What do the election results really mean?

[Blitzen]

Sorry but i dont agree.......there are many people that vote for them that arent racists.
Also, are you trying to tell me that there are racists voting for Labour or the Tories?
I have just taken a look at their website and ALOT of it actually makes sense (if by a 100000000000000 - 1 chance they could actually deliver it).

Would instilling a bit of national identity not be an EXCEPTIONAL start to getting things back on track.

Im not saying for a second i would vote for them as there are still elements that simply couldnt be supported. On the other hand, im not saying i wouldnt vote for them if they ironed out some of the more 'sketchy' views.

So would you say that anyone that votes for them is a racist?


(On a side note, This Nick Griffin cannot be taken too seriously when he flatly denies the holocaust)

[SiM]

I am not saying the BNP voters are all 100% racist, but they are supporting racists which is almost as bad. If I wasn't racist, but still voted and supported the Nazi party, I would be partially to blame for the Holocaust and world wars too...

[Blitzen]

I am not saying the BNP voters are all 100% racist, but they are supporting racists which is almost as bad. If I wasn't racist, but still voted and supported the Nazi party, I would be partially to blame for the Holocaust and world wars too...

Just because 'some' of them have different beliefs and strays from the mainstream, it doesnt make them wrong with their ideas though.

Australia have very similar laws on immigration for example now. Are they all racist? Nope.

Immigration has to be one of the key elements when the next elections are held as it effects everyone. If truth be told, i bet a massive proportion of the UK population would be in favour to stop it altogether or at the very least, dramatically cut it down.

Just as a heads up aswell, i saw on the news this morning that 2/3 of 'foreign' incidents in hospitals are not charged for as they are not entitled to free care. Can you imagine the drain on resources there?

If the BNP is racist then what are these?
- National Black Police Association
- Metropolitan Black Police Association
- Operation Black Vote
- Federation of Black Housing Organisations (FBHO)

They are just a few examples of true racism but they get under the radar as people feel they 'shouldnt' comment and therefore be labelled a racist.
Look at the list and trade the word 'Black' for 'White'. Can you imagine the uproar?


Lets face it, besides the immigration thing, the BNP have little substance on other issues. Having just read a bit more about it, their aim would be to create a Utopia and that isnt ever going to happen. Perfect schools, perfect hospitals, low taxes.
If they could dleiver all that then they would landslide all elections from now until the end of time.
Fact is, they cant!

[SiM]

Just because 'some' of them have different beliefs and strays from the mainstream, it doesnt make them wrong with their ideas though.

Australia have very similar laws on immigration for example now. Are they all racist? Nope.

Immigration has to be one of the key elements when the next elections are held as it effects everyone. If truth be told, i bet a massive proportion of the UK population would be in favour to stop it altogether or at the very least, dramatically cut it down.

Just as a heads up aswell, i saw on the news this morning that 2/3 of 'foreign' incidents in hospitals are not charged for as they are not entitled to free care. Can you imagine the drain on resources there?

Unfortunately, immigration laws within EU are not determined by the Government. Anyone EU citizen is free to move anywhere else in the EU afaik...

TBH, I don't really know anything about Australia...

[SiM]

If the BNP is racist then what are these?
- National Black Police Association
- Metropolitan Black Police Association
- Operation Black Vote
- Federation of Black Housing Organisations (FBHO)
Look at the list and trade the word 'Black' for 'White'. Can you imagine the uproar?

The name of an organisation does not determine if it is racist or not. While these organisation might be racist, there are other reasons why they exist.

[Blitzen]

The name of an organisation does not determine if it is racist or not. While these organisation might be racist, there are other reasons why they exist.

I didnt say the organisations were racist. I said that the meer fact that excludes anyone white is.
How can that be OK? How can it be justified? Whatever way it is dressed up, it cant.

(Sorry for straying off topic now a bit.........back on track hopefully after this post )

[Andy3536]

Surly if the BNP cleaned themselves up they'd be called UKIP

[pp05]

I think those who are voting BNP really don't understand what they're voting for, it's that or BNP have polished up and got professionals on their marketing team. They're not saying certain things /anti jew/ kick all blacks and asians out even if they were born here and are british citizens/. BNP will always be the BNP, it's just the right wing across EU have gotten smarter and are have are having more success than ever before.

