking. For more info look at http://www.liberal.org.uk

Bodies Without Organs

01-09-2004, 23:35

The law is yet to be repealed. Its not still enforced...

I believe the last time a case came to court was 27 years ago, which certainly doesn't put it in quite the same category as the medieval examples you give.

So maybe we aren't 100% secular, but it doesn't mean we're some sort of middle aged theocracy or anything.

No, I never claimed we were, just that separation of church and state has not occured in the UK - the coronation of the monarch is carried out by a bishop or archbishop of the Church of England, and once coronated is then the only power that can appoint a prime minister (simplifying things greatly, obviousy).

Strensall

02-09-2004, 00:15

No, I never claimed we were, just that separation of church and state has not occured in the UK - the coronation of the monarch is carried out by a bishop or archbishop of the Church of England, and once coronated is then the only power that can appoint a prime minister (simplifying things greatly, obviousy).

I concede then :D

I doubt the Queen could get away with appointing a non-democratically elected Prime Minister whether or not she actually has that power. She has far more power than she could get away with using, if you know what I mean.

Bodies Without Organs

02-09-2004, 00:18

I concede then :D

I doubt the Queen could get away with appointing a non-democratically elected Prime Minister whether or not she actually has that power. She has far more power than she could get away with using, if you know what I mean.

I know what you mean, but I believe that in certain circumstances she could get away with it: all we need is some situation which drops the UK into martial law and an unpopular but effective candidate being appointed as PM. Not that I support this, or anything, of course...

Strensall

02-09-2004, 00:23

Bodies Without Organs

02-09-2004, 00:32

Good ol' Lizzie wouldn't do it, but Charles? I don't know about that one. Looks like the type of guy who would want to use all the power he could have.

The army take their oath to the monarch and not to the PM... if it came to it, say someone elected (under dubious circumstances - eg rigged election maybe) with promises to abolish the army and the royalty, a real uber-socialist pacifist... do you think there might be a coup?

Or would it more likely come if someone far-far-far right was elected... say a NF guy or something?

I can't really imagine fat Liz or or her idiot son Charles willingly making a member of any of the Northern Ireland political parties Prime Minister, but for them to come into such a position would probably require the simultaneous total break up of at least the three major parties on the very eve of a General election.

Strensall

02-09-2004, 00:37

I can't really imagine fat Liz or or her idiot son Charles willingly making a member of any of the Northern Ireland political parties Prime Minister, but for them to come into such a position would probably require the simultaneous total break up of at least the three major parties on the very eve of a General election.

It could happen though. People get that sick of Tony Blair, but don't want the Tories in again, and don't want to waste their vote on the Lib Dems so they think 'Sod it, I'll vote Sinn Fein', who put forward party leader Gerry Adams to become Prime Minister..... I can't imagine it ever happening but I just the same can't imagine the Queen or Charles appointing him Prime Minister if he was elected. Harry would do it, but probably just cause he's always stoned.

Bodies Without Organs

02-09-2004, 00:49

It could happen though. People get that sick of Tony Blair, but don't want the Tories in again, and don't want to waste their vote on the Lib Dems so they think 'Sod it, I'll vote Sinn Fein', who put forward party leader Gerry Adams to become Prime Minister..... I can't imagine it ever happening but I just the same can't imagine the Queen or Charles appointing him Prime Minister if he was elected. Harry would do it, but probably just cause he's always stoned.

I think Gerry Adams's trump card here would be saying 'You either make me Prime Minister, or you make Martin McGuinness Prime Minister instead'...

Xooner

02-09-2004, 01:16

Ok so at the time of this post there was 6 pages and I only got through 4 of 'em...

For me, on the vote issue, If this hasn't been mentioned yet? There should have been a 'no vote' option in the poll. Yeah I know there was an 'other' but that could mean a fridge party like MRL.

Well as you can guess I won't be voting at all, and haven't done in the last 15 years.
What's the point of voting, the government always wins! :rolleyes:
Seriously.. I'm not a disenfranchised voter. I really mean I don't want a government in the UK. It's about time we got rid of systems of power and finally grew up. it would be good to actually become responsible to 'do the right thing' for it's own reasons. I basically belieive that the vast majority are reasonably moral enough to form society worth living in. I think less or no government but more of a culture shift. I know it's not likey to happen, but thats my view and I don't want to encourage the present system.

/meh gets of his soapbox ;)

Bodies Without Organs

02-09-2004, 01:23

For me, on the vote issue, If this hasn't been mentioned yet? There should have been a 'no vote' option in the poll.

Spoiled ballots are recorded, tallied and announced - this includes both those that, for example, write 'None of the above' on their papers, and also those that fill in their papers thinking that they are in accordance with proportional representation.

Strensall

02-09-2004, 02:20

It'd be good if you could write 'Anyone but Labour' on your ballot and they automatically assigned your vote to the 2nd most popular party... Seriously, does anyone actually think Labour are doing a good job?

Myrth

02-09-2004, 02:25

The UKIP certainly won't gain any MPs, that's for sure. I think last election they owed several thousand pounds in lost ballot deposits :D

Strensall

02-09-2004, 02:59

Labour = 407
Conservative = 163
Liberal Democrat = 55
Scottish National Party = 5
Plaid Cymru = 4
Democratic Unionist = 6
Ulster Unionist = 5
Sinn Fein = 4 (Have not taken their seats)
Social Democratic & Labour = 3
Independent = 1
Independent Conservative = 1
Independent Labour = 1
Speaker & Deputies = 4 (Do not normally vote)

Total = 659

This is the current House of Commons seat allocation, how do you think it will change by next election? Do you think there will be any UKIP, BNP, Green or Respect MP's

Lets have you predictions now. The closest to win gets my vote for the next set of Euro elections. :D

[EDIT] That was my 200th post. Congrats to me.

Aust

02-09-2004, 16:34

Conceptualists

02-09-2004, 18:06

Labour = 407
Down by 50, at the very most
Conservative = 163
Up slightly, but will be stung by defectors to UKIP
Liberal Democrat = 55
Up significantley (but I think that they will remain the third party)
Scottish National Party = 5
Up at the expense of Labour.
Plaid Cymru = 4
No comment
Democratic Unionist = 6
ditto

Ulster Unionist = 5
"
Sinn Fein = 4 (Have not taken their seats)
"Social Democratic & Labour = 3
Independent = 1
I don't think he'll loose the seat.

Do we have anyone from Kidderminster?

I think that UKIP will get three at the most, and the BNP will get none (but will come second in a few marginals).

Aust

02-09-2004, 19:01

Down by 50, at the very most

Up slightly, but will be stung by defectors to UKIP

Up significantley (but I think that they will remain the third party)

Up at the expense of Labour.

No comment

ditto

"

"

I don't think he'll loose the seat.

Do we have anyone from Kidderminster?

I think that UKIP will get three at the most, and the BNP will get none (but will come second in a few marginals).
You think so, I reackon labour will be up by more.

Conceptualists

02-09-2004, 19:29

You think so, I reackon labour will be up by more.
No I think that they will go down, but remain in power (I've been told that Conservatives need a 14.1% swing to gain a one seat majority, so I think it is safe to say that the next PM will be Labour).

Strensall

03-09-2004, 01:22

There will be some BNP

Maybe. A possible BNP vote is debated freely by a lot of people in Yorkshire (where I come from), and it is where they scored highest in the EU elections. Depending on how many votes UKIP take there may well be a BNP victory in one of the poorer multi-cultural crime hotspots.

[Labour] Down by 50, at the very most

They will go down for sure, but by how much who knows. Do you think they may get less than whats needed for a majority? If so, would there be a Lib-Lab coalition or a hung parliament and another election?

Skidetenland

03-09-2004, 13:32

Im only 15, but to be we havent got a choice who we vote for.
Labour is the only party who could give us a stable government. The tories died when Margaret Thatcher left. The Lib Dems have a really weak leader. UKIP have good views but are just getting stupid now. The Green Party is only interested in the environment, and don't even get me started on the BNP.

Labour are really the only choice. Tony Blair is a strong leader, even though everyone hates his guts, and I'd rather vote for the Monster Raving Looney Party than back Gordon Brown of John Prescott.

Hogsweat

03-09-2004, 13:39

*votes Lib Dem*

Hogsweat

03-09-2004, 13:40

Maybe. A possible BNP vote is debated freely by a lot of people in Yorkshire (where I come from), and it is where they scored highest in the EU elections. Depending on how many votes UKIP take there may well be a BNP victory in one of the poorer multi-cultural crime hotspots.

They will go down for sure, but by how much who knows. Do you think they may get less than whats needed for a majority? If so, would there be a Lib-Lab coalition or a hung parliament and another election?

Whereabouts you live in Yorkshire?

Conceptualists

03-09-2004, 13:49

They will go down for sure, but by how much who knows. Do you think they may get less than whats needed for a majority? If so, would there be a Lib-Lab coalition or a hung parliament and another election?
I think that it will be a Majority government still, just.

