|
U-Know! Forum » Stop Nick Griffin |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
Rhiannon 5291 posts |
May 26, 2009, 21:46
|
||
|
There are a lot of dead badgers round here on the roads, that's true. But maybe it's just the time of year. I fear this rumour might come into the 'people capturing foxes and taking them into the cities' category (or was it 'people capturing urban foxes and taking them into the country'?!). Most people wouldn't see a badger if it was killed on private land somewhere so why stick a stinky dead badger in your 4x4 so you can shove it out on a road. But if it gives bad press to badger haters then I'm all for spreading the rumour far and wide haha. blimey there's even a graph here. http://www.badgers.org.uk/badgerpages/eurasian-badger-23.html
|
|||
|
charlbury 81 posts |
May 27, 2009, 00:52
|
||
|
gurftyjim is talking horseshit I'm afraid. Only in London and the SE (neither regions where the Nazis pose a serious threat) can the Greens get anyone elected. In the NW the Greens are trying a decent spin campaign, but everywhere else, the Greens are a wasted vote as they don't stand a chance of beating the Nazis or winning a seat. In the NW, Yorkshire and E/W Midlands, which are the four most critical regions (not to mention the SW where the risk of Nazi MEPs is less but still there), most people on here should vote Liberal Democrat to keep the BNP out. If you can't bring yourself to do that it's the fruitcakes of UKIP I'm afraid.
|
|||
Merrick 2148 posts |
Edited May 27, 2009, 02:36
May 27, 2009, 02:06
|
||
|
charlbury wrote: gurftyjim is talking horseshit I'm afraid. If you'd be a bit more specific (and preferably a bit more civil) then we could actually see if you have a point. I'm going to take a guess and presume you mean the bit where he said 'a Green vote is the best way of keeping out the BNP in many constituencies'. You're right to flag up the huge discrepancies in the relative popularity of the Greens and BNP in different constituencies. But even in the BNP's target areas they're still beatable. The latest Yougov poll shows that among those certain to vote, the BNP and Greens are level on 8 percent each in the North, and it's a 7:5 split in the Midlands and Wales (god, why don't they split the poll results over the actual constituencies?). Among those with the full range of intentions to vote, it's 7:4 split in the North, and 6:3 in Midlands and Wales. With 14 percent on 'don't know', there's a lot to play for even before decided voters switch allegiance. And the recent BPIX poll had 40% of Labour, 36% of Tories and 43% of Lib Dems saying they were 'very likely' to cast their ballots for a smaller party in the European election. Mind you, the Yougov poll also has only 10 percent saying they definitely won't vote. The idea of a 90 percent turnout is a joke (last time it was 38). Then again, that means if we only mobilise another few votes, with a low turnout we have a big impact. You're right that a vote for someone who gets less than the BNP is a wasted vote. The big three and UKIP are sure to beat the BNP. But the thing is, that is unlikely to be enough to stop them. As I've already said, swing 3 percent of the vote to any of them and it won't make much odds. Swing that to the Greens and it will almost certainly make the difference between the final seat of a constituency going Green or BNP. Like Jim, it seems clear to me that the greatest leverage - the ability for a few votes to make the most difference - is with the possibility of the Greens pushing BNP into sixth place I'm not interested in hoodwinking anyone. The News item in U-Know links to last time's results and an online calculator so you can type in any result you imagine is possible and see how it would translate to seats.
|
|||
|
charlbury 81 posts |
May 27, 2009, 12:07
|
||
|
The trouble with European elections is that - because people are more likely to vote for fringe parties - opinion polls are more meaningless than they are in other elections. In the South East (the region I live in) it is very likely that of the 10 seats there will be at least 4 Tories, 2 Lib Dems, 1 Labour, 1 Green and 1 UKIP. It could boil down to a race between the 5th Tory, 2nd UKIP and BNP. In London the Lib Dems were a handful of votes away from a second MEP last time, with no chance at all of the Greens getting a second. In the South-West again a second Lib Dem was much more likely than a Green. In the North West last time it was a second Lib Dem who got the last seat, just pipping the BNP. So basically swinging 3 per cent of the vote *does* make a considerable amount of odds, and it does matter who that vote swings to. In the four regions above, at least, there is little or no point voting Green 'to keep the BNP out'.
|
|||
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Edited May 27, 2009, 12:28
May 27, 2009, 12:27
|
||
|
charlbury wrote: gurftyjim is talking horseshit I'm afraid. And a good day to you too. Glad you could stop by for a civil chat. Oh wait a second, you didn't, did you? charlbury wrote: Only in London and the SE (neither regions where the Nazis pose a serious threat) can the Greens get anyone elected. In the NW the Greens are trying a decent spin campaign, but everywhere else, the Greens are a wasted vote as they don't stand a chance of beating the Nazis or winning a seat. In the NW, Yorkshire and E/W Midlands, which are the four most critical regions (not to mention the SW where the risk of Nazi MEPs is less but still there), most people on here should vote Liberal Democrat to keep the BNP out. If you can't bring yourself to do that it's the fruitcakes of UKIP I'm afraid. I disagree. That's not to say that you're talking horseshit, merely that there may be more than one way of interpreting the polling data. I'll not reiterate Merrick's points as he's spent more time analysing the polls than me. But if you can tell me why he's talking horseshit, then I'll be happy to change my position. ======= One suggestion though; try to be a bit less insulting in your choice of language. I have a problem with many of the conventions of academia, but one thing I have learnt from the academy is that discussions are always more fruitful if you avoid antagonistic language. The very first line of your post made me want to dismiss the rest of it. Unless you're a troll, that's not a rational strategy for getting your point across.