In terms of London - They didn't have a single policy for London and yet people voted for them. Those voting are not all racist, some may even be labour supporters who are sick with Brown and co. It's free vote and you vote who you like but I just think people don't understand what they voted on. It's ignorance. But you have got to have everyone around the table.

===

Brown has said he has to "listen", so has his front bench on every interview this past week. They weren't listening before? It's almost like their PR people said we have UK hypnotised, say this word often.

In terms of leadership, he has been a good 'new' leader. Keeping a low profile was the right idea but right now he needs to spell out a vision. His first 6 months have been okay. Watch out for this week - he will be making some big announcements. However he is still Brown, he is still a control freak. I'd like Milliband to take over if they had a new leader.

===

Tax system could be simpler. It would take a brave government to do it and it would be an election winner. A bit like the IHT pledge by Shadow Chancellor Osborne which drowned out everything Labour have been saying since that day.

[Saracen]

Saracen.
I dont know how old you are, but i grew up in 'Thatchers Britain' and things were FAR WORSE then than they are now (unless you were from a well-off middle/upper class family). How you can call your statement 'Traditional Labour Tactics' i dont know. Thats traditional politics from ALL the parties i think you will find. Its the blame game.

I am not defending Labour as i think they are doing a shocking job at the moment. What i can say though is that if yoy think the Tories will turn around the fortunes of this country and answer our prayers then cloud cuckoo land beckons for most that think that.....

I didn't grow up in Thatcher's Britain. i was already grown and working, and I remember what came before Thatcher's Britain, too.

You're right, Blitzen, in this respect at least. Many things were worse under Thatcher. But the thing is, she wasn't starting from the same place Blair/Brown started from. You have to look at post-War Britain to set the scene for Thatcher, and for some of the things she did, and why she did them. For a start, we had a country that had dire national productivity, union power was largely unchecked and was often fuelled by left-wing or even Marxist ideology, leading to the assumption that everything in industrial relations was a class battle between workers and capitalists. As a result, far too many union were dropping tools and walking out on strike at the drop of a hat, and secondary picketing was rife. Remember the winter of discontent. That, in large part, is what put Maggie in power - the people's unhappiness with Callaghan to control the unions.

The point is that the whole situation, both economic, and political, was very different when Maggie came to power. The problems she had to face were very different to those New Labour faced. And no, neither Maggie nor Major got everything right. Not by a long shot. But when you say things were worse under Maggie, I say that that's true, but one of the reasons they're better now is that Maggie faced down the unions, broke the power of people like Scargill, and set industrial relations on a course were the unions and bosses were far more inclined to work together towards productivity. Examine days lost through strikes in the 90s and this millenium, and compare it to days lost through strikes in the 70s and you'll see what I'm getting at.

Yes, things are better now. But largely it's because Maggie did the hard work. She sorted a lot of the structural problems, and the ship that Brown/Blair took over was in FAR better shape than the one Maggie was stuck with.

[Blitzen]

Saracen.
I do remember all too well.....i am now 35 and rememebr the striking all too well unfortunately.
My dad was a leading member of National Union of Public Employees and he was heavily involved (especially the Nurses and Ambulance man strike a few years later). This obviously i am not proud of as we had to move house constantly due to threats being made.

Working people are almost certainly better off now than they were when Thatcher was around. I concede the government are very very poor at the moment and the 10p tax thing isnt good. People still have more now.

As far as i am concerend, as bad as the Labour Government are, things will be far worse under the Tories.
Promises and more promises are always what are given regardless of which way you lean. Do you seriously think that David Cameron will deliver any more? Of course he wont.

I do actually agree we need a change but the Tories arent the answer....unfortunately i dont know what/who is.

Yes, things are better now. But largely it's because Maggie did the hard work.

Sorry fella.
Your points are always excellent but this is the furthest away from the mark you have ever been in any of your posts i have ever read.

I think those who are voting BNP really don't understand what they're voting for, it's that or BNP have polished up and got professionals on their marketing team. They're not saying certain things /anti jew/ kick all blacks and asians out even if they were born here and are british citizens/. BNP will always be the BNP, it's just the right wing across EU have gotten smarter and are have are having more success than ever before.

In terms of London - They didn't have a single policy for London and yet people voted for them. Those voting are not all racist, some may even be labour supporters who are sick with Brown and co. It's free vote and you vote who you like but I just think people don't understand what they voted on. It's ignorance. But you have got to have everyone around the table.