I think it would be unwise for the Lib-Dems to enter into a coalition, but I think that Kennedy would do his best to remain independent (which he will do if his seat share increases, as it would give him more bargining power not being in a coalition then being in one).

abour is the only party who could give us a stable government. The tories died when Margaret Thatcher left.
Booted out, I think you mean ;)
The Lib Dems have a really weak leader.
I wouldn't say weak, just not as vocal as he could be.
UKIP have good views but are just getting stupid now.
Little more then a PR vehicle for washed up celebs who want to be popualist. They have little or no principles, given that there MEPs are reportedly claiming as much as they can on their European Parliament expemse accounts (paid by, you guessed it, the tax payer). The Green Party is only interested in the environment,
Not quite true, they seem to be trying to claim the left ground abandoned by Labour on their run to the centre ground.

AlanBstard

03-09-2004, 17:05

Hope fully we'll be looking forward to a prosperous and righteaous new year with the British Conservative party. Less Tax, stronger MOD, freedom with hospitals, freedom for education, police maintaining a stern grip on justice and a robust foreign policy.
More power to the individuel and less to undeserving. Taxation is slavery, as little as possible.
So what if hospitals are crap? The're still crap now and you pay through the nose for it! Plus with the health voucher system many people will have acess to private health care, whereas before only a small number of people had acsess to it! Get the picture! Ignore the Lib dems, whatever the hell they stand for and for god's sake ignore the BNP, you know the story, vote TORY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Strensall

04-09-2004, 03:01

Whereabouts you live in Yorkshire?

York itself, in one of the outlying villiages. Our local council recently dumped Labour in favour of the Lib Dems, but if anything things have gotten worse. The condition of the roads is appalling, and the local economy is collapsing due to the draconian parking charges brought in. The BNP haven't established themselves here as York is one of the examples of how multiculturalism can work (although it is a very large white majority). Immigrants are generally well accepted, the only problems we seem to be getting in that department are gypsies.

If you venture out of York though, into places like Leeds and Bradford, politics is a lot more extremist in nature. Labour and Conservatives alike have lost votes to the Lib-Dems and Respect, who have taken the socialist and immigrant votes. The Tories are seen as useless, most of their voters just sit it out. In the EU election, the BNP got 8% in the Yorkshire region, nearly double their national average. I reckon they'll improve on it as UKIP will do less well in the General Elections, but there will be no electoral breakthrough.

Next local elections will probably see the Lib-Dems keep the seat but lose votes. They are generally a good local party but they have done no good for York and the elections will show this. Theres just no-one really better that has a chance of getting in.

Aust

04-09-2004, 09:43

Conceptualists

04-09-2004, 13:23

I stopped reading this load of **** when I saw the excapation marks.
Ever seen the New Statesman?

I think someone is just having a laugh.

If not, it is still quite funny, but scarily so.

Aust

04-09-2004, 19:16

Ever seen the New Statesman?

I think someone is just having a laugh.

If not, it is still quite funny, but scarily so.
I've never read it.

Conceptualists

04-09-2004, 19:47

I've never read it.
It was a sit-com in the late 80', early 90s [?], where Rik Mayal [sic] played a Tory MP called Alan B'stard. Who liked to claim he was the most right-wing politican in the Commons, and was a caricature of you typical Tory crook, thug etc.

Aust

04-09-2004, 21:42

It was a sit-com in the late 80', early 90s [?], where Rik Mayal [sic] played a Tory MP called Alan B'stard. Who liked to claim he was the most right-wing politican in the Commons, and was a caricature of you typical Tory crook, thug etc.
oh, I didn't know that.

AlanBstard

05-09-2004, 16:07

I stopped reading this load of **** when I saw the excapation marks.

There is not excuse for rudeness, particular from someone who will not argue back, its just rude and interlectually weak.

Fabarce

05-09-2004, 16:24

Go Lib Dems! if only everyone was British in here then wed have a sensible party controlling our economy and the spending of our taxes.

Strensall

05-09-2004, 16:44

Go Lib Dems! if only everyone was British in here then wed have a sensible party controlling our economy and the spending of our taxes.

Yeah, they're SUCH a pro-British party it is unbelievable! Thats why in the councils with a Lib Dem majority you will see no Union Flags, instead just bare flagpoles, or worse, the twelve stars of the EU. That says more about their political stance than anything in their manifesto.

They are a party that take from the indigenous population and give to the immigrants. They champion increasing welfare to asylum seekers when we should be focussing on keeping the well-respected hard-work ethic of foreigners by getting them working rather than living off handouts. They have made the word 'liberal' into an insult, when it used to be a respected political stance. Liberal should mean free to rise or fall, free to live without government interference, but now it means equality at the expense of individuality and talent. It is homogenity that they strive for, their policies of 'removing heritage offensive to those of other cultures' and driving apart the family will turn us into a homogenous, culture-less, coffee-coloured mess, with no chance of us ever pulling ourselves out of it, leaving us open to their global capitalist economy, the advancement of the EU to rival the USA and turning us into amoral consumers, with no family or national unity. This will also result in a political elite, an olgliarchy, like their inspiration in the Soviet Union.

The Lib-Dems will destroy every thing it means to be British, and I hope to God people don't vote them into power.

Connersonia

05-09-2004, 16:52

Liberal Democrats.

The UKIP is pointless, and will never get anywhere.
I would imagine Britain will have decided to switch to the Euro by 2007, although it probably won't take place until at least 2010.

Labour will win the general election, but probably by a reduced majority. I'd imagine the Liberal Democrats will win a lot more seats, perhaps even approaching the Conservatives.

LOL when the push comes to the shove, people vote Labour or Tory. People protest at local and by-elections, but at the general election, it is do or die. Labour will have a reduced majority, the Tories will make gains, and the Lib Dems will also make a few. They will never approach the Tory party. The Liberal Democrats have never been in power, and the Liberal Party was last in power in 1929 I believe (although it may be 1923).

When it gets important, people vote for those that they have always voted for. Also- i think this poll can be ignored, considering that the BNP is doing very well.... I didnt realise that the midlands were so well represented on NS. People from places like Burnley and Stoke make me ashamed to call myself British

Strensall

05-09-2004, 17:35

When it gets important, people vote for those that they have always voted for. Also- i think this poll can be ignored, considering that the BNP is doing very well.... I didnt realise that the midlands were so well represented on NS. People from places like Burnley and Stoke make me ashamed to call myself British

People like you don't deserve to live in a country like Britain. Condemning your nationality for the actions (legal and democratic, may I add) of a few you disagree with is something to be ashamed of, not voting for a party that understand and try to solve your primary concern.

Have you ever been to Burnley or Stoke? Successive Labour and Tory governments, primarily the former, used these ex-mining towns as dumping grounds for masses of asylum seekers, which only added to the problems these towns have. They increased unemployment, crime, schools buckled under the strain.. and you wonder why these people voted BNP? Racists or not, the government quickly stopped dumping asylum seekers there and crime rates are down. People only vote for the BNP when they realise that Labour and Tory alike are out of touch with the common man in this country. Like I said before, we are heading towards being ruled by a political elite, not being represented by our own like parliament is supposed to be for.

Take Andy Gilchrist for example, the leader of a so-called socialist Fire Brigades Union. He was pushing for the common fireman to get a £30,000 wage, which is fair enough in my view. But what is not fair, is his union being compulsory for fire brigades, and their contributions paying his £85,000 a year wage, with a lot of 'expenses' too, such as paying for his 'recuperation' in Portugal while the World Cup was on.

On the things that really matter, Labour, Tory, Lib Dems... it doesn't make a difference. They are all heading down the same road, and to paraphrase Tony Blair, are just in different gears.

Wibblestan

05-09-2004, 17:43

When I turn 18 I'm voting OMRLP.

Volouniac

05-09-2004, 20:59

The Lib-Dems will destroy every thing it means to be British, and I hope to God people don't vote them into power.

Well I hope they do. I very much doubt they'll destroy everything it means to be British, unless you mean our blatant xenophobia and our arrogant inability to mix in with other cultures.

Strensall

05-09-2004, 22:53

I very much doubt they'll [Lib-Dems] destroy everything it means to be British, unless you mean our blatant xenophobia and our arrogant inability to mix in with other cultures.

No I mean our community spirit... no wait, thats already gone. Our respect for authority... no, hang on thats gone too. Our courageous fighting spirit... another on the 'gone' list. Our tolerance of other cultures will be the next to go if they continue their policy of political correctness and failing to show any respect for the heritage of these islands. Its people like you that get the BNP elected.

Utopio

05-09-2004, 23:22

They are a party that take from the indigenous population and give to the immigrants.They champion increasing welfare to asylum seekers when we should be focussing on keeping the well-respected hard-work ethic of foreigners by getting them working rather than living off handouts.

Immigrants are taking what now? I haven't lost anything due to immigrants; I think someone's been listening to too much alarmist Murdoch tabloid trash. An increase in welfare for these folk is sorley needed. People fleeing oppressive regimes and disaster areras around the world shouldn't have to be locked up in Dungavel - kids seperated from parents, husbands from wives, kept caged behind barbed wire fences.

It is homogenity that they strive for, their policies of 'removing heritage offensive to those of other cultures' and driving apart the family will turn us into a homogenous, culture-less, coffee-coloured mess, with no chance of us ever pulling ourselves out of it, leaving us open to their global capitalist economy, the advancement of the EU to rival the USA and turning us into amoral consumers, with no family or national unity. This will also result in a political elite, an olgliarchy, like their inspiration in the Soviet Union.

Dear me, the Lib Dems are hardly Stalinist. Forgetting for a moment the Lib Dems won't be in power (outside of a coalition) anytime soon, I would rather be lead by them than by a bunch of behind-the-times bigots scared of racial and sexual equality.