|
|||
necropolist 1689 posts |
May 27, 2009, 12:33
|
||
|
Merrick wrote: necropolist wrote: actually, voting UKIP will probably be the best way of stopping the BNP in most places! It depends on who's coming fourth in your constituency. Basically, Labour and Conservatives will take first and second. In most places, LibDems and UKIP will take third and fourth. Because of the way the mathematics works, it's whoever is vying with the BNP for fifth that really holds the key. Put an extra 3% of the vote onto whoever that is will make all the difference, whereas an extra 3% to the Conservatives won't make any odds. As long as the BNP are beaten into sixth, they won't get a seat. Voting for anyone who'll come 1st-5th helps that, voting for anyone who'll come 7th or lower is a complete waste of time. well, the system makes it al very complicated to say exactly who needs what. You are PROBABLY right, but not necesarily. The tories will get two seats in most constituencies, the labour and the liberals will also be challenging for two in various places. Fucked if I'd vote for any of them bastards tho. Voting for someone who will (probably) finish below the BNP will have make a very small difference. The slight shift in total percentages might make it easier for one of the big three parties to win a second seat, but it is a very small difference. As to UKIP, a month ago I'd have said they would be falling behind the fascists, but, thanks to the expenses scandals, they should have received another boost, and will, therefore, hold of the utter scum. Merrick wrote: necropolist wrote: But even then, voting for someone merely as a short-term 'stop someone else' strategy doesnt really have much legs. It wont minimise the BNP vote, it will merely stop it 'couting' (for want of a better word). I take your point, but stopping it counting means stopping them taking hundreds of thousands of pounds of public money. It's that funding of the BNP that I'm keen to see stopped. I wouldn't really actively support any of them, though the Greens policies do make a fuckload more sense than any others i can see. yeah, its shite isnt it? Bloody depressing. The only reason I'll vote at all is to help block the BNP really, tho the options are pretty crappy. The lead Green candidate in Yorkshire is one of the idiots who entered a coalition with the tories in Leeds, so my opinion of him isnt exactly high.
|
|||
|
necropolist 1689 posts |
May 27, 2009, 12:43
|
||
|
charlbury wrote: The trouble with European elections is that - because people are more likely to vote for fringe parties - opinion polls are more meaningless than they are in other elections. In the South East (the region I live in) it is very likely that of the 10 seats there will be at least 4 Tories, 2 Lib Dems, 1 Labour, 1 Green and 1 UKIP. It could boil down to a race between the 5th Tory, 2nd UKIP and BNP. In London the Lib Dems were a handful of votes away from a second MEP last time, with no chance at all of the Greens getting a second. In the South-West again a second Lib Dem was much more likely than a Green. In the North West last time it was a second Lib Dem who got the last seat, just pipping the BNP. So basically swinging 3 per cent of the vote *does* make a considerable amount of odds, and it does matter who that vote swings to. In the four regions above, at least, there is little or no point voting Green 'to keep the BNP out'. I suspect you are right about London and the south-east - tho saying 'dont vote green to stop the nazis' COULD accidentally lead to a situation where the greens didnt even get enough votes for that first seat. And then there is the question of building up votes for next time as well.It has to be done unless one is to leave the same old bunch in charge. Dunno about the south-west, but in the north-west (and yorkshire where a very similar tale could be told) you are wrong. Tne BNP are ni the stronger position, and the greens playng catch up - both with them and he lib-dems - but they were not far behind, and it is perfectly plausible that they will make up the necessary ground. there's no Respect this time, which might only be worth 1% or so, but that aint to be sniffed at.
|
|||
|
Merrick 2148 posts |
Edited May 27, 2009, 13:07
May 27, 2009, 13:07
|
||
|
necropolist wrote: The lead Green candidate in Yorkshire is one of the idiots who entered a coalition with the tories in Leeds, so my opinion of him isnt exactly high. Still, i really respect what happened next. The governing Tory/LibDem/Green coalition wanted to build a PFI incinerator for the city's rubbish. The Greens were put in the odd position of arguing against their own administration's policy! When the Tory/LibDems pushed ahead with the plan the Greens did the right thing and resigned from the coalition. They've since continued to speak out against the incinerator for all the right reasons. (I wrote a piece about it http://bristlingbadger.blogspot.com/2009/04/burn-baby-burn.html) That's no small thing for them to have resigned. Those Green seats were needed to make the coalition have a majority, so we can imagine the sweeteners they were offered. And then there's the obvious that doesn't even need saying - as part of the governing body you get a much larger voice and the ability to make many more things happen than you will as a couple of people sat at the back. Full marks to them for their behaviour in Leeds. It's the exact opposite with the Greens in Ireland who were outside the government but then sold out on all their principles to become part of the ruling coalition.
|
|||
|
necropolist 1689 posts |
May 27, 2009, 13:22
|
||
|
Merrick wrote: And then there's the obvious that doesn't even need saying - as part of the governing body you get a much larger voice and the ability to make many more things happen than you will as a couple of people sat at the back. Full marks to them for their behaviour in Leeds. I'm sorry, but bollocks. They supported privatisation (leeds/bradford airport) and attacks on workers (council regrading to supposedly end sex discrimination - yet women came out of it worse). Their behaviour in Leeds was shameful, and they weren't even competent enough to get anything out of it!
|
|||
|
Merrick 2148 posts |
May 27, 2009, 14:42
|
||
i meant full marks to them for resigning from the governing coalition on a point of principle.
|
| Pages: 8 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