===

Brown has said he has to "listen", so has his front bench on every interview this past week. They weren't listening before? It's almost like their PR people said we have UK hypnotised, say this word often.

In terms of leadership, he has been a good 'new' leader. Keeping a low profile was the right idea but right now he needs to spell out a vision. His first 6 months have been okay. Watch out for this week - he will be making some big announcements. However he is still Brown, he is still a control freak. I'd like Milliband to take over if they had a new leader.

===

Tax system could be simpler. It would take a brave government to do it and it would be an election winner. A bit like the IHT pledge by Shadow Chancellor Osborne which drowned out everything Labour have been saying since that day.

Its not just people that vote for the BNP.
There is a very miniscule proportion of people that have any idea what they are voting for and its a big problem.

Thatcher got in because she was female.
Blair got in as he was excellent in front of a camera.

The sad fact is that the vast majority of people vote for who they can relate to or 'like' the most. Nothing to do with policy.

[smoo]

Think back to the John Major years when this happened to him, he and the conservatives was out in the next general election.

All round people aren't happy people just look at the strikes that have been in place, police, prison and teachers public sector wise aren't getting what was promised. Prices going up and all we get are promises. 10p tax rule was a complete cock up however they have tried to gloss it.

Depending on what sort of reforms are promised i.e reduced taxes in areas like petrol will sway me personnally.

I don't see myself voting for Gordon Brown in the general elections.

[Blitzen]

Think back to the John Major years when this happened to him, he and the conservatives was out in the next general election.

All round people aren't happy people just look at the strikes that have been in place, police, prison and teachers public sector wise aren't getting what was promised. Prices going up and all we get are promises. 10p tax rule was a complete cock up however they have tried to gloss it.

Depending on what sort of reforms are promised i.e reduced taxes in areas like petrol will sway me personnally.

I don't see myself voting for Gordon Brown in the general elections.

Did you know that this has happened a good few times recently? The party in power has lost many seats in the local elections but still gone onto win the General Election.

On another note, when the General Election is next held, i seriously doubt Brown would be the part leader anway. In fact, i doubt he will see out the next 6 months.

[Saracen]

Saracen.
I do remember all too well.....i am now 35 and rememebr the striking all too well unfortunately.
My dad was a leading member of National Union of Public Employees and he was heavily involved (especially the Nurses and Ambulance man strike a few years later). This obviously i am not proud of as we had to move house constantly due to threats being made.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that all strikes were wrong and that none were justified. Unions exist for a reason and if you go back to their formation, that reason was often gross and cruel exploitation by bosses.

But the flipside to that was overly-powerful unions who did not act in a rational way. Instead, far too many of them were either out for a confrontation, or were overtly politically motivated. For instance, years ago, I was preparing some computer equipment for an exhibition, and one of our machines needed a new mains plug, so I put it on. Oh, and this was well before the current health and safety rules caused problems with this. I'm talking about the early 80s. Well, a union rep for the people doing the exhibition installation saw it and it nearly caused a strike. He and his cohorts were all for walking out. It was only the fact that it was third party equipment, and specialist computer gear at that, that averted it, because it was exhibitor equipment, not exhibition infrastructure. Oh, and it was about half an hour before the start of a two day banking exhibition, and that machine was crucial.

That's the "strike at the drop of a hat" attitude I was talking about. And it was prevalent. Yes, some strikes were justified. But far, FAR too many of them were little more than deliberate belligerence from people with an agenda.

And that, in part at least, was the type of structural foundation that Maggie laid. She took the unions (largely but not exclusively typified by the NUM) on and (just barely) won.

Working people are almost certainly better off now than they were when Thatcher was around. I concede the government are very very poor at the moment and the 10p tax thing isnt good. People still have more now.

I don't dispute that. It's self-evident. But the question is why? Times are different, and economic circumstances are very different. However, Brown and his policy of spend now and hide the bills has produced a debt level, public and private, that is now coming home to roost. Brown, as is typical with Labour governments, has been spending beyond the country's means and piling up debt to do it. Working people certainly do have more, in terms of material items, than ever before. But the level of personal debt, even excluding mortgage debt, is astronomical. Anyone can run a personal budget that involves buy now, pay later, but sooner or later you have to pay. Brown has just been doing it for the whole country.