The Lib-Dems will destroy every thing it means to be British, and I hope to God people don't vote them into power.

If by 'being British' you mean being a xenophobic, bigoted, racist nation, too far stuck in its past, then let Britain burn.

Nadkor

05-09-2004, 23:53

Strensall

06-09-2004, 01:47

Immigrants are taking what now? I haven't lost anything due to immigrants; I think someone's been listening to too much alarmist Murdoch tabloid trash. An increase in welfare for these folk is sorley needed. People fleeing oppressive regimes and disaster areras around the world shouldn't have to be locked up in Dungavel - kids seperated from parents, husbands from wives, kept caged behind barbed wire fences.

Where did I say anything about caging refugees? These refugees, suffering from opressive regimes in Africa and the Middle East. I feel for them, I really do. And to add insult to injury, those opressive regimes in Turkey, the Balkans, Austria, Italy, Germany, France and Belgium on the way here must have been Hell too. We need to take those willing to work for a living. Those not willing are a drain on the country and therefore do not deserve to be here. Instead of providing welfare, why doesn't the government provide jobs on public works. Theres plenty of work needing to be done where I live.

Also, on the 'Immigrants have cost me nothing' remark you made:

Source: Iainmurray.org:

Now a row has broken out after plans to replace Derby's historic Florentine Boar statue were abandoned for fear of offending Muslims, whose religion considers pigs to be 'unclean'.

In one sense, this is just another classic case of political correctness in action; pathetic and nasty in equal measure, but ultimately a small thing. 'Same old, same old' is a reasonable enough response.

But the thought also occurs that in the blink of an eye we may have established a precedent that will outlive our great-grandchildren, that all of a sudden we have reduced to almost nothing the chance of any work of art involving something as harmless as a pig ever again being displayed in a public place in this country. From Christmas lights which dare highlight the significance of the moment to hot cross buns in school canteens, innocent and creative symbols of our culture and nation are disappearing while landmarks and ceremonies with history and meaning are being torn down and wound up.

You personally may not have lost anything (besides your tax money), but some people have. I know these things are only little, but they mean a lot to me. A pub near me has been told it should change it's name, because it's present one (The Saracen's Head) is offensive to Muslims. I'm sorry, but if immigrants want to come here I am fine with that, but they need to accept us 'warts and all', not pick and choose with our culture and traditions.

Dear me, the Lib Dems are hardly Stalinist. Forgetting for a moment the Lib Dems won't be in power (outside of a coalition) anytime soon, I would rather be lead by them than by a bunch of behind-the-times bigots scared of racial and sexual equality.

Equality is not as good as everyone thinks. If you cannot be allowed to be better than anyone else then what is the point in trying? I didn't really want to get into discussing Equal Opportunities, but seen as you've brought in racial and sexual equality, here goes:

If a racist decides to employ someone his own race over a better qualified candidate of a different race, then he will be punished by the market place. The better quality candidate will go to a different firm and it will rise above the racist one as it has better staff. In your mad world of equality, the racist boss is forced to take on the best candidate. The two people don't get on due to the inherent racism of the boss, and neither are happy in their jobs. I can't see how that is the better way. The same goes for sexual equality.

If by 'being British' you mean being a xenophobic, bigoted, racist nation, too far stuck in its past, then let Britain burn.

Xenophobic? I am in favour of immigration, except immigration where it suits us, not where it suits the immigrant. Thats what being a nationalist is all about - putting your own country first. Its not about being racist or bigotted or fighting wars. Its about looking after your own peolpe, which is surely what the government is elected to do in the first place.

Regardless of race, sex, religion or political persuasion, we should take immigrants into the country as long as the fit a criteria which will 'raise the average' in the country. This would require them to be well-educated or trained, speak (one of) the language(s) and be free from illness and disease. With a policy such as this in place immigrants truely would be a benefit to this country, and with that being common knowledge you would see the xenophobia quickly die, as well as the alarmist Murdoch headlines.

Conceptualists

06-09-2004, 17:53

. Our respect for authority... no, hang on thats gone too.
Well I won't miss that.

Strensall

06-09-2004, 17:58

Our respect for authority... no, hang on thats gone too.

Well I won't miss that

By respect, I don't mean unquestioning loyalty, I just mean respect. You can disagree without being disrespectful. That is what we are missing.

North Caledonian

06-09-2004, 18:00

Scottish National Party.

I vote becuase i want Scotland to be free. Odds on they will win the next Scottish election

Conceptualists

06-09-2004, 18:02

By respect, I don't mean unquestioning loyalty, I just mean respect. You can disagree without being disrespectful. That is what we are missing.
But personally, I think reject (nearly) all authority. Which is why I said I wouldn't miss it let alone respect it.

Conceptualists

06-09-2004, 18:02

Scottish National Party.

I vote becuase i want Scotland to be free. Odds on they will win the next Scottish election
I would say that it is probable they could win. But I would say that an independent Scotland is improbable any time soon

North Caledonian

06-09-2004, 18:05

Peasant peons

06-09-2004, 18:08

Scottish National Party.

I vote becuase i want Scotland to be free. Odds on they will win the next Scottish election

The SNP does not want freedom for scotland in the past there actions have contrabuted against the chance of it happening. That and they are basically like the tories too.

SSP much better choice for a free and independant scotland.

Glasgae

06-09-2004, 18:08

Scottish National Party.

I vote becuase i want Scotland to be free. Odds on they will win the next Scottish election

Quite frankly, they're a bunch of racist tossers :headbang: .

'Mon SSP!

Conceptualists

06-09-2004, 18:09

I actually thought SNP would not have a chance of winning it but with alex salmond back they have a chance. If they win there would be a referendum. The majority would be a yes for independence but i don't think it would be big enough
I doubt it. I do not think that enough Scots are for full independance from the UK. And it would be a huge gamble, if the referendum says 'No' it would seriously damage the parliaments credibility. Also due the state of current affairs, it would most likely be a useless and costly venture.

However, I would say that Scotland deserves an independent voice is the European parliament.

Ecopoeia

06-09-2004, 18:17

26 votes for the BNP. My God. I'm so very proud to be British...

Anyway, I'll vote for the Greens. I vote according to ideology because I want to keep the minority voice heard. Bugger this voting for the lesser of two evils malarkey.

North Caledonian

06-09-2004, 18:38

The SSP only say they want independence to get more people to vote for them. They would move the parliment to glasgow. God help Scotland if that happend

Kamsaki

06-09-2004, 18:38

well i can tell you now, (going back to the stats for parties in the Commons), out of the Northern Irish parties the Democratic Unionists and Sinn Fein will both be up by a few seats each, and the Ulster Unionists and the Social Democratic and Labour Party will both be down by a few seats each. personally i vote Democratic Unionist.

Absolutely right on your predictions, I reckon, but a fat lot of good it'll do without an executive of our own, and as long as people keep voting Sinn Fein and DUP, that's not going to happen.

I'm probably a UUP/Alliance person. Northern Ireland needs serious government for once so we can get things sorted out, and all of this tribal bickering is only making things worse.

Strensall

06-09-2004, 19:43

But personally, I think reject (nearly) all authority. Which is why I said I wouldn't miss it let alone respect it.

Well thats fair enough. I thought you'd misunderstood what I meant about respect and loyalty, but you obviously did understand me. He he.. I respect your opinion, however I do disagree with it.

Quite frankly, they're a bunch of racist tossers

The SNP? You've got to be kidding right? They see anyone living in Scotland, whether the descendants of a millenia of the clans or an Iranian refugee as being a Scot. They are the exact opposite of racists, which is why they don't do so well as they could in Scotland with a more nationalist manifesto. I'm not saying Scots are racist, but they have an intense sense of kinship which they do not share with the 'New Scots'. The SNP are only nationalists in the sense they want to be an independant nation, but they are anything but nationalists in the more common use of the word. People just think BNP = Racism therefore SNP = racism, when in actual fact neither parties (or at least the leadership) truely are although they policies on such things as race and immigration differ widely.

I vote according to ideology because I want to keep the minority voice heard. Bugger this voting for the lesser of two evils malarkey.

If only everyone did. People are more bothered about certain parties not getting in so they vote for the most popular opposition rather than parties they do support. But when you look at the turnout, its no wonder. One or two million votes can swing an election in a country of 60 million just because the turnout is so low.

Who are the SSP?

Conceptualists

06-09-2004, 21:11

Well thats fair enough. I thought you'd misunderstood what I meant about respect and loyalty, but you obviously did understand me. He he.. I respect your opinion, however I do disagree with it.
;)

Who are the SSP?
Scotish Socialist Party iirc

Bodies Without Organs

06-09-2004, 21:16

Northern Ireland needs serious government for once so we can get things sorted out, and all of this tribal bickering is only making things worse.

Worse than what exactly? It's not like we have a golden age of Northern Ireland to hark back to.

Utopio

06-09-2004, 21:25

Where did I say anything about caging refugees?.....We need to take those willing to work for a living. Those not willing are a drain on the country and therefore do not deserve to be here. Instead of providing welfare, why doesn't the government provide jobs on public works. Theres plenty of work needing to be done where I live.

I never claimed you personally wanted immigrants caged, but that is what's happening right now in Dungavel Detention Centre. Check out this (http://www.closedungavelnow.com/) website for more info.