As far as i am concerend, as bad as the Labour Government are, things will be far worse under the Tories.
Promises and more promises are always what are given regardless of which way you lean. Do you seriously think that David Cameron will deliver any more? Of course he wont.

I do actually agree we need a change but the Tories arent the answer....unfortunately i dont know what/who is.

Blitzen, I'm not a Tory. Will Cameron be better? Dunno. Maybe. Will he be worse? Maybe, but in different ways. Is he all image and no substance? I don't know. We won't find out until the Tories start to come up with a broad-ranging, cohesive and coherent policy platform which, so far and for perfectly understandable strategic reasons, they've declined to do. And even if they do come up with such a platform, we won't really know until they've been in power a few years and we see how what they do stands up to what they said they'd do. But seeing as I'm politically cynical, I'm inclined to think that while the detail, policy and philosophy might change, most politicians are good at one and ONLY one thing - flapping their tongues. Actually getting them to do what they promise is another thing.

I do actually agree we need a change but the Tories arent the answer....unfortunately i dont know what/who is.

I've said in the past, and I'll say again, we don't have a democracy. Oh, we're far better off than many countries and peoples, but we don't have a democracy. We have a conjuring trick designed to provide a rationalisation for giving a mandate to one bunch of <bleeps> or the other. It's a bit like asking an innocent man how he wants to be executed - hanging or electrocution? Answer - he doesn't want to be executed at all, amd neither choice is very palatable. Our "democracy" consists of a magician presenting us with a card game with a loaded deck .... pick a card, any card. It's going to be one or the other, whether we like it or not. It's the way the system is designed.

Sorry fella.
Your points are always excellent but this is the furthest away from the mark you have ever been in any of your posts i have ever read.

We're all entitled to our opinion, but I've given mine and I've given the reasons for it. And I'm dead on the mark.

.....

The sad fact is that the vast majority of people vote for who they can relate to or 'like' the most. Nothing to do with policy.

Yup. That's part of the trick, in the design of the system.

[Saracen]

Did you know that this has happened a good few times recently? The party in power has lost many seats in the local elections but still gone onto win the General Election.

On another note, when the General Election is next held, i seriously doubt Brown would be the part leader anway. In fact, i doubt he will see out the next 6 months.

You certainly can't extrapolate from poor Local Election results to conclude a General Election defeat. History clearly demonstrates that that is not the case.

But there are other factors at play. These include :-

• a party that has been in power for a long time, and is perceived (rightly or wrongly) as getting stale, or arrogant, or complacent, or all of these.
  
  
• divisions in the party. Brown is facing back-bench revolts on more than one issue, and has quite a number of his own MPs unhappy with him, including one former Cabinet Minister saying that he should go. And yes, some former ex-Cabinet ministers may well have an agenda (and maybe ambitions) of their own, but regardless of why they're saying it, the fact is that they are. It helped wreck the Tories when Major got defeated.
  
  
• a PM who is seen as a ditherer. The election that never was was a stupid, stupid move by brown. And the entire country saw it and knows it. It makes him look, regardless of his actual reasons, venal and politically self-interested.
  
  
• repeated political cockups from the treaty signing absence to the 10p fiasco. I mean, Gordon, what were you thinking of over that one? Are you really so politically inept that you knew what the effect of that budget change would be and thought it would fly, or are you so economically inept that you didn't see the implications?
  
  
• the current economic situation. Whether it's Browns fault or not (and it mostly isn't), if people start to feel the pain in their wallet, the incumbent government get the blame. And there's some poetic justice in that too, since successive governments are lightning-quick to grab the credit when times are good .... aren't you, Gordon?
  
  
• a general feeling of political doom-and-gloom, and a re-energised opposition who are looking like they can win, and even perhaps looking like they will win, the next election.
  
  
• lots of true Labour supporters are disillusioned with a government that is either abandoning it's principles, or perhaps is finally being seen as not having any .... beyond getting elected and staying there. That does not bode well for their turnout.
  
  
• a lot of people that abandoned the Tories a decade ago are realising that they were sold a schmooze job by Blair and New Labour. Whiter than white indeed.
  
  
• a lot of people that might vote Tory didn't turn our last time because they didn't see a hope in hell of winning. That may well be different next time.
  
  

And so on.

No, we can't conclude that bad local results mean the same will happen in a general election. But we most certainly can't conclude that because Labour did badly midterm last time and still won the election that it'll happen again. Things are different now.

One thing I will say, confident that it is absolutely indisputable. The next election is months off at the earliest, and maybe a couple of years off. And one hell of a lot can happen before then. Labour could have a new leader. Brown could have rehabilitated himself. Cameron could have been ruined by a scandal. An asteroid could have destroyed civilisation. It's FAR too early to even make educated guesses about the next election .... beyond saying that based on the current climate, Labour have a fight on their hands next time around, and for the first time look like facing a real opposition.

[Blitzen]

All the bullet points were good and certainly do outline where Brown, not the party, have messed up.
Except this one: Tories a decade ago are realising that they were sold a schmooze job by Blair and New Labour Blair was a good PM and the only tarnish was Iraq imho, which i whole heartedly agreed we should take part in anyway.
Historically the Party Leader is just the 'face' of the organisation. This time, for the first time i can remember, he wants to do the job himself (and is making a real mess in the process).

Personally i will give Brown 4-6 months at the most and he will be replaced (by Milliband probably).

Its also obvious i think, that unless Labour get a very good idea going, and see it through to nearly everyones satisfaction, there wont be any General Election until the term has run to its entirity.


On the last note, i actually cancelled my membership to the Labour Party as soon as Brown took the reigns.
Being obviously politically inept and hiding behind his days when he was chancellor, it was always going to be the case he would not perform.

[Saracen]

All the bullet points were good and certainly do outline where Brown, not the party, have messed up.
Except this one: Tories a decade ago are realising that they were sold a schmooze job by Blair and New Labour Blair was a good PM and the only tarnish was Iraq imho, which i whole heartedly agreed we should take part in anyway.

The "only" tarnish? And that for a sitting PM that was interviewed by police in a criminal investigation?

But that wasn't quite what I meant by schmooze job. Labour have shown themselves to be masters at spin. Oh, they didn't invent it and they certainly aren't /weren't the only ones at it. But politics now is very different to how it was 50 years ago. Then, there was a much more 'gentlemanly' feel to it. For a start, the media were at least partially complicit in that they operated a kind of conspiracy of silence with politicians over certain issues, usually their private lives. Arguably, perhaps, the Profumo affair and Christine Keeler blew that one away. But the press used to exercise self-restraint and a political "interview" was much less cutting, had 'polite' questions and precious little in the way of challenge.

To be honest, the case could be made, IMHO, that it's the press that are responsible for us now having a generation of politicians that seem to be pathologically incapable of answering a straight question with a straight answer ..... or EVER admitting to having got it wrong. And the press are responsible, IMHO, because they far too often use loaded questions which are designed to be incapable of being answered without dropping the politician in it. So they developed spin techniques to get round that kind of aggressive interrogation and political assassination.

Anyway, be that as it may, what I meant by "schmooze job" was that Labour gave the impression that they stood for certain things, and a lot of people that previously voted Tory fell for it. However, over the years, they've seen what New Labour did, rather than what they appeared to have said they were going to do.

For instance, when trying to get elected, Labour said they were going to stick to Tory spending plans, and that they weren't going to increase the basic or higher rates of income tax. They "spun" that to imply that they were not going to tax and spend the way previous Labour governments did, and many people took them at what their words appeared to say rather than what they actually said. An example, if I say I'm not going to increase basic or higher rates of tax, that doesn't mean I'm going to keep personal allowances in place, or that I'm not going to raid pension funds, or that I'm not going to increase national insurance, or that I'm not going to clobber people in dozens of other ways, yet that's precisely what a lot of people heard from those announcements about spending plans and income tax rates.

In other words, a schmooze job. It is, IMHO, an artful form of lying. You pick carefully what you do say, and you pick what you don't say even more carefully, and if you did it right, people come away with the impression that you said A. But if you play back the recordings and listened very carefully, and analyse what was said, they actually said B. You need to read between the lines and look for what wasn't said, what promises they won't make.

And that is the schmooze job that led a lot of people that wouldn't have normally voted Labour to do so in '97 .... and to have woken up since. They've now seen how they were sold a slick sales presentation, where the substance was rather different from the advertising claims.