Where are all these immigrants scamming money off the taxpayer? All I've seen are people who are desperate to live in a stable home, working for their living. Got any figures, from a reputable source?

A pub near me has been told it should change it's name, because it's present one (The Saracen's Head) is offensive to Muslims. I'm sorry, but if immigrants want to come here I am fine with that, but they need to accept us 'warts and all', not pick and choose with our culture and traditions.

So you wouldn't be (mildly) offended if you went to a pub called 'The Englishmens Head'? The pub is named after the Crusades, not exactly a friendly subject for people from the Midle East, especially in today's political climate. I'm not a huge fan of uber-PCness either, but surley you can see how this would offend.

If a racist decides to employ someone his own race over a better qualified candidate of a different race, then he will be punished by the market place. The better quality candidate will go to a different firm and it will rise above the racist one as it has better staff. In your mad world of equality, the racist boss is forced to take on the best candidate. The two people don't get on due to the inherent racism of the boss, and neither are happy in their jobs. I can't see how that is the better way. The same goes for sexual equality.

Woah there Tiger, I'm not advocating affirmative action--in fact I disagree with it completely--but I don't particularly like the idea of people having to have a certain level of intelligence/income\social status to get into Britain. After WW2, Britain thrived on thousands of immigrant workers boosting the economy. Britain, especially Scotland, has an ageing population. We desperatly need immigrants to make sure we don't run out of young people to work.

Who are the SSP?

The Scottish Socialist Party, led by Tomy 'Help my skins orange' Sheridan.

Up the Greens!!

Gorgonzolla

06-09-2004, 21:44

I'd love to have a pint in the Englishman's Head. I think its a great name and I am english. Its kind of catchy don't you think?

Peasant peons

06-09-2004, 21:59

The Scottish Socialist Party, led by Tomy 'Help my skins orange' Sheridan.

Up the Greens!!

Tommy, seems like a genuinly nice guy. Stands up for what he believes in, he gives away half his wage prefering rather to live on what an average person does. Judged by his actions, seems to be all good. Many people talk things, but not all support and back it up.

Strensall

07-09-2004, 00:34

I never claimed you personally wanted immigrants caged, but that is what's happening right now in Dungavel Detention Centre.

It shouldn't be happening then, why these people need to be 'checked out' to see whether they pose a threat or whether they really were opressed or if they are making it up, in my mind at least, is irrelevant. If the advantages of them being here to the indigenous population outway the disadvantages they should be free to remain. Those not should be sent home.

People are were opressed in this country for years, under an autocratic King. We fought a civil war and got it sorted out. Having the opressed people of the world pack up and move somewhere safer is not a permanent solution to the problem of people getting opressed.

Where are all these immigrants scamming money off the taxpayer? All I've seen are people who are desperate to live in a stable home, working for their living. Got any figures, from a reputable source?

I know plenty of immigrants who have successfully moved here and work for a living. The pizza place round the corner from me is run by an Iraqi who came here about 15 years ago. He runs a good, clean business and contributes to the country. I've also seen immigrants in a council estate near me, living without a job, in a council home contributing nothing. You can't pidgeon-hole immigrants into either 'good' or 'bad', as like everyone else they consist of both. Rather, we should take the 'good' and get rid of the 'bad'.

So you wouldn't be (mildly) offended if you went to a pub called 'The Englishmens Head'? The pub is named after the Crusades, not exactly a friendly subject for people from the Midle East, especially in today's political climate. I'm not a huge fan of uber-PCness either, but surley you can see how this would offend.

If I moved to the Middle East and there was a cafe (Muslims don't drink alcohol) called 'The Crusader's Head', or the 'Englishmen's Head', then thats fine. If I was that offended by it, I'd not live there. I'd say 'Well, that is their history, and they should be proud of it.' Immigrants coming here and asking us to change our ways is just not on.

Woah there Tiger, I'm not advocating affirmative action--in fact I disagree with it completely--but I don't particularly like the idea of people having to have a certain level of intelligence/income\social status to get into Britain. After WW2, Britain thrived on thousands of immigrant workers boosting the economy. Britain, especially Scotland, has an ageing population. We desperatly need immigrants to make sure we don't run out of young people to work.

Good, affirmative action is discriminatory and condescending to all the clever people of minority populations.

After WW2, we had de-mobbed nearly a million personnel, immigrants were brought in to work for a cheaper wage by an elitist government which needed a certain level of unemployment to stop power devolving to the unions. If there was too much demand for labour, the power goes to the suppliers of it - the working class. We as a country didn't need the immigrants then, it was the upper class that needed them to maintain the social order.

Supposedly a rich country, prior to WW2 one working man could feed, cloth and house his wife and four children. Now it requires both parents to work and have less children... do you see something wrong here? Its because we are turning into a consumerist society that cares more for itself than the continuation of our race. Since when does owning stuff equal a good life?

If the government paid a parent (not necessarily the mother) to stay at home and look after the children we would see the ageing population problem disappear after a few decades. This money could come from the 'tax credit system', which is just about 'Stalinist' efficiency - both parents working with child-carers bringing up the children, which breaks up the family and lowers the birth rate, two things essential to destroy national unity and further the cause of the New World Order. And I don't mean that 'Jewish' conspiracy the Nazis go on about, I mean the very real threat to our democracy - world government.

Eldarana

07-09-2004, 01:30

If i was British i would want Blair to stay in power.

Freddie Glucksborg

07-09-2004, 01:51

All hail to the King of Denmark, Freddie Glucksborg!

Britain, as well as all European monarchies, should be an Absolute Monarchy! None of this democracy stuff, monarchs are the divine -- now and forever.

Thank you.

Freddie, King of Denmark :fluffle:

Strensall

07-09-2004, 02:50

If i was British i would want Blair to stay in power.

Where are you from? I'm guessing the US of A.

The Holy Word

07-09-2004, 10:44

Tommy, seems like a genuinly nice guy. Stands up for what he believes in, he gives away half his wage prefering rather to live on what an average person does. Judged by his actions, seems to be all good. Many people talk things, but not all support and back it up.Threatned to grass people up after the Poll Tax Riot.

Strensall

08-09-2004, 22:34

Bump... :D

Nadkor

09-09-2004, 00:22

Worse than what exactly? It's not like we have a golden age of Northern Ireland to hark back to.
maybe the golden age was when there were no people here...?

L-rouge

09-09-2004, 20:35

Proletariat-Francais

09-09-2004, 20:50

Vote Labour is the easy answer.
When the choices in this country are of either the Liberal Democrats (lets be honest here, if everyone who said they were gonna vote for them did, then the Liberal Party wouldn't have been out of office for almost 100yrs), or the Tories, then Labour is the only choice. (UKIP, BNP etc are just a load of nutters we could do without in British Politics, they're already covered in another Party anyway. They're called the Conservative Party)
As for whether Blair should stay or not, yeah why not. Apart from the whole Iraq situation, which has been a total balls up, he (and his Government) haven't done that bad a job since '97, especially considering the state the country was in beforehand.

Sorry, but this 'Labour' government has just continued Tory policies. Coperate control of the governemt has worsened, and PFT and the like are designed to help them out. More of the public services have been privatized. Then we have the police state extending itself, through uber right winger Blunkett (asylum seekers should be eductaed seperatly!! foreigners are evil!!where are your papers citizen!!). Blair has trampled over Labour's history and supported the rich. Then again I won't vote Tories either. The answer? Vote socialist! Failing that (they won't get enough mass support...stupid habitual "My family has voted Conservative since 1900!" voters. Maybe LibDems should have a stab...can't do much worse than the Tories/Labour (they are on in the same tbh).

Ferkus

10-09-2004, 00:24

The current trend is towards centrist policies, the Conservatives managed it last time round and New Labour have got it this time. Middle Britain is deciding who rules the country and at this moment there is little anyone else can do about it.

Strensall

12-09-2004, 02:41

It seems like Labour and Tory voters are getting more and more apathetic because the parties leaderships are not following the ideologies the parties started up to follow. The public-school educated, husband of millionairess barrister can hardly be called Socialist? And the Tories adopting 'gay-friendly' and 'asylum-friendly' policies do nothing to get votes from the gay and asylum seeker communities because they've generally picked far more liberal (and I use the term very loosely) parties, merely cause them to lose their hardline supporters. I mean, just look at this poll. It seems the only ones willing to go out and vote are the ones who are lying at complete opposites of the political spectrum. We have a large lead by the Lib Dems and quite a way behind the BNP, in second. Now these two are poles apart when you are considering Labour and Conservatives.

I still firmly believe that British Politics is polarising, but I have yet to decide whether its for the good or not.

Hogsweat

18-09-2004, 21:44

Next election Lib Dems are going to do VERY well.

Strensall

19-09-2004, 00:56

Next election Lib Dems are going to do VERY well.

If the poll's anything to go by, it'll be Prime Minister Kennedy with Nick Griffin as Leader of the Opposition. But I don't think for a minute it'll happen.

All the 'greys' who don't come on Internet forums like these will go out and vote Labour and Tory en masse, thereby bringing another 4 years of misrule to the United Kingdom.

Joe Stalin

19-09-2004, 13:23

Perhaps you should have included an option which offered no intention to vote. For this is as valid a political statement as any other. Myself, I will not be voting. I have no respect for any of the established British political parties.

Charlie Chalk

19-09-2004, 14:16

I cant believe that the BNP have got so many votes. They are just a bunch of racist thugs

Aust

19-09-2004, 16:15

Next election Lib Dems are going to do VERY well.
I hope so.

Energy Elementals

19-09-2004, 18:27

Aust

20-09-2004, 15:09

What the UK really needs is to out of the EU and become a non democratic nation. With a few changes, the channel tunnel will have its "terrorists and refugees please come and f*** our country" sign removed.

What can lib dem do for this country?

:gundge: :sniper:
I don't see why this i needed, England needs to keep it's democracy, our society is full of refugees, and of immigrants. I'm related to italians and french, I guess most English people are in some way related to people.

Independent Homesteads

20-09-2004, 15:24

I really hope the 15% who've put BNP are kidding. I'm voting libdem if tony's still in charge of labour

Independent Homesteads

20-09-2004, 15:27

What the UK really needs is to out of the EU and become a non democratic nation. With a few changes, the channel tunnel will have its "terrorists and refugees please come and f*** our country" sign removed.

I hope you aren't old enough to vote. Can you name the last terrorist outrage committed on our soil? Did you know that it is only in the last 5 years that more people have immigrated into britain than emigrated from it? Do you have any idea what contribution immigration makes to our economy? Are you personally planning to become a taxi driver? or open a shop 18 hours a day 7 days a week? Or spend 8 years studying to become a doctor?

Independent Homesteads

20-09-2004, 15:31

I've also seen immigrants in a council estate near me, living without a job, in a council home contributing nothing. You can't pidgeon-hole immigrants into either 'good' or 'bad', as like everyone else they consist of both. Rather, we should take the 'good' and get rid of the 'bad'.
...
And I don't mean that 'Jewish' conspiracy the Nazis go on about, I mean the very real threat to our democracy - world government.

Immigrants aren't allowed to work until their immigration status is sorted. For a lot of them this takes up to 3 or 4 years. It is ILLEGAL for them to work.

Also, world government is great for democracy. Have you personally ever complained that national government is spoiling your local government democracy?

Independent Homesteads

20-09-2004, 15:33

Worse than what exactly? It's not like we have a golden age of Northern Ireland to hark back to.

What? it wasn't all peaches and cream when good king billy ruled and the left footers lived in bogs?

Conceptualists

20-09-2004, 15:55

I hope you aren't old enough to vote. Can you name the last terrorist outrage committed on our soil? Did
The one in Manchester a while back?

Of course I'd remember that.

But I have heard several people say it was one of the best things to happen to Manchester (0 deaths iirc).

What the UK really needs is to out of the EU and become a non democratic nation. With a few changes, the channel tunnel will have its "terrorists and refugees please come and f*** our country" sign removed.

That is only there to trick them onto the train tracks ;)

Other then that, piss off troll.

Independent Homesteads

20-09-2004, 16:14

The one in Manchester a while back?

Of course I'd remember that.

But I have heard several people say it was one of the best things to happen to Manchester (0 deaths iirc).

My point was that they were Irish, and unlikely to have used the tunnel to get in, and unlikely to excite the ire of the anti-muslim anti-immigrant wankers like whoever posted the thing i quoted originally.

Other then that, piss off troll.

a troll is what please?

Conceptualists

20-09-2004, 16:26

My point was that they were Irish, and unlikely to have used the tunnel to get in, and unlikely to excite the ire of the anti-muslim anti-immigrant wankers like whoever posted the thing i quoted originally.
Sorry. *is embarressed*

a troll is what please?
Someone who will post something provocative just to annoy people.

imported_Jako

20-09-2004, 18:32

All the 'greys' who don't come on Internet forums like these will go out and vote Labour and Tory en masse, thereby bringing another 4 years of misrule to the United Kingdom.

Um, record levels of investment in our public services, virtually full employment reached, 10s of thousands more policemen, doctors, nurses, teachers, introduction of the minimum wage (about to be increased), lowest interest rates for decades, legislation to promote racial/sex equality and to end discrimination, free nursery places for all toddlers, child poverty being eradicated, firm action taken to defend human rights in Kosovo, Sierra Leone, and East Timor, support for the building of new windfarms and other sources of renewable energy to stop the dependence of fossil fuels, banning of fox hunting (soon)...

Where's the misrule? Please is this all about Iraq? And I wonder if all you Lib Dem supporters can actually tell me what your party stands for?

I'm not a 'grey'. I'm an 18 year old democratic socialist.And I think there's a lot of ignorance out there about this government, mostly caused by a hostile right-wing media, which only causes apathy amongst the populace.

Independent Homesteads

21-09-2004, 13:47

Markodonia

21-09-2004, 14:00

Ariddia

21-09-2004, 14:20

I have British citizenship by descent, and I live in France, so I don't vote in British elections, but quite frankly I'm not sure whom I'd vote for...

Those of you who are Brits, genuinely to the left and planning to vote... What options do you feel you actually have?

Independent Homesteads

21-09-2004, 14:25

Ariddia

21-09-2004, 14:30

libdems is all there is. labour with gordon, maybe.

Thanks. What about smaller left-wing parties?

Independent Homesteads

21-09-2004, 14:33

Thanks. What about smaller left-wing parties?

there are some, socialist worker party springs to mind. no point voting for any of them in england at least, as none of them will ever get a seat.

imported_Jako

21-09-2004, 15:23

libdems is all there is. labour with gordon, maybe.

Excuse me? Is anybody listening here? As I posted earlier, can any of you Lib Dem supporters actually tell me what your party stands for?

You think it is a 'Left wing' Party? Can you please explain why then they would want to get rid of Labour's 'New Deal' - which has found employment for thousands of young people in the poorest areas of the UK? And can you also explain why they oppossed the raising of the minimum wage (introduced by Labour) to £4.85? And just look at how many Lib Dem MPs voted to safeguard the rights of the middle/upper classes to carry out animal cruelty in the name of 'foxhunting'? That's very Left wing isn't it.

Let me guess the Lib Dems are considered 'Leftie' because they were against the war in Iraq.

And the SWP are a bunch of dogmatic Trotskyists who try to infiltrate and takeover as many organisations as they can (i.e CND, Anti Nazi League, etc). Grown ups with any grasp of politics will surely reject the tired old rhetoric of "one solution; revolution". When has that ever kept a hospital open? Or opened up a new day care centre? Or done anything to genuinely help the working classes of this country?

Independent Homesteads

21-09-2004, 15:37

Excuse me? Is anybody listening here? As I posted earlier, can any of you Lib Dem supporters actually tell me what your party stands for?

You think it is a 'Left wing' Party? Can you please explain why then they would want to get rid of Labour's 'New Deal' - which has found employment for thousands of young people in the poorest areas of the UK? And can you also explain why they oppossed the raising of the minimum wage (introduced by Labour) to £4.85? And just look at how many Lib Dem MPs voted to safeguard the rights of the middle/upper classes to carry out animal cruelty in the name of 'foxhunting'? That's very Left wing isn't it.

Let me guess the Lib Dems are considered 'Leftie' because they were against the war in Iraq.

the libdems are leftish because they have some desire for social justice, and are willing to increase taxes for the very wealthy to remove university tuition fees and a few other things. not supporting the foxhunt ban was liberal and democratic of them, after all they are liberal democrats. i've no idea how useful the new deal is but i suspect that you haven't either.

I dont understand why it is socialist to ban fox hunting.

Kazcaper

21-09-2004, 15:51

I live in Northern Ireland, so unfortunately do not really have the chance to vote for any of the 'real' UK parties. If I weren't so determined not to waste my vote, I don't think I would bother voting here as the vast majority of the parties are based on cretinous sectarian factions. However, since I think not voting is tantamount to agreeing to losing the power of the people, I would either go with the Ulster Unionists or the SDLP. The former are, clearly, broadly Unionist and the latter broadly Irish Nationalist. The other two, the Democratic Unionists and Sinn Fein, are so diehard in their opinions and, in political terms, so sectarian, that I have grown to hate them both. There are other smaller parties, but they have no influence really, and while the Tories did set up here, realistically, they're not going to get any of the 18 seats available for NI at Westminster.

I really have very little opinion on what should be done with Northern Ireland - currently, my one sole objection to joining the Republic is because I don't want to have so much dictation from faceless bureaucrats in Brussels. Other than that, though, I couldn't care less, so right now it's a toss up between the UUP and the SDLP, as stated above. Both are to some extent pro-Europe, which I'm not, but I don't think there's ever going to be any party or movement that sticks exactly to my warped political tastes :D

Anyway, NI is at present part of the UK, whether it is liked or not. I have always kept up with GB politics since I started studying it in school years ago (I still study it as part of a university course). To that end, I think if I lived in GB I'd probably go with UKIP, although I don't necessarily agree that we should leave the EU *entirely*. My reasons for that are that (a) Tony is an arrogant twat, too busy fussing over George Dubya Bu-shit to worry about his country, (b) the Lib Dems are so pro-Euro and (c) while the Tories have improved under Howard, I think, they still have no chance of getting back into government. Clearly, UKIP don't either but their performance in the recent European elections was to some extent a dent to Tony and I would hope that losing Labour seats to them would make him take a bit of notice.

Statistically speaking, looking at recent general elections, there is a slow but steady increase in the Lib Dem's share of the vote, and while I don't think they'll get into power any time in the near future, if that trend continues, I think they have a good chance of doing so in years to come. One thing I'll say very much in favour of them is at least they're honest re: tax (or so it seems, anyway). They freely admit that, if in power, they would put taxes up. President Blair said in both his 1997 and 2001 manifestos that he wouldn't do so. He also said he wouldn't introduce all the charges for students. And then what did he proceed to do?! :sniper:

Eynonistan

21-09-2004, 15:54

Not supporting the foxhunt ban was liberal and democratic of them, after all they are liberal democrats.

I dont understand why it is socialist to ban fox hunting.

Come to think of it why is that liberal or democratic to oppose it? A clear majority of the population have supported a ban for years?

EDIT : Come to look it up on the web, it was a free vote for Lib Dems. 26 voted for a hunting ban and 18 voted against. :?

imported_Jako

21-09-2004, 21:44

Independent Homesteads - you're the guy who just told me that Simon Leveller went to public school!

Anyway, back to the Lib Dems. Is the 1p rise in income tax really going to pay for all the generous spending plans the Lib Dems have apparently pledged? Unlikely. That's why they'll be carrying out cuts by doing things like getting rid of the New Deal (more than 700,000 young people have used this by the way) to pay for populist gestures like raising the basic state pension.

Look at the record of Lib Dem councils across the country. Nationally they may be saying one thing, but where they're actually in power they're still overseeing cuts in local public services. Their committment to "social justice" is just the usual liberal wishy-washy thinking. They like to appear Leftist, to steal disaffected Labour (socialist) voters, but if you look closely at policy they're designed mainly to attract more right-wing voters (most of the Lib Dem targets seats are Tory held). Do some research on the 'Orange Booklet' - its a policy paper by leading Lib Dem thinkers. Same old reliance on the free market....its even got some old Conservative proposals like health vouchers instead of the NHS!

imported_Jako

21-09-2004, 21:46

imported_Jako

22-09-2004, 09:50

AND (one more thing!) whilst it is not necessarily socialist to ban foxhunting, there is definitely class issues involved. Why were working class pursuits that involved animal cruelty such as dog fighting banned long ago but the upper class one - foxhunting - has been left alone?

Kazcaper

22-09-2004, 11:20

And its easy to say "Lets get rid of tuition fees" - as both the Tories and Lid Dems are doing - but at the same time not be committed to getting 50% of young people into Higher Education or improving working class attendance at university (both of which are Labour party policy)

I think the 50% thing is completely ludicrous. It devalues degrees; so many bloody people have them already, so how are graduates meant to get jobs? My boyfriend has 4 degrees, including a PhD, and it took him years to get a job - that would not have happened twenty years ago. Universities are meant to educate the most intelligent in society, not everyone in it. I don't care whether you're working class or the Prince of bloody Wales. Merit should be all that counts - not class, not race, not whatever - just merit. If you're really smart and a hard worker, go and get a degree. If you're not, go and either get (a) vocational training (skills which are becoming devalued also in this university-centric age) or (b) a job, in something that you are suited to. This is one issue that really annoys me, and even if I did like Labour in every other way, I wouldn't vote for them on this basis alone. Grrrrr!

Eynonistan

22-09-2004, 11:45

I think the 50% thing is completely ludicrous. It devalues degrees; so many bloody people have them already, so how are graduates meant to get jobs?

It does nothing of the sort. There is a wide and appreciable difference between a degree from an institution such as Cambridge and a degree from Luton. Employers and students are quite aware of this fact.

EDIT : Apologies to anyone studying at Luton who wasn't aware that they were getting a rubbish degree.

Independent Homesteads

22-09-2004, 12:38

I think the 50% thing is completely ludicrous. It devalues degrees

Yes, it is ludicrous, because it assumes that 50% of the population can get something out of yet another 3 to 5 years at school. Without devaluing people in any way, because a less intelligent and a more intelligent person are equally valuable as human beings yada yada yada, a lot less than 50% of people have the intelligence and academic ability to get anything useful out of university.

For instance, anyone who can't spell, can't write intelligible and coherent arguments and can't read very long books with no pictures is unlikely to get anything out of a degree that will be useful to society. I have a degree and a reasonable job and my plumber makes more money than me and is probably making a more positive impact on society. Why don't more people become plumbers, plasterers etc and stop wasting their time at Luton Poly?

EDIT: perhaps Kazcaper your boyfriend with 4 degrees couldn't get a job because he's an unemployable spod who copes well with books and libraries but not so well with customers and managers? I don't know him so it's just a thought.

Independent Homesteads

22-09-2004, 12:46

Independent Homesteads - you're the guy who just told me that Simon Leveller went to public school!
not just a pretty face etc

Anyway, back to the Lib Dems. Is the 1p rise in income tax really going to pay for all the generous spending plans the Lib Dems have apparently pledged? Unlikely. That's why they'll be carrying out cuts by doing things like getting rid of the New Deal (more than 700,000 young people have used this by the way) to pay for populist gestures like raising the basic state pension.

And they'll be having a 50% rate of income tax over 100 grand. That'll be "redistribution". Pension reform is populist because there are more pensioners than young people. by 2014 , I heard, there'll be more over 65s than under 16s. What did the 700,000 young people get out of the new deal that makes it different to the tory Extra Tenner and the other one before it, YOpS?

Look at the record of Lib Dem councils across the country. Nationally they may be saying one thing, but where they're actually in power they're still overseeing cuts in local public services. Their committment to "social justice" is just the usual liberal wishy-washy thinking. They like to appear Leftist, to steal disaffected Labour (socialist) voters, but if you look closely at policy they're designed mainly to attract more right-wing voters (most of the Lib Dem targets seats are Tory held). Do some research on the 'Orange Booklet' - its a policy paper by leading Lib Dem thinkers. Same old reliance on the free market....its even got some old Conservative proposals like health vouchers instead of the NHS!

every party is overseeing cuts in public services, and charlie was on the radio yesterday disavowing the orange booklet, explaining quite rightly that thinking is encouraged among liberals but an independent thought isn't the same as a party policy.

imported_Jako

22-09-2004, 15:47

every party is overseeing cuts in public services, and charlie was on the radio yesterday disavowing the orange booklet, explaining quite rightly that thinking is encouraged among liberals but an independent thought isn't the same as a party policy.

Well, the government is investing record amounts in the public services and soon we'll be reaching the same levels of investment as our social democratic comrades in Europe.

Fair point about the Orange Book not necessarily being Lid Dem Party policy, but let's have a look at the authors shall we? Vincent Cable, the Lib's shadow chancellor, his Chief Secretary David Laws, and Lid Dem Home Affairs spokesman Mark Oaten. These are big players in the Party - I mean as their "chancellor-in-waiting" you'd think Mr.Cable would have a pretty big say in dictating Lid Dem economic policy. And his idea of competitive healthcare insurance schemes sounds frighteningly close to the American model....not very egalitarian and Left-wing at all in other words.

As for the university thing, the idea is that it shouldn't only be a small priveleged elite getting the chance of further academic study. Back in the 60s only 6% went to Uni - do you think that's a fair propotion of the population having any further potential? Today it's above 40%. And Higher Education doesn't only mean going to Uni to study English Lit or whatever, it also means vocational training. Encouraging more education is surely just redristibuting opportunity, and improving society (hopefully - ok I know I'm treading on thin ground now, because not all Degrees improve society), as well as keeping youngsters out of the competitive job market for longer....

I've got a feeling we probably agree on more things than we disagree on, so why don't we just agree that the BNP are a bunch of fascist tw*ts?

Revolutionairy Ideals

22-09-2004, 15:53

The BNP are never going to gain national power.

I have no idea who I will vote for at the next elections, in the old days Labour would have been my party of choice but not now. None of the majour political parties are worth giving my vote to as far as I can see.

Kazcaper

23-09-2004, 20:24

perhaps Kazcaper your boyfriend with 4 degrees couldn't get a job because he's an unemployable spod who copes well with books and libraries but not so well with customers and managers?

Well, he's now a Principal Officer in the Department for Employment and Learning. He got a very good job in DEL after people finally realised that his degrees weren't just roll-outs like so many ;) In all seriousness, he undertook research very pertinent to Northern Ireland, and should be in an area where he can use his expertise to advise on policy in the country. That's what he's now doing, but he was lucky (in the end!). Unfortunately, many aren't.

PS - Eynonistan, love, there are dozens - probably hundreds - of Oxbridge graduates out there who can't get jobs, primarily because every other Tom, Dick and Harry has a degree. But perhaps they're just unemployable spods who cope well with books and libraries but not so well with customers and managers! :D

Strensall

24-09-2004, 12:39

Immigrants aren't allowed to work until their immigration status is sorted. For a lot of them this takes up to 3 or 4 years. It is ILLEGAL for them to work.

Also, world government is great for democracy. Have you personally ever complained that national government is spoiling your local government democracy?

It shouldn't be illegal to them to work, anyone can understand that is a bad idea. They are going to get used to living on handouts, which uses up much-needed tax money, and it gives the right wing media something to moan about.

As for democracy, it works best when less people are involved. In my opinion, the closer the democracy is to the people the more effective it is. Centralisation is a bad thing for anything other than defense and the economy, as different people prefer to live under different systems. Why should 49% live under a system they don't agree with just because 51% do want to?

Yes, it is ludicrous, because it assumes that 50% of the population can get something out of yet another 3 to 5 years at school. Without devaluing people in any way, because a less intelligent and a more intelligent person are equally valuable as human beings yada yada yada, a lot less than 50% of people have the intelligence and academic ability to get anything useful out of university.

For instance, anyone who can't spell, can't write intelligible and coherent arguments and can't read very long books with no pictures is unlikely to get anything out of a degree that will be useful to society. I have a degree and a reasonable job and my plumber makes more money than me and is probably making a more positive impact on society. Why don't more people become plumbers, plasterers etc and stop wasting their time at Luton Poly?

I don't think 50% of the population can realisticly gain enough to warrant the cost of higher education. 20% is a more realistic figure in my mind. I believe tuition fees are wrong, the tax-payer should foot the bill for the most academically gifted in the country to go to uni, but it is equally wrong to expect the tax-payer to foot the bill for "2 D's and an E" Average Joe to go to Luton Poly to read Media Studies.

So yeah, kudos to you, a well though through argument. :D

Independent Homesteads

24-09-2004, 13:27

...you'd think Mr.Cable would have a pretty big say in dictating Lid Dem economic policy. And his idea of competitive healthcare insurance schemes sounds frighteningly close to the American model....not very egalitarian and Left-wing at all in other words.

I'll have to look into this...

As for the university thing, the idea is that it shouldn't only be a small priveleged elite getting the chance of further academic study. Back in the 60s only 6% went to Uni - do you think that's a fair propotion of the population having any further potential? Today it's above 40%. And Higher Education doesn't only mean going to Uni to study English Lit or whatever, it also means vocational training. Encouraging more education is surely just redristibuting opportunity, and improving society (hopefully - ok I know I'm treading on thin ground now, because not all Degrees improve society), as well as keeping youngsters out of the competitive job market for longer....

Keeping youngsters out of the job market is, i'm sure, what a lot of it is about. That aside, I think that widening access to HE through the 60s and 70s was a good idea, I'm in the first generation of my family to go to university and I'm grateful for the opportunity.

My problem is with having a target at all, and with the size of that target. Opportunity for those who want it and can use it is a good thing. Opportunity for those who want it and can use it plus a load more to make us up to quota is waste of everyone's time and money.

While I don't necessarily go along with this sentiment of strensall's
, the tax-payer should foot the bill for the most academically gifted in the country to go to uni, but it is equally wrong to expect the tax-payer to foot the bill for "2 D's and an E" Average Joe to go to Luton Poly to read Media Studies. the actuality of it is fairly reasonable. What is society getting out of it?

Not all education has to be economically useful or even specifically useful to some social cause to be socially useful - putting an individual somewhere for 3 years where (s)he has an opportunity to meet people from all walks of life and chat with them on the whole can make them a more reflective individual and imho more reflective individuals makes a better society.

Still, the benefit is slight and these people could probably do much better things than HE with their time.

On the subject of tuition fees etc, I'm somewhat conflicted. I got my degree after the start of loans but before the start of tuition fees. They were being debated, and my student union was covered in posters saying "Is your degree worth 20 grand to you?" The implication was that you may have to pay 20 grand for it if full tuition fees were applied. I thought, if you aren't willing to pay what it costs because it isn't worth it to you, why is it worth it to society?

I've got a feeling we probably agree on more things than we disagree on, so why don't we just agree that the BNP are a bunch of fascist tw*ts?

I can agree with that, but not being a fascist twat is just the beginning...

Independent Homesteads

24-09-2004, 13:36

As for democracy, it works best when less people are involved. In my opinion, the closer the democracy is to the people the more effective it is. Centralisation is a bad thing for anything other than defense and the economy, as different people prefer to live under different systems. Why should 49% live under a system they don't agree with just because 51% do want to?

I'm not convinced - I have a theory that government works best when lots of people are involved, in that if there ever was a federal government of europe, national governments would become decreasingly relevant, and the federal government would be governing such a huge area that it would be unable to govern my street or my town particularly hard.

It would probably also be voted in by some kind of proportional representation, which would mean nobody got the government they wanted, but everybody got the representation they voted for. And the government would be so splintered it couldn't really get anything done, again leaving us free to ignore them.

imported_Jako

24-09-2004, 13:50

I don't think 50% of the population can realisticly gain enough to warrant the cost of higher education. 20% is a more realistic figure in my mind. I believe tuition fees are wrong, the tax-payer should foot the bill for the most academically gifted in the country to go to uni, but it is equally wrong to expect the tax-payer to foot the bill for "2 D's and an E" Average Joe to go to Luton Poly to read Media Studies.

20%? Well the figure at the moment is 40% so that's a lot of young people who you think obviously aren't clever enough to go into Higher Education...

Why should the tax payed by the dustbin man pay for the university education of the lawyer, who's soon going to be rolling in ca$h (probably)? It is a complicated issue.

Lemski

24-09-2004, 13:58

Guatamalestan

24-09-2004, 14:23

When Thatcher came to power she said she wanted to establish a two party centre right wing democracy like that of the USA.Looks like Blair took up where sher left off.Labour seems slightly less evil then the coservatives,I mean would you trust Michael Howard look at his record when he was in government.Its appaling he's more right wing then Bush.Then we have his right hand man David Davis ex SAS and blatant lets rebuild the empire.The tories are full of flag wavers and closet extremists like Andrew Rosindell unfortunately untill the British public shakes off its inertia when it comes to voting it looks like were stuck with a lesser of the two evils situation.
As for Europe,thats more right wing than america.The central comitte is full of would be neo nazis and whilst its good for trade Id be uncomfortable surrending any more of our sovriegnty to their sham of a parliament.

Kellarly

24-09-2004, 14:30

Assuming Blair has now left it too late to call a snap election in October (which would mean that I would be too young still), I'll probably vote Lib Dem. Unfortunately, I don't think that they'll be able to stop Labour being the largest party in Parliament, especially with !st past the post. I think that their best hope would be a hung Parliament, which would give them a shot at a coalition with Labour, although I think they're ruling that out. If this does happen though, then they might be able to include an element of proportional representation in the electoral system, which would help their cause no end.

To be honest the sooner a proportinal representational vote comes in the better. I'm fed up of peoples votes not being properly represented, in my view. Labour has far more seats in the commons (by percentage) in proportion to the votes it revcieved at the last election, if i can find a link to back me up i'll post it shortly... :)

imported_Jako

24-09-2004, 14:35

When Thatcher came to power she said she wanted to establish a two party centre right wing democracy like that of the USA.Looks like Blair took up where sher left off.

?! Not really. If anything the country is moving into a definite centre-Left position as the Right-wing becomes increasing fractured between the ever-useless Conservatives and extremists like UKIP and the BNP.

While I will argue again and again that the Lib Dems are not more Left-wing than Labour, and they're simply posturing to steal socialist votes, it's obvious that the majority of the country favours social-democratic policies.

LOL, Europe more right-wing than America! Jeez, how Right-wing would that be??!?! Why's the Parliament a sham...you elect your representative and your representative sits in the Parliament...? Did you vote in the last Euro elections?

imported_Jako

24-09-2004, 14:36

To be honest the sooner a proportinal representational vote comes in the better. I'm fed up of peoples votes not being properly represented, in my view. Labour has far more seats in the commons (by percentage) in proportion to the votes it revcieved at the last election, if i can find a link to back me up i'll post it shortly... :)

Problem with PR is that it usually produces weak governments who, because they have no overall majority, are forced to form coalitions with smaller Parties. So that means the smaller Parties get OVER represented, doesn't it?

Kellarly

24-09-2004, 14:58

True, but at least it allows more parties into power and does not allow the over extension of power that exists currently...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/vote2001/results_constituencies/default.stm

for those of you who can't be bothered, results of 2001 general election:

Labour won 413 seats with 40.7% pf the vote, yet that means they got 62.6% of the seats

Cons won 166 seats with 31.7% of the vote, yet they got 25% of the seats.

Lib Dem got 52 seats with 18.3% of the vote but only got 7.8% of the seats.

Others got 28 seats with 9.3% of the vote but got 3.6% of the seats.

now is it me or does nb. of seats compared to % of vote not add up, hmm hmm...

thats why i think its unfair, now the govt. can pass what it likes without caring too much, and that is not a good thing, you need more competition to not allow such absolute control over things.

imported_Jako

24-09-2004, 17:53

Has any government ever had more than 50% of the votes? I'm not sure but I think the answer is no.

Kellarly

24-09-2004, 18:23

Has any government ever had more than 50% of the votes? I'm not sure but I think the answer is no.

don't think there has been in the modern era, but i haven't check thoroughly so don't know for certain...

that said, all i want is a more representative govt. not what we have at the moment...

Strensall

24-09-2004, 22:25

Why should the tax payed by the dustbin man pay for the university education of the lawyer, who's soon going to be rolling in ca$h (probably)? It is a complicated issue.

If you don't agree to some people paying for others, does that mean you'd think it would be fair to institute a flat rate of tax for everyone regardless of income?

The lawyer, when graduated, will be earning far more than the dustbin man, and will be well into the 40% boundry. When the dustbin man retires, he'll be thankful that some people are paying nearly half their wages in tax to support his pension. But I DO think it is unfair for the dustbin man to pay for my "2 D's and an E" Average Joe to read Media Studies at Luton Poly when he'll graduate and then get a job which is unlikely to require a degree and unlikely to pay back money with increased tax due to his increased earnings.

The lawyer will pay back more money into society than society has spent on him, hence it is in society's favour to train him. Education is all well and good, but it should be paid for by general taxation only when it is in the best interest of the general population (whether in the long or short term). And if you aren't 'intelligent' enough to study, then you can also study at the Open University or retake some previous qualifications you failed on in night classes before progressing on to university. I'm not a Tory, so I don't think university should just be for rich white kids either. It should be for the truely academically gifted, not the Average Joe.

I'm a student myself, and partly through good luck, natural intelligence and hard work I came from a single parent family and have just started a course at a well respected university in Britain. I'm thankful that the government are paying my tuition fees in full, but I know a lot of people who cannot learn at a high level and yet have gone to uni with 4/5 of their fees paid simply because they "can't be arsed to get a job right now" and some Labour minister has decided they have the 'right' to further education regardless whether they have the ability or not.

And when I get a well-paying job, it'll be my 40% tax that'll be paying for people without ability to take further education. Instead of my tax paying for the education of bright people, who go on to earn lots and end up paying my pention through the high rates of tax, my tax will be paying for people to sit around for three years and do no good for society in return.

You're right when you say it is a complicated issue though. Any binmen we can ask?

To be honest the sooner a proportinal representational vote comes in the better. I'm fed up of peoples votes not being properly represented, in my view. Labour has far more seats in the commons (by percentage) in proportion to the votes it revcieved at the last election, if i can find a link to back me up i'll post it shortly...

Each seat represents a constituency. Labour got 60-something% of the seats because 60-something% of the constituencies preferred them to anyone else. If anything, this is a reason why we should devolve more power to the local government and have a proportional representation system purely to decide national matters.

But if we had PR based on the results of the Euro elections, 20% of the sitting MPs would be either UKIP or BNP... is that what you want? At least our present system stops anything but established parties getting in, rather than extremists which would undoubtadly do better under a PR system.

Sploddygloop

24-09-2004, 23:09

20%? Well the figure at the moment is 40% so that's a lot of young people who you think obviously aren't clever enough to go into Higher Education...
I don't think it's as much that they're not bright enough as deciding how many people actually need degrees. I really don't think that many sports coaches and holistic massage wotnots really benefit from having degrees in their subjects. Some, of course, but we seem to be educating for the sake of it [1] rather than for utility.
[1] OK, so education for its own sake isn't a bad thing, but it's this pretense that it's for the good of your future employment when it ain't is a sham. At the moment, universities are neither your arse nor your elbow. They don't set you up for a life of learning, nor do they equip you for a profession.

Guatamalestan

24-09-2004, 23:28

?! Not really. If anything the country is moving into a definite centre-Left position as the Right-wing becomes increasing fractured between the ever-useless Conservatives and extremists like UKIP and the BNP.

Just because Labour is traditionally a left wing party doesn't mean it still is that way today.New Labour is entirely different,it has abandoned the Trade Unions,it has decreased the welfare state,it has rapidly increased the rate of privatisation.Blunketts domestic policy has no regard for the concerns of the common man accociated with the left.Whilst you are correct in stating that the extreme right has fragmented I don't really see much of a unified far left.As for Britians foreign policy under labour I would be bold enough to say that it is a right wing policy.New Labour is a centre right party,it supports big business and has the backing of the Times traditionally the conservative paper.The Tories have made a comeback under Michael Howard and a recent poll showed that they have grown in support since William Hague and that Michael Howard is recieving almost unaminous backing from his party members in parliament.

As for Europe yes I did vote in the recent European elections and I voted for labour as they were the strongest candidate to a favoured Tory seat.How can you not say that Europe is not as right wing if not more right wing than America.All the major players France,Germany,Italy ,Austria etc have right wing governments in the cases of some countries these governments are more extreme than others.The parliament is a sham because in elections in Taly for example people would have had to travel over 5 miles to get to a polling station in others public awareness of the elections was selective.Europe disregarding the sentiments of preventing another european war is based mainly around the issues surrounding trade and the distribution of capital inherently from its foundations it will be a right wing organisation.Just because a unified Europe sounds like a jolly good left wing idea you should bear in mind that a unified europe sounds like a great way of getting rich quick to alot more people.I suggest you watch newsnight or if you have digital tv try BBC parliament that way you'll be able to see the sham in action.Also take a look at the proposed constitution, read between the lines and you'll see its got a lot of loop holes and clauses that allow you to be screwed over.

N.B. Its worth mentioning that whilst the surge in poularity in the BNP and UKIP may signify fragmentation in the right wing it could also be said that these groups are now drawing support largely from the common working man.This is not the traditional middle class tory voter and indicates that the surge in popularity may be layed at the door of the centre left who are clearly no longer fulfilling the needs of their traditional support groups therfore making it reasonable to suggest that the centrle left has shifted towards the centre right.

imported_Jako

25-09-2004, 12:23

Just because Labour is traditionally a left wing party doesn't mean it still is that way today.New Labour is entirely different,it has abandoned the Trade Unions,it has decreased the welfare state,it has rapidly increased the rate of privatisation.Blunketts domestic policy has no regard for the concerns of the common man accociated with the left.Whilst you are correct in stating that the extreme right has fragmented I don't really see much of a unified far left.As for Britians foreign policy under labour I would be bold enough to say that it is a right wing policy.New Labour is a centre right party,it supports big business and has the backing of the Times traditionally the conservative paper.The Tories have made a comeback under Michael Howard and a recent poll showed that they have grown in support since William Hague and that Michael Howard is recieving almost unaminous backing from his party members in parliament..

Ok - I'm a Labour activist so I know that the trade unions still play a huge role in the Party. From everyday campaigning to funding the Party machine to sitting on the committees that decide policy the trade unions still play a major role in Labour. Just because they don't have complete control of the government and don't enjoy 'beer and sandwiches' with the PM everyday doesn't mean New Labour has "abandoned" the TUs. What do the trade unions want? How about lowest unemployment since the 70s? How about a national minimum wage? How about the railways returning to public control? How about record investment in public services? Hey; that's what Labour has done! Just because there are disagreements doesn't mean the relationship has broken down - even most of the hard-Left TU leaders see their role as being the "critical friend" of the Labour Party.

Decreased the welfare state? How exactly? And what are the concerns of the common man that Blunkett is ignoring? Surveys suggest it is crime and anti-social behaviour. We now have record numbers of police thanks to the government's recruiting programme and Blunkett's always coming out with new ASBOs and stuff like that.

The government supports wealth creation, because wealth creation creates jobs and improves living standards and a Labour government can install programmes of wealth redistribution. And have you read the Times recently? If Comrade Blair sold his soul to Ruper Murdoch then he hasn't got much in return!

As for Michael Howard and the Tories enjoying a comeback...just because he isn't completely laughable (i.e Hague + Duncan Smith) doesn't mean he's considered a serious alternative PM. People aren't stupid - they remember his record in government. And the Tories have been coming 3rd in recent byelections as well as having pretty crap Euro results....considering that the governing Party has been in power for 7 years and had just undertaken a controversial war in Iraq.

imported_Jako

25-09-2004, 12:33

As for Europe yes I did vote in the recent European elections and I voted for labour as they were the strongest candidate to a favoured Tory seat.How can you not say that Europe is not as right wing if not more right wing than America.All the major players France,Germany,Italy ,Austria etc have right wing governments in the cases of some countries these governments are more extreme than others.The parliament is a sham because in elections in Taly for example people would have had to travel over 5 miles to get to a polling station in others public awareness of the elections was selective.Europe disregarding the sentiments of preventing another european war is based mainly around the issues surrounding trade and the distribution of capital inherently from its foundations it will be a right wing organisation.Just because a unified Europe sounds like a jolly good left wing idea you should bear in mind that a unified europe sounds like a great way of getting rich quick to alot more people.I suggest you watch newsnight or if you have digital tv try BBC parliament that way you'll be able to see the sham in action.Also take a look at the proposed constitution, read between the lines and you'll see its got a lot of loop holes and clauses that allow you to be screwed over.

N.B. Its worth mentioning that whilst the surge in poularity in the BNP and UKIP may signify fragmentation in the right wing it could also be said that these groups are now drawing support largely from the common working man.This is not the traditional middle class tory voter and indicates that the surge in popularity may be layed at the door of the centre left who are clearly no longer fulfilling the needs of their traditional support groups therfore making it reasonable to suggest that the centrle left has shifted towards the centre right.

There are conservative governments in France, Italy etc but no way are they as Right-wing as George W Bush's America! I mean here in Europe we have welfare states that are considered sacred by the public..and even though some Right-leaning governments might try to introduce reforms and mild privatisations nowhere do you get politicians suggesting something along the free market US model! If someone in America tries to advocate a welfare state they get laughed at. We have far more egalitarian societies in Europe with the rich having a much higher tax burden than in the US and substantial govt programmes to help the poor. This is why there is a social-democratic consensus in most of the EU, even when the individual nation's govt may be right-wing.

In a globalised world economy it makes absolute sense to form trading blocks with your neighbours. That is why the EU is such a big player on world markets. You know that more than 50% of our trade is with other EU members? Co-operation is good! And the best way to manage trade issues as well as international disbutes such as the environment and immigration is to work together as a continent - it makes everything so much easier.

NationStates Jolt Archive

British Politics